U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2014, 08:32 AM
 
21,102 posts, read 30,168,211 times
Reputation: 19472

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by d4g4m View Post
Local, county, state, federal governments already own, manage, control, oversee way too much property.
Enough acreage in the U.S. is 'conserved'.
So having it plowed under for another half empty strip center with yet another nail salon and check cashing outlet seems a better alternative to you????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2014, 03:50 PM
 
432 posts, read 598,128 times
Reputation: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restrain View Post
Amendment 1 sets aside a set amount from the real estate tax for conservatory land acquisition.

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. However, there are a couple of downsides. First, it mandates an expenditure in the constitution, no matter how the economy changes, and does not allow for any other use, no matter how necessary. Second, every acre of land owned by the government increases the tax load on the taxpayer. How? Because a) the land is no longer on the tax base, and b) the state has to then maintain and manage this land, which costs tax dollars.

And as the amount of land acquired increases, this debt load to the taxpayer increases, even if there is a downturn in the fund mandated by Amendment 1. So if there is insufficient money to maintain the land, the state will have to reach further into the taxpayers pocket to pay for the management of these lands.

Consider Babcock Ranch in Charlotte County. Over 90,000 acres has been taken off the tax rolls and is now under state management. The costs are such that the state has decided it cannot continue to operate as it has due to ongoing costs. So the Charlotte Co taxpayers, already highly taxed vs other areas, will have to help shoulder the cost of this operation through state taxes while not receiving any tax income from these state properties.

I am not advocating not acquiring appropriate lands, but a short-term look at land acquisition can have long term negative impacts on the tax payers. As can a mandated set-aside of state funds.

Dissenting views are welcome.
I'm with you Restrain. All excellent reasons for voting 'NO' to Amendment 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 09:42 AM
 
3,923 posts, read 10,288,674 times
Reputation: 5212
The best I could gather all points to the fact they just need more money which IMO is not cause for a constitutional amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Orlando Metro Area
3,574 posts, read 5,815,304 times
Reputation: 2314
Yes on 1 and 2, both are big green no brainers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2014, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Sinkholeville
1,496 posts, read 1,423,996 times
Reputation: 2322
Forcing the government to buy land is a nice bonus for well-connected sellers of swampland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2014, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,645 posts, read 19,752,841 times
Reputation: 22951
This will be my first year as a Fl voter and as such, will abstain from any issues that aren't clear so really appreciate everybody's input on this discussion so that voting one way or the other will be possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2014, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Sinkholeville
1,496 posts, read 1,423,996 times
Reputation: 2322
I'm against amending the constitution on these matters which should be up to the elected legislators.

They already have to authority to buy land and legalize pot, it's pretty clear the voters haven't demanded either from them.

These amendments to the constitution are power grabs by well-funded unelected interests. VOTE NO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2014, 01:30 PM
 
1,448 posts, read 2,129,083 times
Reputation: 2354
We are growing rapidly as a state and continually pushing our environment and drinking water reserves past the point of sustainability. Vote YES on Amendment 1, to protect Florida ecosystems, and to protect the drinking water which private developers continually are taking away from us as a state.


Vote Yes on Amendment 1 - YouTube


Jim Stevenson, Florida Springs Expert: Vote Yes On Amendment 1 - YouTube


FWF Says Vote Yes On Amendment 1! - YouTube



And then... there's the alternative route:


Professor Abernathy | Dog Rubs Himself in Support of Amendment 1 - YouTube

Professor Abernathy | Save Some F*$%ing Manatees - YouTube

Private developers continually buy up and exploit all of Florida's land and natural resources, with no care as to the future of our citizens - it is all about profit. Amendment 1 puts some of our land in the hands of the people, to protect it for the future. State lands have proven very successful in the past as attractions for tourists, as well as means of preserving our natural assets. Some of the state lands I benefit from directly here in the Keys include: John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Bahia Honda State Park (several times voted best beach in the country), Dagny Johnson State Park, Long Key State Park, and Fort Zachary Taylor State Park.

