PROP 207

Sun Sep 10 02:10:39 PDT 2006

I have been so afraid to speak my opinions about any of the propositions on 
this list because of the 'no politics' rule that the board has mentioned 
about this list. But since politics have already been brought up twice 
today.. and considering the GCNA doesn't actually have the 501c3 to lose 
right now, I figure it's okay for me to respond. Please, if you have issues 
with it, take it up with me via personal e-mail and not the list.

That being said:

You can find the entire text of Proposition 207 at 
http://www.noprop207.org/prop207_text.pdf

I think that the website www.noprop207.org has some very good points. Then 
again the pro-207 website http://www.hopeforarizona.com also has some good 
points.

On one hand, if the proposition is passed it will put specifics on the term 
"eminent domain" which will stop the government from taking private property 
from one person and turning it over to someone else soley because the new 
person can make more money off of it. It also redefines "just compensation" 
to include loss of property value from the time of purchase to the time of 
government seizure. This way, if the government does something to the 
surrounding area of your property that makes it less valuable than the time 
you purchased it, they are forced to compensate you for the entire amount 
the property was worth at the time of purchase.

On the other hand, who pays these higher forms of 'just compensation'? Us, 
the tax payers. It was researched that after passing the same proposition in 
Oregon the tax payers are facing some $4 billion in payouts so far this 
year.

The proposition would also regulate the governments say in ordinances that 
involve things like liquor stores, bars and adult entertainment activities. 
The Arizona police department is strongly against prop 207 and they say it 
will greatly reduce our ability to protect our neighborhoods. With no 
goverment backing, we as a neighborhood would have little say in what types 
of businesses are allowed to be built in our neighborhood.

I believe with all of my research that I will be voting No on 207.

They really show no evidence of how often the government utilizes their 
right to take private property and give it to another private owner because 
they will make more money off of it. I've never heard of something like that 
happening. Maybe I'm just never informed of these events, whatever. It would 
be nice to see people get fully compensated for their losses, but I'm not 
sure I want to be the one who does it. Entrepreneurship is meant to be a 
gamble anyway, isn't it??

-----

While we're on the subject of propositions..

I think I will add that I am in full support of Prop 204 (Humane Farms) 
which contrary to the claims of the "hogwash" people, is fully backed by 
several animal welfare groups local to Arizona and is not just implemented 
by outside sources like PETA (who I am not in complete agreement with). 
Frankly I think that some of the claims made by the anti-prop204 people are 
stupid and that they are just trying anything they can to keep their 
inhumane systems for animals on industrial farms.

Prop 204 is against the inhumane treatment of animals by industrial farms. 
It's that simple. Basically it regulates the standards for how much room the 
animals have to move and how clean the living areas need to be kept. So I 
say VOTE YES ON 204.

I also will be voting YES on Prop 201 - The Smoke Free Arizona prop, which 
will keep smoking prohibited in public places like restaurants, schools, and 
other places that children may be present.

I say NO on 103 which limits English as the official language and will force 
spanish speaking children to learn English before continuing with their 
schooling (which I personally think will cause less learning by Spanish 
speaking children).

I also say NO on 200 (the voter reward act) because it encourages people to 
vote whether or not they know anything about what they are voting on. This 
could be very hazardous becuase people could very well be voting no on 
something they really either have no opinion on or if they looked into it 
further would be saying yes. Why turn our voting process into a "no purchace 
necessary" sweepstakes??

I'm voting YES on Prop 202 (higher minimum wage) because I would like to 
help out my friends who are barely making it by with less than minimum wage 
(waiters get paid less than minimum wage because they are expected to make 
up the rest in tips, not accounting for the fact that some tippers are just 
cheapskates). By the way, the Arizona Chamber of Commerse is against this 
prop because it supposedly cuts on buisnesses being able to cut benefits 
(though through my experience, businesses who pay minimum wage don't offer 
very many benefits to begin with) however they ARE in favor of raising their 
OWN salaries (hmmm). And for that I say VOTE NO ON 302, the proposed salary 
raise for Arizona legislators. Why should they have more more money when 
they think others shouldn't??

I say NO on 205 which forces all voting to be done via mail and eliminates 
the polling place all together. I enjoy going to the polling place, first of 
all. And I have friends who aren't in a position to recieve all of their 
mail, what would happen if they don't get their ballot in the mail? They 
wouldn't be able to vote!

Lastly, I say VOTE NO ON 107, and for the love of God I can't stress this 
enough. This is the "Protect Marriage Arizona" proposition. They plan to 
take away the domestic partnership benefits in Arizona. These benefits help 
children, families and seniors. The pro 107 people are mainly focusing their 
efforts on 'punishing' gay relationships.

Their website includes articles with titles such as "Experts: Gay Marriage 
Would Destroy Schools" (WTF, where are they getting this crap!?!?) and "New 
Study Proves Gay Marriage a Threat To Arizona's Families" (I guess they've 
decided that gay people can't have families).  I realize it's a 
controversial topic but really, can we get more biggotted here? They 
actually have a campaign going with the title of "Take the Straight Arizona 
Pledge". To me, this is appearing very close to the racial arguments of the 
50's. Should we be forcing gays to the back of the bus now?

While they are so heated on their anti-gay beliefs they are missing the fact 
that passing this proposition will not only affect gay couples buy unmarried 
heterosexuals as well. From www.noprop107.com:

"Currently cities such as Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale and Tempe offer 
domestic partnership benefits as do businesses such as Intel and Chase. The 
"Protect Marriage Arizona" Amendment will take away these benefits which are 
vital to children, families and seniors throughout the state.

Over 100,000 Arizonans could lose their health insurance benefits, hospital 
visitations, the power to make decisions for loved ones in the case of an 
emergency and inheritance rights if the amendment passes.

Under the guise of "protecting marriage" this amendment could take away 
unmarried Arizonans' right to file domestic violence charges or to secure a 
restraining order against their partner. This dangerous amendment is backed 
and financed by extreme groups.

The "Protect Marriage Arizona" Amendment will not change state law. Same-sex 
marriage is already against state law. The "Protect Marriage Arizona" 
Amendment is the anti-domestic partner benefits initiative and it goes TOO 
FAR and takes away rights of many couples - regardless of their sexual 
orientation."

Okay, perhaps I got carried away on that one but I went to pull some 
research for my point and I hadn't seen their hateful website before. 
Needless to say I am fully against this proposition and I really hope the 
homophobic voters can get past their hatred for a moment to see that this 
affects much more than the gay community.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jo Clute" <josepi at doitnow.com>
Reply-To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
To: <central-city-discuss at gcna.info>
Subject: PROP 207
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:31:25 -0700

Can someone PLEASE.....explain prop 207 to me or give me their opinions, I 
am so confused on this topic and how this prop is written.

I am extremely PRO personal property rights but I have also heard that this  
prop is pro personal rights cloaked in darkness.

Anywone??

This is suppossed to be a heated topic coming up with the election.

_______________________________________________
--Note--
By replying to this email, you will be sending to the entire list.
Be sure to change the recipient of the email if you do not want to post
to the central-city-discuss list.

--Disclaimer--
The messages exchanged on this list in no way reflect the official
position of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood association.  This e-mail
list is maintained by an outside source, with no financial tie, or
editorial directive from the Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association.

To maintain your subscription, visit http://www.gcna.info/list