This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
OK, the Sebastian Inlet apperantly is an “special area” that contains large parts of Brevard County as well as parts of Indian River County. It has commisioners that are elected at large from within there. But it is still divided into sub-districts. I don’t fully understand, but we get to vote for it. There are three candidates:
* Jim Culberson
* Bob Hartman
* Sherri Quarrie
Of the three, Jim Culberson’s site is the only one that actually mentions this campaign. Bob Hartman talks a lot about a run for Tax Collector, but he apperantly lost that in the primaries. It mentions that his WIFE is currently on the Sebastian Inlet Commission. What is this, a consolation prize after losing the other race? [EDIT: His wife WAS on the commission, she apperantly passed away earlier this year.] Sherri’s is all about her as a real estate agent. Nothing about this.
In googling for more information on this race, the only place I could find covering this was tcpalm.com which required a really annoying registration. I did it, because I wanted to find info on this race. But if anybody from tcpalm ever reads this, be assured that I won’t be back to your site again for a long time. Anyway… I won’t bother linking to them because of the registration issue, but they did have some info… Candidate profiles for Culberson and Quarrie… none for Bob Hartman… and a link to a low quality video with almost completely unintelligible audio where they talked to Culberson and Quarrie, along with a David Pasley, who is running in a different District for the same commission.
The Commision is all about maintaining the Sebastian Inlet waterway. OK. Got it. From the profiles on tcpalm.com, and what little I could understand of the “debate” on there, Culberson and Quarrie don’t seem to actually differ on too much.
On this, I will immediately discount Bob Hartman. He is a no show. He did not participate in the debate, nor give tcpalm a profile. Nor does he have anything at all on his own website about running for this office. (At least not that I can find.)
Amoung the other two, I will go for Jim Culberson. He actually has a website describing why he wants to be a commisioner and his expertese in the area. He’s involved in the local historical commission and recreation committees, etc. From what I could hear of the debate (the sound got a bit better as it continued), he is the more articulate of the two on his beliefs on how to deal with the issues surrounding the inlet. His degree is in Marine Biology. He knows his stuff. The tcpall.com editorial on this race and the District 1 race said:
Culberson, who has written a detailed history of the Sebastian Inlet, says the district needs to be more responsive and open to the public. He knows whereof he speaks, as he regularly attends board meetings. … Quarrie’s interests appear more scattered. She talks about turtle nesting and national security, but offers few substantive insights or proposals. On technical matters, she seems out of her depth compared with Culberson.
This reinforced the opinion I had alread reached.
My vote: Jim Culberson
OK, last of the proposed constitutional amendments. After this I have top start learning about people… Anyway…
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 22
ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 22. Parental notification of termination of a minor’s pregnancy. The legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy right guaranteed to a minor under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Notwithstanding a minor’s right of privacy provided in Section 23 of Article I, the Legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor’s pregnancy. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the notification.
In this case the full text is exactly the same as the ballot summary. So, first, on the issue… I don’t have super strong opinions here. But in general I am for giving more independance and autonomy to minors, as I generally feel what they are capable of doing and understanding on their own is underestimated. The specifics of the abortion issue notwithstanding, I think that if a minor is capable of seeing out and obtaining medical care independant of their parents, they should be allowed to make the decisions associated with that care independantly. So I’d probably vote against a notification rule on the merits, although I can see the other side as well and understand the arguments.
Of course though, once again, this is a policy issue, and policy issue specifics should not be addressed in a constitution. Even though, I know, it is done this way in many states because that is what the initiative process allows… but I still think it is wrong. There is a legislature for this kind of thing. So, on the last of these…
My vote: NO
Chugging right along… next one…
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 10
ARTICLE XI, SECTION 5
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE
Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require the sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposed by citizen initiative to file the initiative petition with the Secretary of State by February 1 of the year of a general election in order to have the measure submitted to the electors for approval or rejection at the following November’s general election, and to require the Florida Supreme Court to render an advisory opinion addressing the validity of an initiative petition by April 1 of the year in which the amendment is to be submitted to the electors.