If you check out this link, you can find state parks in your local area: Welcome to Florida State Parks

Giving land to the state to preserve in the past has proved a very good move for our state, both in terms of conservation of water and our ecosystems, and in terms of tourism - which in turn fuels our economy. These are some of the only large segments of land that remain natural and beautiful, and untouched by developers in our state.

If you like local jobs, beautiful places to go, and having drinking water, vote YES on Amendment 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:39 PM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,121,383 times
Reputation: 17197
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarfishKey View Post
We are growing rapidly as a state and continually pushing our environment and drinking water reserves past the point of sustainability. Vote YES on Amendment 1, to protect Florida ecosystems, and to protect the drinking water which private developers continually are taking away from us as a state.

snip...

Giving land to the state to preserve in the past has proved a very good move for our state, both in terms of conservation of water and our ecosystems, and in terms of tourism - which in turn fuels our economy. These are some of the only large segments of land that remain natural and beautiful, and untouched by developers in our state.

If you like local jobs, beautiful places to go, and having drinking water, vote YES on Amendment 1.
Do we get unicorns with that?

Your position is not based in any Economic theory whatsoever. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING and CONFISCATING LAND away from private citizens does not create a TOURIST industry. Or any OTHER kind of industry. Except BIG GOVERNMENT industry.

Oh wait. LOCAL JOBS doing what? Working for the government who wants to buy UP MORE LAND than they can even take care of? THOSE jobs?

You already admitted this in a prior posting when you first came here, stating that a demand side economy down in Miami/Keys made everything more expensive. DUH, really.

Exactly HOW is government buying up MORE WATER/MINERAL RIGHTS going to HELP drinking water when they can't even allegedly do anything about the drinking water NOW? Not even logical. You completely ignore that the FEDS were the ones harming water with the releases the past years.

BTW, Tourism is only about a third of the state's industries.

Funds from LATF are used to acquire and improve conservation easements, wildlife management areas, wetlands, forests, fish and wildlife habitats, beaches and shores, recreational trails and parks, urban open space, rural landscapes, working farms and ranches, historical and geological sites, lands protecting water and drinking water resources and lands in the Everglades Agricultural Areas and the Everglades Protection Area.

Interesting that you - a NY transplant who bought a house in THE KEYS last year - is now pushing for Florida's constitution to be amended to make private property ownership even more prohibitive for normal every day people.

With any luck Amendment 1's first purchase will be to clear out the KEYS from all the damaging tourists and home owners destroying the "ecosystem".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2014, 08:15 PM
 
1,448 posts, read 2,129,083 times
Reputation: 2354
Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
Do we get unicorns with that?

Your position is not based in any Economic theory whatsoever. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING and CONFISCATING LAND away from private citizens does not create a TOURIST industry. Or any OTHER kind of industry. Except BIG GOVERNMENT industry.

Oh wait. LOCAL JOBS doing what? Working for the government who wants to buy UP MORE LAND than they can even take care of? THOSE jobs?

You already admitted this in a prior posting when you first came here, stating that a demand side economy down in Miami/Keys made everything more expensive. DUH, really.

Exactly HOW is government buying up MORE WATER/MINERAL RIGHTS going to HELP drinking water when they can't even allegedly do anything about the drinking water NOW? Not even logical. You completely ignore that the FEDS were the ones harming water with the releases the past years.

BTW, Tourism is only about a third of the state's industries.

Funds from LATF are used to acquire and improve conservation easements, wildlife management areas, wetlands, forests, fish and wildlife habitats, beaches and shores, recreational trails and parks, urban open space, rural landscapes, working farms and ranches, historical and geological sites, lands protecting water and drinking water resources and lands in the Everglades Agricultural Areas and the Everglades Protection Area.

Interesting that you - a NY transplant who bought a house in THE KEYS last year - is now pushing for Florida's constitution to be amended to make private property ownership even more prohibitive for normal every day people.

With any luck Amendment 1's first purchase will be to clear out the KEYS from all the damaging tourists and home owners destroying the "ecosystem".

