Has there been a discussion here

[TabbyCat]

I just wondered if there has been any discussion here about the 5 proposed constitutional amendments we'll all be casting votes over next Tuesday?

 

I didn't do a search, but just a glimpse through the topic headings didn't seem to include a thread about the amendments.

 

I'm posting this in the cafe because I think it's a discussion we could all benefit from, but my feelings won't be hurt if it gets moved to the PF.

 

And forgive me if this has already been discussed. And point me to that thread, please.

 

Thanks.

[chainshaw1]

Voting straight NO would be acceptable. Amendment 1 is BAD news. It allows for much more restrictive employment covenants. It can keep you from working in your field of expertise if you are to leave or get let go from your current employer.

[TabbyCat]

Voting straight NO would be acceptable. Amendment 1 is BAD news. It allows for much more restrictive employment covenants. It can keep you from working in your field of expertise if you are to leave or get let go from your current employer.

 

As a private contractor, I have no doubt whatsoever about how I will vote on amendment 1.

 

Oh, and for the record, I am leaning towards a straight no on ALL 5 amendments.

Edited October 29, 2010 by TabbyCat

[Octobers_Dream]

Definitely vote NO on Amendment 1!!!!

[brown*eyed*girl]

Can someone share some basics of the amendments?

 

I just wish there was a website where you could type in your address and pull up a copy of the ballot.

 

I get so frustrated when I go to vote and find there are things on the ballot I didn't realize would be there for me to vote on. And I hate to vote without hearing the facts. Sometimes the wording is confusing as well so you think you are voting for one thing when actually it is the opposite.

Edited October 29, 2010 by brown*eyed*girl

[NewsJunky]

As a private contractor, I have no doubt whatsoever about how I will vote on amendment 1.

 

Oh, and for the record, I am leaning towards a straight no on ALL 5 amendments.

I voted NO on all 5. I studied them pretty carefully. I think everyone should think long and hard before voting to change the Constitution.

[TabbyCat]

There is such a site!

 

Give me a sec and I'll post it...but don't expect magic answers from it...

 

Look here:

 

GA Amendments

 

Don't throw rocks because it isn't the GA State link...I found this on a search. It is accurate as far as contents of the amendments.

Edited October 29, 2010 by TabbyCat

[NewsJunky]

Can someone share some basics of the amendments?

 

I just wish there was a website where you could type in your address and pull up a copy of the ballot.

 

I get so frustrated when I go to vote and find there are things on the ballot I didn't realize would be there for me to vote on. And I hate to vote without hearing the facts. Sometimes the wording is confusing as well so you think you are voting for one thing when actually it is the opposite.

 

Link....Type in your info and it will come up.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/mvp/

[TabbyCat]

Link....Type in your info and it will come up.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/mvp/

 

 

NJ, I don't think that link works...I'm searching for the one I found that does. I posted the wrong one a minute ago...sorry, folks.

[brown*eyed*girl]

Link....Type in your info and it will come up.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/mvp/

 

THANKS!!

 

I am going to check it out now and will probably bookmark it so I can find it for future elections.

[NewsJunky]

NJ, I don't think that link works...I'm searching for the one I found that does. I posted the wrong one a minute ago...sorry, folks.

 

It works for me. You do have to type in your name and select your county.

[brown*eyed*girl]

NJ, I don't think that link works...I'm searching for the one I found that does. I posted the wrong one a minute ago...sorry, folks.

 

I haven't checked it out completely yet but I am currently looking at the candidate section and I can see I will have some homework this weekend to get me up to speed on all these people.

 

When you find the link you were talking about I would love to check that one out too! Thanks!!

[gog8tors]

There's been a ton of disscussions for the past three months about this. I know y'all don't like the political fourm, but that is where these things are disscused/diseccted and debated on. Most often way before 6 days before the vote is to be taken.

 

Sorry if this has come off snarky, but........

[afriendlygeek]

I was planning to vote no on all of them until I stumbled upon this article by Clark Howard. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/clark-howard-a-vote-685915.html

Amendment 4 is now a yes for me.

[mei lan]

Clark Howard says #4 is a good one; it gives the state the right to privatize utilities somehow thereby saving the state money on same. I'm also inclined to vote NO on all...that's the only one I'm waffling on. DEFINITELY no to #1, #2, and #3. Can't remember #5, but better NO than sorry.

[Nitro]

It works for me. You do have to type in your name and select your county.

 

 

You don't have to log in to view the amendments...

 

If you just go to the Secretary of State's website at http://www.sos.ga.gov/

and click on the Elections tab. Down on the left hand side of the page,

click on the " Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Statewide Referendums."

 

If you want a direct link to the PDF that it takes you to, click here: http://qual.sos.ga.gov/bltquest.pdf

[NewsJunky]

You don't have to log in to view the amendments...

 

If you just go to the Secretary of State's website at http://www.sos.ga.gov/

and click on the Elections tab. Down on the left hand side of the page,

click on the " Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Statewide Referendums."

 

If you want a direct link to the PDF that it takes you to, click here: http://qual.sos.ga.gov/bltquest.pdf

 

Thanks. I think the person who wanted a link also wanted to see a sample ballot. You have to log on to see that because each district is different.

