U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Jacksonville
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2008, 10:15 PM
 
705 posts, read 1,457,804 times
Reputation: 286
I have had a crazy work schedule the past few weeks, so I plan on voting Wed evening. Riveree, I am with you on the down sides to 4 and 6. Some of these have me on the fence and make me wonder if there is some sort of grand master plan on why these were put on the ballot, they seem like odd amendments. I am sure people just go out and vote yeses or noes all the way down the board having no clue why. Nothing makes me more angry than uninformed votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2008, 02:23 AM
 
Location: NE Florida
17,798 posts, read 21,152,771 times
Reputation: 43092
ok so how come the person that writes the amendments can't explain them like Riveree did !
Now I have a clearer understanding
thanks Riv !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:33 AM
 
Location: JAX
353 posts, read 708,676 times
Reputation: 153
If anyone wants to read further about Amendment 6 I recommend this site.

Save Our Waterfronts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:43 AM
 
Location: South Tampa, FL.
1,367 posts, read 3,526,442 times
Reputation: 407
I voted yes as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R1v3rRat View Post
Well, the only one I have any knowledge about is Amendment 6. And as an avid boater who supports greater public water access and someone with friends in the marine industry all over the state, I plan on voting YES to Amendment 6. I urge others to as well...

Here is a link to a page that summerizes each amendment and provides pros and cons....

Florida 2008 ballot measures - Ballotpedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:46 AM
 
Location: South Tampa, FL.
1,367 posts, read 3,526,442 times
Reputation: 407
I pretty much see eye to eye with you on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by riveree View Post
I'm with JagFan, I don't like this whole voting-on-amendments-thing .

Look at this little tidbit from the link R1v3rRat gave us:

Through 2006, there have been 23 initiatives on the ballot since the process began in 1978, in addition to legislatively-referred ballot measures.
Of those 23, 19 passed.

So those who push these amendments forward know we are likely to vote "yes".

Here's how I'm leaning, and where my questions still remain....

Amendment #1: YES, this one seems like a no-brainer, we're the only state left with this law on the books.

Amendment #2: NO...I think . I don't want to adversely affect gay and lesbian couples by limiting future rights. Does anyone have a clear answer on this one?

Amendment #3: YES, I see no real downside to this one. If we want homeowners who own older homes to make their houses more hurricane resistant, we shouldn't punish them for the upgrades by charging more taxes. As it is, homeowners who have older homes are unfairly reassessed whenever they upgrade their homes. Older homes need periodic upgrading just for maintenance, yet your home can be reassessed every time you pull a permit, it's unfair. If Florida wants to revive their downtowns, they need to encourage people to live in older neighborhoods close to the city core, not discourage them .

Amendment #4: YES...or maybe NO. It sounds wonderful at first - land that is conserved will not be taxed. The Sierra Club supports it, which is usually a good sign. Here's what I don't like - developers will get the same benefit. Meaning, a developer builds a new master-planned gated community. 75% of the land will have to conserved in order to get the tax break (doesn't mean they won't destroy it in the process of "saving" it though ). That conserved land does not have to be open to the public - and that's key, I think. It essentially remains private untaxed land. Hmmm....your thoughts on this one?

Amendment #6: NO..possibly YES. I can't help but think of the cruise ship terminal in Mayport when I read this one. There's also no guarantee that this amendment will "save" the small marinas and so forth. It does nothing for conservation, in fact, many of these waterfront businesses are polluters of the water. Yeah, I'm leaning NO.

Amendment #8: NO. Shifting the community college costs from the state onto the county? No thanks .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2008, 03:50 PM
 
272 posts, read 307,361 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagFan27 View Post
I plan on voting no. I don't think our constitution should be changed unless if is for a deplorable condition such as a violation of civil rights.
I feel that the legislators need to make laws for the situations that are listed in the amendments. Then if we disagree, we can vote the them out of office.
Wow someone who actually thinks like me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Historic Springfield
549 posts, read 1,247,184 times
Reputation: 354
I voted NO on #2...there's no need to try and restrict rights, and this would do so
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:15 PM
 
Location: JAX
353 posts, read 708,676 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbm32206 View Post
I voted NO on #2...there's no need to try and restrict rights, and this would do so

I agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 10:18 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,113 posts, read 3,108,637 times
Reputation: 816
well i voted absentee this year, and i voted yes on all the ammendments except for 2. i am not going to try to restrict someone's rights as a citizen to marry the person they love. as for ammendment 6, i think this is more pertinent to south florida than any other part of the state but still affects marinas and boaters here too. Basically this allows for waterfront areas currently not used for residential or office or industrial use to go back to the old taxation system. They will not feel as pressured to sell to developers because of higher taxes.