And the full text… Um… OK, this one is best described by a before and after… It wishes to change Article IV Section 10 from:
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously.
to
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion no later than April 1 of the year in which the initiative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI
and it changes Article X Section 5 from
Amendment or revision election.–
(a)  A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, initiative petition or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b)  The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(c)  Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(d)  If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
which they want to change to…
Amendment or revision election.–
(a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiative shall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held.
(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(d) Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(e) If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
Finally! A proposed constitutional amendment that actually addresses structural questions!!!
On this one I actually spent a little time looking at the pro and con websites. Looks like this will place a specific date on when the petitions have to be submitted in order to get on the ballot (which is earlier than the current date) and will also put limits on when the courts must provide an opinion on those proposals.
According to the people against this, it will make it more difficult to get proposals on the ballot. According to the people for it, it will give more time to educate the people on the ballot issues and for public debate.
Given the nature of most of the proposals I have seen on this ballot, I think both of these things are good things. Thus…
My vote: YES
OK, that last one finished up Page 2 of my sample ballot. Now time for Page 1! Still going backwards from the end of course. Next is:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, SECTION 26
THE MEDICAL LIABILITY CLAIMANT’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.
And the full text…
Section 1. Article I, Section 26 is created to read “Claimant’s right to fair compensation.” In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.
Section 2. This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by the voters.
OK. First, the negotiation of how to split fees between a client and their lawyer should be between the client and laywer, and should be a point of negotiation between them, and a point of competition between lawyers attempting to get the client’s business. Government has no business mandating who those arrangements should or should not be.
Second, of course, as could be easily guessed by my opinions on the other proposed amendments, something like this has no business in a constitution.
My vote: NO
It is now election day (UTC). Less than 11 hours until polls open here in Florida. Time to really chug through the ballot. There are 26 more things left to decide on. Urgh! Well, better get at it. Here is the next one:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 19
AUTHORIZES MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY VOTERS TO APPROVE SLOT MACHINES IN PARAMUTUEL FACILITIES
Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to hold referenda on whether to authorize slot machines in existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before effective date of this amendment. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide. Requires implementing legislation.
This amendment alone has no fiscal impact on government. If slot machines are authorized in Miami-Dade or Broward counties, governmental costs associated with additional gambling will increase by an unknown amount and local sales tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million to $8 million annually. If the Legislature also chooses to tax slot machine revenues, state tax revenues from Miami-Dade and Broward counties combined would range from $200 million to $500 million annually.
And the full text…
Article X, Florida Constitution, is hereby amended to add the following as section 19:
SECTION 19. SLOT MACHINES –
(a) After voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the governing bodies of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties each may hold a county-wide referendum in their respective counties on whether to authorize slot machines within existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai-alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before the effective date of this amendment. If the voters of such county approve the referendum question by majority vote, slot machines shall be authorized in such parimutuel facilities. If the voters of such county by majority vote disapprove the referendum question, slot machines shall not be so authorized, and the question shall not be presented in another referendum in that county for at least two years.
(b) In the next regular Legislative session occurring after voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the Legislature shall adopt legislation implementing this section and having an effective date no later than July 1 of the year following voter approval of this amendment. Such legislation shall authorize agency rules for implementation, and may include provisions for the licensure and regulation of slot machines. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide.
(c) If any part of this section is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion or portions shall be severed from the invalid portion and given the fullest possible force and effect.
(d) This amendment shall become effective when approved by vote of the electors of the state.
OK, a state referendum to amend the state constitution to allow for a local referendum on a local issue that only affects a couple of counties??
The gambling should probably be legal. That’s another thing government really has no business outlawing or placing too many regulations on. But that is not relevant here. (At least not to me.)
Now, if it was worded to allow all counties the option to decide gambling issues locally, rather than the narrowly tailored issue in those specific counties, then maybe… then it would at least be a structural issue moving some decision making power from the state to the counties.
