PROP 207
ktoneal at cox.net
ktoneal at cox.net
Tue Sep 12 11:08:37 PDT 2006
You cracka me up!
---- Jo Clute <josepi at doitnow.com> wrote:
> Katie,
>
> I think what you are describing is a "Turducken"
>
> A chicken stuffed in a duck stuffed in a turkey
>
> also been referred to as a "franken-duck",
>
> :-)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ktoneal at cox.net>
> To: <central-city-discuss at gcna.info>
> Cc: "Jo Clute" <josepi at doitnow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: PROP 207
>
>
> >I just got a chance to read these threads and realized my opinion was
> >requested on this. After over 20 years of voting in Arizona, I guess I've
> >earned the right to throw in my 2 cents.
> >
> > Here's my rule of thumb when voting on Arizona propositions.
> >
> > If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, then it
> > is proabably a duck.
> > If it walks like a chicken, crows like a rooster, and looks like a turkey,
> > It's probably some group of people somewhere trying to trick the Arizona
> > voter into something they really don't want.
> >
> > I'm voting no.
> >
> > Kt
> >
> > ---- Jo Clute <josepi at doitnow.com> wrote:
> >> Michelle, I found this piece on prop 207 and I am under the impression
> >> that this is the actual text to the proposed amendment. Is this
> >> accurate? Most of the info I read on it, are interpretations or
> >> opinions of the outcomes but RARELY does anyone refer back to the
> >> actual-ver batum language used in the amendment. that is where I get
> >> confused.
> >>
> >> I am a fanatic about property rights-more especially my very own :-). A
> >> takings appeal is a very important right if you feel the government is
> >> "taking" value form your property"
> >>
> >> If you look at the referenced situations below, I remember reading about
> >> these situations in the newspaper and thinking wow, the gov sure is
> >> expanding their definition of "public use" and now condos are public use?
> >>
> >> what text in this amendment specifically is bad and what is the basis, in
> >> your opinion :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> (and I'll call ya later, too:-)
> >>
> >> fritz? what is your call on this?
> >>
> >> wayne?
> >>
> >> katie?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
> >>
> >> AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 8, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE
> >> 2.1;
> >>
> >> RELATING TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT.
> >>
> >> Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
> >>
> >> Section 1. Short title
> >>
> >> This act may be cited as the "Private Property Rights Protection Act".
> >>
> >> Sec. 2. Findings and declarations
> >>
> >> A. The people of Arizona find and declare:
> >>
> >> 1. Article 2, section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no
> >> uncertain terms that private property shall
> >>
> >> not be taken for private use.
> >>
> >> 2. Our Constitution further provides that no person shall be deprived of
> >> property without due process of
> >>
> >> law.
> >>
> >> 3. Finally, our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or
> >> damaged without just compensation
> >>
> >> having first been made.
> >>
> >> 4. Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights, the state and
> >> municipal governments of Arizona
> >>
> >> consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use
> >> their property, requiring the people of this
> >>
> >> State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not
> >> always adequately protected private property
> >>
> >> rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example:
> >>
> >> (a) A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. City of New
> >> London, allowed a city to exercise
> >>
> >> its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of
> >> transferring control of the land to a private
> >>
> >> commercial developer.
> >>
> >> (b) The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes
> >> for a redevelopment project that
> >>
> >> included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell
> >> through the project was abandoned and the
> >>
> >> property left vacant.
> >>
> >> (c) The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey, to
> >> take his family-owned brake
> >>
> >> shop, and Patrick Dennis, to take his auto-body shop, so that local
> >> business owners could relocate and expand a
> >>
> >> hardware store and an appliance store.
> >>
> >> (d) The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the
> >> home of Kenneth and Mary
> >>
> >> Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who
> >> planned to build upscale townhomes.
> >>
> >> (e) The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food
> >> restaurant in order to replace the
> >>
> >> fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses.
> >>
> >> (f) In the wake of the Kelo ruling, the City of Tempe recently sought to
> >> condemn property in an industrial
> >>
> >> park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall.
> >>
> >> (g) The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling
> >> alley that the City intended to
> >>
> >> condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make
> >> further improvements to the land. Heeding
> >>
> >> Tempe's advice, the owners made no further improvements and ultimately
> >> lost bowling league contracts and went
> >>
> >> out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners' request
> >> for just compensation.
