PROP 207
ktoneal at cox.net
ktoneal at cox.net
Tue Sep 12 11:16:59 PDT 2006
or rather ...You quack me up?
---- ktoneal at cox.net wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --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