But that is not what it is, not at all… As it is… the notion of a referendum to allow a referendum, all on an issue affecting only part of the state… as a perminant addition to the state constitution… is just silly.
My vote: NO
So we’re sitting at the table eating dinner, and Brandy is finishing up cooking the part of the meal she can eat. (Being a vegetarian she couldn’t eat the chicken rice soup Amy and I were having.) I look over and ask Brandy “Is the oven supposed to have a flickering orange glow?”. Brandy’s response “It’s on Fire!!”.
I run past Brandy to grab the fire extinguisher from where we keep it. Then I stand in front of the overn for a few seconds trying to figure out how to use it. I’ve pulled the pin out, but then before squeezing the handle, I saw that the arrow was on the side instead of on top, so I was trying to twist the nozzle to put the arrow on top. (A completely unneeded and impossible step as it turns out.)
Meanwhile, Brandy has grabbed the baking soda, gets in front of me, and puts out the fire by sprikling the baking soda on it. I procees to get all flustered and upset because I didn’t get to use the fire extinguisher and start pouting and jumping up and down. Then I say, well, the pin is out, so I have to use it, and I aim one brief puff at the wall. Everybody jumps back.
Then there is one little glow from inside the oven. Well, maybe. I’m not sure if I really saw it or not. I say “Hey, it still has a spark!!!” and aim the extinguisher at the oven and blast the rest of it…. um… and that entire side of the kitchen. The fire extinguisher crap billows all over the oven, all over the kitchen, and all the surfaces are covered with it, including the rest of dinner.
Oops.
Brandy was not amused. And I was still all upset that she had jumped in front of me and put out the fire instead of letting me do it. (Even though she was quicker and had a better way.) And of course by the time I actually used the extinguisher, the fire was actually out. So heated words were exchanged.
Dinner was ruined. The whole kitchen and all of the stuff in it needed to be cleaned. It was really all my fault and I had no excuse. After a few minutes once Brandy was upset I realized of course that I was completely at fault and in the wrong. I apologized extensively, but she won’t let me help clean the kitchen (cause I will do it wrong). And she is all sad… and hungry since I ruined her dinner. Which she had worked on for hours and was really looking forward to.
Oops. Sorry Brandy. :-(
Just want to speak a little bit about my general principles. So far in a couple of the proposed amendments, I’ve said I am for the policy it represents, but will vote against it because it is a constitutional amendment, and I believe that is the wrong way to enact such a policy. But Sam, you say, if you are for the policy, shouldn’t you vote for those items, because that will produce an end result you favor more?
Well, it would, but for one thing. One of the things that I have always based my decisions on, both in my personal life, and in public policy issues like this, is that making sure there is CORRECT PROCESS, is more important that making sure there are CORRECT RESULTS. To use the old cliche for this, “The ends do not justify the means”.
In other words, even if the end state is a desireable one, if the way used to get there is an inappropriate one, then I do not believe one should go in that direction. Examples of how this applies to my views on some policy issues:
* Past discrimination should not be “corrected” by counter balancing it with current discrimination in the opposite direction.
* Using torture on suspected terrorists is not an appropriate way of preventing future attacks.
* The death penalty is not an appropriate way to punish or deter crime.
* Taking money from the rich to give to the poor is not a proper way to address proverty.
* Using “Eminent domain” to obtain land for public works or improvements is inappropriate.
* In most cases (not all), war is not an appropriate response to international disputes.
* There are many things which are “wrong” which should NOT be illegal.
* If someone does not follow the instructions properly and does something wrong when voting, their vote should NOT be counted (if that is what the law says), regardless of their intent.
* In most (but not all) cases, a properly passed law should be followed, even if it is stupid.
* Forcing a minimum wage on employers is not a proper way of addressing poverty.
* Consititutional Amendments are not a proper way to enact policy decisions.