> >>
> >> (h) Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose
> >> significant prohibitions and restrictions
> >>
> >> on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the
> >> economic loss of value to that property.
> >>
> >> 5. For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas, the compensation
> >> received when a primary
> >>
> >> residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state
> >> constitution.
> >>
> >> 6. Furthermore, even when property is taken for a valid public use, the
> >> judicial processes available to
> >>
> >> property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome, costly and
> >> unfair.
> >>
> >> B. Having made the above findings, the people of Arizona declare that all
> >> property rights are fundamental
> >>
> >> rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to
> >> acquire, possess, control and protect property.
> >>
> >> Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private
> >> Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that
> >>
> >> Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of
> >> their home or property without just
> >>
> >> compensation. Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the
> >> value of private property, it is the intent
> >>
> >> of this act that the owner will receive just compensation, either by
> >> negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial
> >>
> >> process.
> >>
> >> Sec. 3. Title 12, chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
> >> adding article 2.1, to read:
> >>
> >> Article 2.1. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT
> >>
> >> 12-1131. PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS
> >>
> >> ARTICLE
> >>
> >> EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS
> >>
> >> AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE, WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE, AND FOR A
> >> PUBLIC USE AS
> >>
> >> DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE.
> >>
> >> 12-1132. BURDEN OF PROOF
> >>
> >> A. IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
> >> STATE
> >>
> >> CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE
> >>
> >> PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
> >> CONTEMPLATED
> >>
> >> USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND DETERMINED AS SUCH
> >> WITHOUT
> >>
> >> REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC.
> >>
> >> B. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
> >>
> >> REDEVELOPMENT, THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL
> >> ESTABLISH
> >>
> >> BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO
> >> ELIMINATE A
> >>
> >> DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS
> >> CURRENT
> >>
> >> CONDITION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR
> >> UNFIT
> >>
> >> FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE, OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO
> >>
> >> REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS.
> >>
> >> 12-1133. JUST COMPENSATION; SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT
> >>
> >> IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
> >>
> >> REDEVELOPMENT, IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S
> >> PRINCIPAL
> >>
> >> RESIDENCE IS TAKEN, THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE
> >> REPLACEMENT
> >>
> >> DWELLING THAT IS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND
> >> FEDERAL
> >>
> >> RELOCATION LAWS, SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ. AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ., AND THE
> >> REGULATIONS
> >>
> >> PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION, IF MONETARY COMPENSATION
> >> IS
> >>
> >> DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING, THE AMOUNT OF JUST
> >> COMPENSATION THAT
> >>
> >> IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF
> >> MONEY
> >>
> >> THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING
> >> THAT IS
> >>
> >> DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION
> >> LAWS
> >>
> >> AND REGULATIONS.
> >>
> >> 12-1134. DIMINUTION IN VALUE; JUST COMPENSATION
> >>
> >> A. IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE, DIVIDE, SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL
> >> PROPERTY
> >>
> >> ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAND USE LAW ENACTED
> >> AFTER
> >>
> >> THE DATE THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNER AND SUCH ACTION REDUCES
> >> THE
> >>
> >> FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO JUST
> >> COMPENSATION
> >>
> >> FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED
> >> THE LAND
> >>
> >> USE LAW.
> >>
> >> B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT:
> >>
> >> 1. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE
> >> PROTECTION OF
> >>
> >> THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING
> >> TO FIRE
> >>
> >> AND BUILDING CODES, HEALTH AND SANITATION, TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC
> >> CONTROL,
> >>
> >> SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND POLLUTION CONTROL;
> >>
> >> 2. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND
> >>
> >> HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW;
> >>
> >> 3. ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW;
> >>
> >> 4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
> >>
> >> HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR
> >> PORNOGRAPHY,
> >>
> >> OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES
> >> IF THE
> >>
> >> LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE
> >> UNITED
> >>
> >> STATES;
> >>
> >> 5. ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES;
> >>
> >> 6. DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND; OR
> >>
> >> 7. WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
> >>
> >> C. THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE
> >> LAND
> >>
> >> USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT
> >>
> >> PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B.