[The Sound Guy]

I was planning to vote no on all of them until I stumbled upon this article by Clark Howard. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/clark-howard-a-vote-685915.html

Amendment 4 is now a yes for me.

 

 

I think Howard is slipping in his old age.

 

He states:

 

Amendment 4 on this November’s ballot would change that. Here’s how it would work. Energy efficiency contractors will see whether a state building is a good candidate to be made energy efficient. (And believe me, our state buildings could use some upgrades.) The contractor then does all the work needed without upfront cost.

Yea right... no cost to the contractor maybe.

 

Here is the text of ballot:

 

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide for guaranteed costsavings for the state by authorizing a state entity to enter into multiyear contracts which obligate state funds for energy efficiency or conservation improvement projects?"

 

Obligate is an interesting word:

 

–verb (used with object)

1. to bind or oblige morally or legally: to obligate oneself to purchase a building.

2. to pledge, commit, or bind (funds, property, etc.) to meet an obligation.

–adjective

3. morally or legally bound; obliged; constrained.

4. necessary; essential.

5. Biology . restricted to a particular condition of life, as certain organisms that can survive only in the absence of oxygen: obligate anaerobe ( opposed to facultative).

 

So... as I read this, it PLEDGES STATE FUNDS (i.e. our tax money) to pay for all the energy efficiency or conservation projects up front, then pays the contractor an ADDITIONAL profit for "multi-year" (who knows how many years) of the savings that the project WE paid for saves. So the contractor gets most of the savings for several years for proposing to do the job. What the heck is this??? I say it's a NO! Just like the other 4.

[Nitro]

Thanks. I think the person who wanted a link also wanted to see a sample ballot. You have to log on to see that because each district is different.

 

 

Ahh.... gotcha!

[NewsJunky]

I think Howard is slipping in his old age.

 

He states:

 

Yea right... no cost to the contractor maybe.

 

Here is the text of ballot:

 

 

 

Obligate is an interesting word:

 

–verb (used with object)

1. to bind or oblige morally or legally: to obligate oneself to purchase a building.

2. to pledge, commit, or bind (funds, property, etc.) to meet an obligation.

–adjective

3. morally or legally bound; obliged; constrained.

4. necessary; essential.

5. Biology . restricted to a particular condition of life, as certain organisms that can survive only in the absence of oxygen: obligate anaerobe ( opposed to facultative).

 

So... as I read this, it PLEDGES STATE FUNDS (i.e. our tax money) to pay for all the energy efficiency or conservation projects up front, then pays the contractor an ADDITIONAL profit for "multi-year" (who knows how many years) of the savings that the project WE paid for saves. So the contractor gets most of the savings for several years for proposing to do the job. What the heck is this??? I say it's a NO! Just like the other 4.

That is the way Hubby and I read it too. Clark is wrong on this.

[afriendlygeek]

Clark should have wrote the amendment. I can't believe he blew it on this one. I'm back to a "no" on all of them.

[gpatt0n]

I think Howard is slipping in his old age.

 

He states:

 

Yea right... no cost to the contractor maybe.

 

Here is the text of ballot:

 

 

 

Obligate is an interesting word:

 

–verb (used with object)

1. to bind or oblige morally or legally: to obligate oneself to purchase a building.

2. to pledge, commit, or bind (funds, property, etc.) to meet an obligation.

–adjective

3. morally or legally bound; obliged; constrained.

4. necessary; essential.

5. Biology . restricted to a particular condition of life, as certain organisms that can survive only in the absence of oxygen: obligate anaerobe ( opposed to facultative).

 

So... as I read this, it PLEDGES STATE FUNDS (i.e. our tax money) to pay for all the energy efficiency or conservation projects up front, then pays the contractor an ADDITIONAL profit for "multi-year" (who knows how many years) of the savings that the project WE paid for saves. So the contractor gets most of the savings for several years for proposing to do the job. What the heck is this??? I say it's a NO! Just like the other 4.

 

Actually, I read it differently.

 

What it does is allow those companies that sell these goods to sell the state the energy saving upgrades on a time sales contract that allows the state to continue budgeting, say, the same $200,000/yr for electric service to the State Capitol (just an example not an actual budget figure). The state continues budgeting $200,000/yr for the electric service but because the check written to GA Power is cut by 40 percent ($120,000) that line item in the capital operating expense shows a $80,000 surplus. Now the cost of upgrading the fixtures/etc. to attain this 40 percent saving was $800,000 (including interest).

 

So, this amendment would allow the state to enter into a multi-year contract that pays the contractor the $80,000 not spent on electricity annually for a period of 10 years. The contractor installs the money saving new technology and the state pays the 'savings' over the period of years for the payback.

 

Right now, because each legislative session and budget year is discrete, to gain the funds for the upgrade - lets say $600,000, would have to be available in this years budget. That the state would save $80,000 a year (or more with rising energy costs) for 30 or 40 years after the payback, means the payback of the new technology can be over two to six or even ten years on the improvements.

