|
Lot's of things in the news lately. Writers often write
great articles about serious world problems, most of which
we can't do anything about. The term for that in "J" school
(journalism) is afganistising. A 'coined' word of course,
and was adopted many years before the war we are now fighting.
I'd like to tackle, at least address, something much closer
to home. You don't have to hold your breath, no political
tirade coming.
Everyone in America has an election coming up in November.
First, I'd like to encourage everyone to vote. And in Iraq,
more people voted in their last election than voted in the
entire USA in the last Presidential election. The number I
heard this week was one in four vote. If you believe that,
and know that JC and I have both voted in every election
since Barry Goldwater, that means that six of you did not
vote. That's not good.
Worse than that, I don't believe most folks even know who/what
they are voting for. We've been researching the issues for
the upcoming local election, and the one which seems to be
getting the most press is one on property rights. Reading
the information, our newspaper mentioned there are 20 or
more other states which also have property rights issues
on the ballot in November. Interestingly, they are not
the same issues. Some states are trying to write special
legislation which will protect property owners from eminent
domain actions by the local government. This is where your
property is seized by the government for "better use." The
Supreme Court upheld a particular case this past year where
property was taken to be used for 'private' purposes which
would bring the local government more tax revenues. What
may be legal in one state may not be legal in another - if
this sort of issue is on the ballot where you live please
research it carefully before you vote.
A few years ago our state adopted a Growth Management Act.
It is the law, and had been tested through the courts.
There was a huge outcry when it was purposed, lots of
public meetings on it, and finally, it became law. The
whole point was to prevent urban sprawl, maintain some
green belts and public use areas. Some people were hurt
financially as they had bought property on speculation
planning to sell it down the line for development. It
is called speculation for a reason. There is no guarantee
in Vegas either.
The issue here in Washington state is I-933. It would require
the local government to pay the people owning property if
there property is impacted by some law. So if you bought
land which the state or local government says is wetland
and you can't build on it, they have to pay you.
How much isn't spelled out either. And if that sum is more
than the government (read taxpayers) can pay, the government
has to give the landowner a 'variance.' Meaning you bought
wetland, knew it was wetland and get to build on it anyway.
Or, build a seawall where one isn't allowed. Or clear-cut
the forest right up to the river bank and on and on. Oh yes,
did I mention it's a great way to get around the Growth Management
laws as well?
In most cases where there is a real reason to grant a variance,
most are indeed granted. But this proposed new law is bizarre.
An old professor of mine told us repeatedly, "If a law doesn't
spell out all the details, vote NO." If the idea is a good one,
it will come up again WITH everything detailed. Rather than
not vote on a question you can't figure out, vote NO. If you
can't figure it out, how do you expect the people in the
legislature and courts to rule on it?
This one, I-933 is not a mystery to me. It is full of holes
and we will vote NO.
All politics is local. Please pay attention to your local issues.
They directly affect YOU. We encourage you to get informed. If
your state publishes a Voter Information pamphlet, read it,
both sides of all issues are there for the reading.
And one more thing: VOTE! ~ LadyFisher
If you would like to comment on this or any other article please feel free to
post your views on the FAOL Bulletin Board!
|
