Are voters informed?

[Seiv]

Hi All,

An interesting proposition appeared on the State of California's ballot that would make it illegal for local governments to seize land using imminent domain and then hand it over to private developers.

US Constituion is rather vague on this as it states...
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Public Use has in the past always ended up as roadworks or public land. But in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that it was legal for a local government to seize land belonging to local resident's <Homes> so that a private company located nearby could raze it and put in a parking lot for it's employee's. To me that seemed ludicrous but it's reality now.

The California proposition would get rid of the vagueness of the constitution and make sure that private land seizure by local governments could ONLY be used for public works and not private corporations and also allowed a compensation package for those that lost their lands in government seizures that have been taken place recently and that land given over to private developers to make huge profits off of.

Welp the voters overwhelmingly stuck that propostion down. In other words most citizens of california support the fact that their land can be seized by local governements and turned over to a private corporation.

Is it me or are people just playing tic tac toe with their ballots?

 

[blur]

Is it me or are people just playing tic tac toe with their ballots?

Oh look, it's the Olympics Syndrome, as I like to call it, isn't it?

You know when the Olympics are on for a couple of weeks and everyone turnsup to work, praising the efforts of the gymnasts, etc, and even commenting on how harshly the judges scored them and I sit there thinking, "You don't watch gymnastics except every four years... what the ---- do you actually know about it?"

And it's the same with elections. The majority of people don't give a rat's arse about the nitty gritty of most legislations, yet put them near a ballot box and they're all instant experts on politics. It's really quite laughable.

 

[HJ-Diviana]

http://dontvote.org/

 

[Gate]

Heh, hadn't seen that website before. I got a 344/350. My actor recognition skills are lacking but I got 100% of the political ones right.

The frightening thing is how easy that test was and how many people failed it O.o

 

[HJ-Diviana]

my mom only missed paris hilton and christina aguilera (is that how you spell it?)

which I thought was funny.

 

[blur]

I bombed... well, actually I got a surprising amount right, even though these aren't my politicians.

 

[Dirk Gently]

319 of 350 or 91%..... gah! I need to study more.

 

[Luciro]

Just, no.
I don't think it's always the voter's fault tho'. On the VA ballot there was a proposition about can Churches go corporate and keep their tax exempt. Plus this makes the 4th booth in a roll to include something about marriage. Looks like ticket manipulation to me.

 

[Seiv]

LOL

A+
Not only should you vote, you should consider a career in politics

Fat chance on politics, can't hardly stomach the ones currently in power.

 

[Homeslice513]

I probably shouldn't share this but I have never really paid attention to much so this wasn't a surprise to me.

You scored 152 out of 350 possible points, or 43.43%

F
Instead of voting, you should consider moving to France.

Sadly, I didn't even know what ---- Cheney looked like...

 

[blur]

France! Ha!

 

[Jaraeth]

... An interesting proposition appeared on the State of California's ballot that would make it illegal for local governments to seize land using imminent domain and then hand it over to private developers.

US Constituion is rather vague on this as it states...
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Public Use has in the past always ended up as roadworks or public land. But in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that it was legal for a local government to seize land belonging to local resident's <Homes> so that a private company located nearby could raze it and put in a parking lot for it's employee's. To me that seemed ludicrous but it's reality now.

The California proposition would get rid of the vagueness of the constitution and make sure that private land seizure by local governments could ONLY be used for public works and not private corporations and also allowed a compensation package for those that lost their lands in government seizures that have been taken place recently and that land given over to private developers to make huge profits off of.

Welp the voters overwhelmingly stuck that propostion down. In other words most citizens of california support the fact that their land can be seized by local governements and turned over to a private corporation.

Is it me or are people just playing tic tac toe with their ballots?

A new law in Arizona was just passed by a wide margin, Cities seizing lands and claiming eminent domain can only seize land IF they use the land for the same thing that already occupied it previously. In other words, if the city of Phoenix sought to tear down a neighborhood of houses, they can only use that land for more housing... ie: apartments, more houses, etc.

I find that amusing, and it will now make the government think twice about seizing land for corporate use.

~ Jar

 

[Dirk Gently]

As an example of local governments abusing Eminent Domain. Here locally the city tried to seize the land around the local airport because they said they were wanting to ensure a proper buffer zone remained around said airport.
After many years of litigation they eventually got the land.
The end result?

Pre-seizure: The airport was surrounded by corn fields and cattle pasture.

Post-siezure: New executive home development, golf course, shopping center, hotel with attached convention center, grocery store, outdoor sporting goods shop, banks, medical clinic, soccer complex .... you get the picture.

 

[Gate]

Pre-seizure: The airport was surrounded by corn fields and cattle pasture.

Post-siezure: New executive home development, golf course, shopping center, hotel with attached convention center, grocery store, outdoor sporting goods shop, banks, medical clinic, soccer complex .... you get the picture.

Ouch... in my part of the country nothing like that is happening. Instead they are simply using economic pressure (tax codes and the like) to force the local farmers and horse businesses to sell out to the developers. My entire county is filling up with townhomes and McMansions. Of course, the voters just intelligently decided to put into office an entire county council whose campaigns were paid for by developers.

The part that really stings is they re-elected my district's councilwoman... who cheerfully flipped the bird at her opponent's supporters at the polling place... Her husband is a developer making money hand over fist because of her policies.

 

[Dirk Gently]

O My entire county is filling up with townhomes and McMansions. Of course, the voters just intelligently decided to put into office an entire county council whose campaigns were paid for by developers.

I hope that developers understand what happens when they fill up all the farmland with development projects.....

You can't eat McMansions... but I suppose you can eat the developers.