> >>
> >> D. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION
> >> TO
> >>
> >> REMOVE, MODIFY, VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE
> >> LAW TO
> >>
> >> THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST
> >>
> >> COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
> >>
> >> E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE
> >> THAN
> >>
> >> NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A
> >> SPECIFIC
> >>
> >> AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
> >> OF THIS
> >>
> >> STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW, THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
> >> JUST
> >>
> >> COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED,
> >> UNLESS
> >>
> >> THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN
> >>
> >> AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID, OR UNLESS THIS
> >> STATE OR
> >>
> >> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS, REPEALS, OR ISSUES TO THE
> >> LANDOWNER A
> >>
> >> BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S SPECIFIC
> >> PARCEL.
> >>
> >> F. ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU
> >> OF
> >>
> >> COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND.
> >>
> >> G. AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE MUST BE
> >>
> >> MADE OR FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
> >> LAND USE
> >>
> >> LAW, OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,
> >> DIVIDE, SELL OR
> >>
> >> POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL, WHICHEVER IS LATER.
> >>
> >> H. THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY
> >>
> >> THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED
> >> STATES
> >>
> >> AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY.
> >>
> >> I. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL
> >> SUBDIVISION OF
> >>
> >> THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO
> >> WAIVE A
> >>
> >> CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE
> >> OR A
> >>
> >> POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY
> >> OWNER.
> >>
> >> 12-1135. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
> >>
> >> A. A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL
> >> SUBDIVISION
> >>
> >> OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR
> >> IN ANY
> >>
> >> ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE.
> >>
> >> B. A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND
> >>
> >> EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO
> >> BE NOT FOR
> >>
> >> A PUBLIC USE.
> >>
> >> C. IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND
> >>
> >> REDEVELOPMENT, A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES
> >> IN
> >>
> >> EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS
> >> THAN
> >>
> >> THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE
> >> PROPERTY
> >>
> >> OWNER.
> >>
> >> D. A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS
> >> BASED ON
> >>
> >> DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS,
> >> EXPENSES
> >>
> >> AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES.
> >>
> >> 12-1136. DEFINITIONS
> >>
> >> IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
> >>
> >> 1. "FAIR MARKET VALUE" MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF
> >>
> >> MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET,
> >> WITH
> >>
> >> REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER, BUYING WITH
> >> KNOWLEDGE OF
> >>
> >> ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS
> >> CAPABLE.
> >>
> >> 2. "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE
> >>
> >> MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET
> >> VALUE OF THE
> >>
> >> PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE
> >> OF
> >>
> >> ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW.
> >>
> >> 3. "LAND USE LAW" MEANS ANY STATUTE, RULE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR LAW
> >>
> >> ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT
> >> REGULATES THE
> >>
> >> USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES
> >> ACCEPTED
> >>
> >> FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES.
> >>
> >> 4. "OWNER" MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY.
> >>
> >> 5. "PUBLIC USE":
> >>
> >> (a) MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
> >>
> >> (i) THE POSSESSION, OCCUPATION, AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL
> >>
> >> PUBLIC, OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES;
> >>
> >> (ii) THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES;
> >>
> >> (iii) THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC
> >>
> >> HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION,
> >> INCLUDING THE
> >>
> >> REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN
> >> HABITATION OR
> >>
> >> USE; OR
> >>
> >> (iv) THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY.
> >>
> >> (b) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
> >> INCLUDING
> >>
> >> AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE, TAX REVENUES, EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC
> >> HEALTH.
> >>
> >> 6. "TAKEN" AND "TAKING" MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A
> >>
> >> PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
> >> STATE OR TO
> >>
> >> ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
> >> STATE.
> >>
> >> 12-1137. APPLICABILITY
> >>
> >> IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES, THIS ARTICLE
> >>
> >> CONTROLS.
> >>
> >> 12-1138. SEVERABILITY
> >>
> >> IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR
> >> CIRCUMSTANCE
> >>
> >> IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR
> >> APPLICATIONS OF
> >>
> >> THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR
> >> APPLICATION, AND
> >>
> >> TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Michelle Steinberg
> >> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 11:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: PROP 207
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.noprop207.org/index.htm
> >> http://www.hopeforarizona.com/
> >>
> >> these are the two websites re: Prop 207
> >>
> >> In my opinion, MJ is right in her assessment
> >>
> >> VOTE today to change the world tomorrow.
> >> REGISTER AND VOTE!!
> >> www.servicearizona.com
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Jo Clute
> >> To: central-city-discuss at gcna.info
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:31 AM
> >> Subject: PROP 207
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> --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
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --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
More information about the central-city-discuss
mailing list