That was a lot of yelling, and also personal attacking. I don't really like responding in that kind of atmosphere, because it's not necessary for me to spell things out to other people - it's not my job to explain it just because you can't understand. However, to calmly correct a few points:

1. Hardly fair to call me "a NY transplant," considering I lived in Miami 5 years before moving here to the Keys. Also, as I stated elsewhere, I have lived in multiple states. So your attempt to attack and discredit me based on where I have lived is based on error, and also incredibly rude and presumptuous. I'm not afraid of your bullying, and I certainly don't feel that having lived in more than just one state puts me at a disadvantage - in fact, having been around the country and around the world gives me quite a bit of insight into what works and what does not work in different places. More knowledge is ALWAYS an asset. In insulting me, you seem to be intentionally insulting all of the people in our entire state who were originally born elsewhere - which is unfair, and truly just ignorant.

2. This is City Data. I don't need to lay out a 60-page financial analysis for you.

3. You fail to understand the very simple side of a tourist economy. I listed the numerous state parks, and pointed out what a benefit they are in this state, and of course in the Keys. HUGE numbers of tourists flock to government parks - the Everglades, John Pennekamp, Fort Zachary Taylor, etc. etc. The jobs - which sadly you are too short-sighted to figure out - come from the huge amounts of money tourists pour into our state every year. They are in large part attracted to the natural bounty of Florida, and will come great distances to see many of these government-established parks. When they do, the jobs come from their stay here in the form of restaurants, hotels, souvenirs, tours... the tourism industry is large and includes a wide range of businesses. Additionally, they shop in regular places while in town, like the drug store or the mall. All of that money means employment - which is why I said LOCAL jobs. It doesn't matter what percentage of our economy is tourism - tourism is obviously a very large part, and our parks are very obviously a large part of our tourism industry.

4. There is a reason the water conservationist expert made a video advocating voting YES on Amendment 1. The reason is, our water must come from a natural source - it's not just flown in from another country or something. It has to be local. With all of the development, those natural sources get more and more endangered, and also contaminated by construction and people living too close to them. Having large tracts of government land can protect those water sources from being bought up and from private development coming too close and contaminating our water. This is a critical issue for Florida that we need to deal with YESTERDAY, because we are growing extremely fast and do not have enough fresh water sources to support us. We are surrounded by water on 3 sides, but not a drop to drink - it's all salt. We need to preserve the interior of the state where the water stems from, and flows through, to protect it from contaminants and being privately owed. Guess what happens to all of us if companies buy up land that we need to have enough clean water to support our state - water prices will skyrocket and we will be out of luck! If you think we have enough water resources currently in control by the government to support us as we stand and going into future growth of the state, you are incredibly naive and uninformed.

I have lived in, voted in, and paid taxes into this state for 6 years; own property here; and additionally have a doctorate in History, and put a great deal of effort into understanding what is happening with our local government. I have every bit as much right as you do to have an opinion about this issue, and I know more than enough to stand behind it. It's not my job to teach anybody who happens to want to yell at me out of ignorance, a different way to look at the issues. I am not posting for you, who will never listen to anyone else's point of view anyway - but for the many here who have stated that they were unsure exactly what this means, or what the positives may be. Ultimately, each voter will decide for themselves what is important to them. But it is helpful to know the reasons so many of us are going to vote YES on Amendment 1 - and there are quite a few very good reasons to do so.

If you trust big corporations to have Florida's best interests at heart, keep letting them take everything we've got, and wait for them to dole out what little they feel like for our benefit. But I know for a fact that has not worked well, and that private profit is too strong a pull to expect investment groups to balance it with moral duty. On the other hand, whatever one may feel about our current government, they have done a good job up to this point protecting the lands they were supposed to, and so far ensuring our access to water. We can VOTE and run for office, and have some power over the government - over private corporations we have no power whatsoever. I like my odds with the government a lot better than I like my odds with private investors. And most Floridians will agree, private investors are tearing our state apart, and destroying the very best parts of living here that Floridians were once able to take for granted. Vote YES ON 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:16 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top