I put the “(not all)” cavet explicitly in a couple of those, but in general the principle is NOT an absolute one. There are undoubitdly many cases where the ends DO justify the means… generally when the benefit of the “end” is much much much greater than the injustice done by the improper “means”. So for instance, in the torture case, if it was KNOWN that via torture one could produce information that would prevent a nuclear attack and save the lives of millions, would it be appropriate? OK, maybe. Are there some cases where the danger or injustice happening is so great that war to correct whatever is wrong is appropriate? Yes, probably.
It is not that I believe that an improper method is an automatic veto of whatever is happening, it is just that I put the bar very high on how much better the results must be to justify using a process or method that is unfair or improper in any way. As an example, on the issue of the proposed constitutional amendments, I’m sure most people view the method (constitutional amendement via referendum or the normal legislative process) as almost irrelevant, and therefore will vote exclusively on the issue itself, and which vote they believe will produce a policy result they prefer.
I on the other hand, consider that the propriety of the process itself, and using a constitutional document as a vehicle for policy issues, to be just as important if not more important than the issues themselves. If I saw any of these issues as something that was vitally important, and I also felt it was for whatever reason an issue impossible to be solved by the normal legislative process, then I *might* consider this as a potential way of addressing the issue, since the seriousness of the issue would overcome my objection to using a constitution in this way… I don’t see that situation in any of the proposed amendments I have looked at so far.
Anyway, I’m sure many will disagree with my logic here, and say the end result is more important than the process. But I believe in process, and following correct process, even in cases where it ends up screwing me over in the end and resulting in policies I don’t approve of. So be it. :-)
Time for another one. I sure will be busy tonight figuring out the rest of these!!! OK, you all know the drill by now. First, the ballot text:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X
FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE AMENDMENT
This amendment creates a Florida minimum wage covering all employees in the state covered by the federal minimum wage. The state minimum wage will start at $6.15 per hour six months after enactment, and thereafter be indexed to inflation each year. It provides for enforcement, including double damages for unpaid wages, attorney’s fees, and fines by the state. It forbids retaliation against employees for exercising this right.
Then the real text:
SECTION X. Florida Minimum Wage Amendment
(a) Public Policy. All working Floridians are entitled to be paid a minimum wage that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them and their families, that protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition, and that does not force them to rely on taxpayer-funded public services in order to avoid economic hardship.
(b) Definitions. As used in this amendment, the terms “Employer,” “Employee” and “Wage” shall have the meanings established under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations.
(c) Minimum Wage. Employerss shall pay Employees Wages no less than the Minimum Wage for all hours worked in Florida. Six months after enactment, the Minimum Wage shall be established at an hourly rate of $6.15. On September 30th of that year and on each following September 30th, the state Agency for Workforce Innovation shall calculate an adjusted Minimum Wage rate by increasing the current Minimum Wage rate by the rate of inflation during the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index as calculated by the United States Department of Labor. Each adjusted Minimum Wage rate calculated shall be published and take effect on the following January 1st. For tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003.
(d) Retaliation Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for an Employer or any other party to discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising rights protected under this amendment. Rights protected under this amendment include, but are not limited to, the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any party’s alleged noncompliance with this amendment, and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this amendment and to assist him or her in asserting such rights.
(e) Enforcement. Persons aggrieved by a violation of this amendment may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against an Employer or person violating this amendment and, upon prevailing, shall recover the full amount of any back wages unlawfully withheld plus the same amount as liquidated damages, and shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, they shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief. Any Employer or other person found liable for willfully violating this amendment shall also be subject to a fine payable to the state in the amount of $1000.00 for each violation. The state attorney general or other official designated by the state legislature may also bring a civil action to enforce this amendment. Actions to enforce this amendment shall be subject to a statute of limitations of four years or, in the case of willful violations, five years. Such actions may be brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
(f) Additional Legislation, Implementation & Construction. Implementing legislation is not required in order to enforce this amendment. The state legislature may by statute establish additional remedies or fines for violations of this amendment, raise the applicable Minimum Wage rate, reduce the tip credit, or extend coverage of the Minimum Wage to employers or employees not covered by this amendment. The state legislature may by statute or the state Agency for Workforce Innovation may by regulation adopt any measures appropriate for the implementation of this amendment. This amendment provides for payment of a minimum wage and shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise limit the authority of the state legislature or any other public body to adopt or enforce any other law, regulation, requirement, policy or standard that provides for payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends such protections to employers or employees not covered by this amendment. It is intended that case law, administrative interpretations, and other guiding standards developed under the federal FLSA shall guide the construction of this amendment and any implementing statutes or regulations.