As far as amendment 8, I would rather our county raise the money to fund and run our community colleges than Tallahassee delegate how much money we can receive. We can better fund FCCJ from local taxes than Tallahassee can and will anyway.

As far as amendment 4, what is wrong with someone owning private land, conserving it, and not letting the public use it? It is private land and the owners should be allowed to do whatever they please with it. That being said there is a statute of limitations here, it is only considered conservation if 75% of the property is conserved. As someone who is pretty well experienced and informed on real estate, that is a huge chunk of the land. Most people and developers are not going to set aside 75% of their land for conservation because it will not make them money. The only difference here to what is already in place is the fact that that 75% will not cost them in the form of tax rolls. If someone really wants to own a large piece of property in the middle of Jacksonville and conserve the great majority of it, then we should not punish them for that, but I suspect most people are not going to conserve private land for the sake of conserving private land. This amendment affects people that already own land and have not touched it, but are still taxed. Often times this land was handed down and there might be a house in one corner and then forest on the rest of the property. IMHO the ony real drawback here is that property tax revenues will be slightly decreased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Jax
8,204 posts, read 23,492,940 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3 View Post
well i voted absentee this year, and i voted yes on all the ammendments except for 2. i am not going to try to restrict someone's rights as a citizen to marry the person they love. as for ammendment 6, i think this is more pertinent to south florida than any other part of the state but still affects marinas and boaters here too. Basically this allows for waterfront areas currently not used for residential or office or industrial use to go back to the old taxation system. They will not feel as pressured to sell to developers because of higher taxes.

As far as amendment 8, I would rather our county raise the money to fund and run our community colleges than Tallahassee delegate how much money we can receive. We can better fund FCCJ from local taxes than Tallahassee can and will anyway.

As far as amendment 4, what is wrong with someone owning private land, conserving it, and not letting the public use it? It is private land and the owners should be allowed to do whatever they please with it. That being said there is a statute of limitations here, it is only considered conservation if 75% of the property is conserved. As someone who is pretty well experienced and informed on real estate, that is a huge chunk of the land. Most people and developers are not going to set aside 75% of their land for conservation because it will not make them money. The only difference here to what is already in place is the fact that that 75% will not cost them in the form of tax rolls. If someone really wants to own a large piece of property in the middle of Jacksonville and conserve the great majority of it, then we should not punish them for that, but I suspect most people are not going to conserve private land for the sake of conserving private land. This amendment affects people that already own land and have not touched it, but are still taxed. Often times this land was handed down and there might be a house in one corner and then forest on the rest of the property. IMHO the ony real drawback here is that property tax revenues will be slightly decreased.
Good points, I'm still deciding (voting at the end of the week).

With Amendment 8, do we really want to slice our tax pie even further though? As it is, we have to cut items because the budget isn't large enough, won't this make the budget even smaller if we now have to allocate more $ to the community college? I'm all for the community college getting funding, but why cut into our own city budget if there's already $ coming from the state level?

With Amendment 4, something just doesn't sound right to me. As the laws are now, if you owned acreage and you put it into a trust for the land to be conservation-only, you get a big tax break (I don't think it's quite zero taxes, but it's significant). So those who want to buy land and retain it's natural state indefinitely have been able to do so and get the tax breaks for it - it's been like that for years, the key being that it had to be in a trust. The reason for the trust was to make it so you can't easily sell the land to a developer later - the trust was a deterrent from developing the land. What I am seeing in Amendment 4 is a way around that trust. So you can own acreage, and pay no taxes on it until you develop it......something doesn't seem right there .

Last edited by riveree; 10-27-2008 at 08:31 PM.. Reason: spam
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 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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 > Jacksonville
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top