(g) Severability. If any part of this amendment, or the application of this amendment to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this amendment, including the application of such part to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the parts of this amendment are severable.
OK, as usual, the two parts. First, on the merits of this as a policy… Wages should be determined by supply and demand. Period. Government has no business intervening in basic economic transactions like what wages should be. The salary paid for a particular job will settle to a value based on how much employers are willing to pay, and how little employees are willing to work for given the tasks and skills involved. Setting arbitrary restrictions on this process by putting in a minimum wage (or raising it) will only have the effect of employers hiring less people if the positions are ones they can potentially do without, or if not, moving the jobs to states or countries without such a restriction. Sure, some people would end up making more with such a floor on salaries, but many other people would simply end up unemployed. And besides, even if it would “work” it is none of government’s business. So on the merits of the policy, I am against it.
But again, regardless of the merits of the policy, this is indeed a POLICY question, not a question of basic governmental structure. It has no business in a constitution. So…
My vote is: NO
Below is a link to a handy reference chart for tomorrow night. Shows what time which polls close where. First polls close at 23:00 UTC on Nov 2. Last polls close at 06:00 UTC on Nov 3.
2004 Poll Closing Times
This chart reflects the poll closing times used by the networks and other media outlets on Election Night. There is an “unenforced pledge” to not project a winner in a state until that state’s polls have closed (which, to the media, means “most of the state’s polls have closed”).
Below the chart is an outline of potential difficulties which may occur where a state spans time zones. (Poll closing times are extended for voters still in line when the hour of poll closing has arrived.)
Anybody willing to place bets on what date and time we will actually have a known winner??? As someone who likes watching the chaos of the whole thing, I’m hoping it will last until December or maybe even January… but… the news gods can’t possibly let me have that much fun. Just watch, the networks will be declaring a winner (and not taking it back) by 01:30 UTC. (That’s 8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time.)
OK. Here is another one. First the ballot text:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 19
REPEAL OF HIGH SPEED RAIL AMENDMENT
This amendment repeals an amendment in the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor to proceed with the development and operation of a high speed ground transportation system by the state and/or by a private entity.
The probable financial impact of passage of this amendment is a state cost savings ranging from $20 billion to $25 billion over the next 30 years. This estimate assumes the repeal of associated laws, the use of state bonds to finance construction, and could be reduced by federal or private sector funding.
And then the REAL text…
Article X, Section 19, Florida Constitution, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Where the current text of that Section is:
High speed ground transportation system.–To reduce traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that a high speed ground transportation system consisting of a monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system, capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour, be developed and operated in the State of Florida to provide high speed ground transportation by innovative, efficient and effective technologies consisting of dedicated rails or guideways separated from motor vehicular traffic that will link the five largest urban areas of the State as determined by the Legislature and provide for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services. The Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor are hereby directed to proceed with the development of such a system by the State and/or by a private entity pursuant to state approval and authorization, including the acquisition of right-of-way, the financing of design and construction of the system, and the operation of the system, as provided by specific appropriation and by law, with construction to begin on or before November 1, 2003.
OK. I’m all for high-speed rail. It is probably an infrastructure investment that would make sense. And hey, it is just plain cool. If I was in the legislature I would seriously consider voting for it. But once again, I don’t believe this is something that belongs in a constitution. In this case, since it is currently IN the constitution, and this proposal is to take it OUT…
My vote is: YES
If there is to be high speed rail, fine, but either let the private sector do it themselves (preferable) or have the legislature enact it on their own. A constitutional amendment is not the right forum.
|
|