 

The other side is that federal rules regarding energy saving including cutting carbon emissions (electricity does generate those through coal burning) means we're going to have to either raise taxes to pay the money in one lump sum or create some 'creative financing' approaches that will make the modern technology affordable.

 

I'm voting yes on #4.

 

I am voting NO on number one ... even though it would be beneficial to have non-compete contracts for a business like mine. I personally don't think it is fair and, despite assertions that liberals don't like competition, I actually believe in the role of innovation and know it comes through free competition.

 

I'm considering voting for #2 as I think we do deserve top-flight trauma care throughout the state.

 

To me, #3 is much like #4 in that it allows for more of a pay as you go process. I think the passage of a measure of this nature will allow the acceleration of projects like the four-laning of GA 92 and even Macland from Hardy Chevrolet to McEachern HS two or three years quicker than otherwise would be the case.

 

#5 is more a housekeeping measure than anything else. It simply fixes the process of property designations in two counties and there is no reason to deny them that freedom.

 

The state wide referendum on whether to remove the one-quarter mill the state charges for property tax is kind of silly as it is just the general assembly patting themselves on the back for eliminating the state's 'cut' from local property taxes. It has no force of law and you can vote however you want and I may vote no as I think the state's tax base should be broad. In one sense, it is the type of law that will take away the inventory reduction sales that are popular in the days right before January 1st. (Businesses like car dealers really like to reduce inventories as low as they can because of the property tax on inventory is based on that businesses inventory on January 1. Sell inventory on December 30th and it is not counted and bring in new goods on January 2nd and you don't pay property tax on it.

 

pubby

[mei lan]

Clark should have wrote the amendment. I can't believe he blew it on this one. I'm back to a "no" on all of them.

 

Dammit...I should know by now to go with my gut. I'll mull over what Pubby wrote, but I'm back to all NOs now.

[mei lan]

I'm considering voting for #2 as I think we do deserve top-flight trauma care throughout the state.

 

I quite agree...I just don't trust the sorry dogs to spend the money on that. And not to be snotty or anything, but our money on this will go to South Georgia, since that's where the no trauma centers are. I'm just in a mean no-tax mood. How about we cut some other crap out of the budget and put THAT money towards the trauma centers? (And no, I don't know what, but if I had to, I guarantee I could come up with something.)

[chainshaw1]

On Amendment 2, why should only the people who own cars be the ones to pay for trauma centers in South Georgia?

[anjer]

Can someone share some basics of the amendments?

 

I just wish there was a website where you could type in your address and pull up a copy of the ballot.

 

I get so frustrated when I go to vote and find there are things on the ballot I didn't realize would be there for me to vote on. And I hate to vote without hearing the facts. Sometimes the wording is confusing as well so you think you are voting for one thing when actually it is the opposite.

the best thing that you and anybody else can do is go straight to the georgia secretary of state web site and read them all I do no have the link but that is what I did,it is under sample ballot MVP I believe, Can someone help get a link. I will vote no for all.

[QOTSA]

Something I have wondered about with the trauma center thing - does no one remember this?

[xxrsellars]

I voted yesterday.............. NO on all five.

[brown*eyed*girl]

There's been a ton of disscussions for the past three months about this. I know y'all don't like the political fourm, but that is where these things are disscused/diseccted and debated on. Most often way before 6 days before the vote is to be taken.

 

Sorry if this has come off snarky, but........

 

 

You don't sound snarky and I hear what you are saying.

 

I know I haven't spent as much time reading up on this stuff as I should have. Been busier than usual but I have to say the times I have started to read some of the political stuff on here there tends to be a lot of what appears to be rumor and personal, excuse the term, crap when I just want the basic facts.

 

Just tell me what you (the candidate) believes and wants to do and why I should vote for you (or your candidate) and not what an awful person the other candidate is and why I shouldn't vote for him/her. Does that make sense?

[chainshaw1]

Something I have wondered about with the trauma center thing - does no one remember this?

Exactly! It supposedly was poorly written and the funds can only go certain areas. Now, what happens to that money if this new Amendment passes? They get you coming and going.

[The Sound Guy]

On Amendment 2, why should only the people who own cars be the ones to pay for trauma centers in South Georgia?

 

How about adding a $25 surcharge to all moving violation? You know, ones you get for doing the kinds of behaviors that *cause* accidents?

 

Make the people causing the accidents pay for the centers, not all the safe drivers also.

[chainshaw1]

Double Tapped, sorry.

 

To the above post, we already passed the Super Speeder law that was supposed to take care of this. Now, they want more money, because the speeders slowed down.

Edited October 29, 2010 by chainshaw1

[Gem Man 86]

Pubby,

 

 

As always a thorough response.

 

Amend. 1: I will be voting NO.

Amend. 2: Not sure yet on this one. By the way QOTSA that Bill to raise money from tickets fell short of doing what it was suppose too.

Amend. 3: I can see how one might be quick to say no but I think if you have a little insight into the funding, bidding, and general prep into a project this bill make sense.

Amend. 4: Same as Amend. 3.

Amend. 5: Voting Yes, as it only deals with two Counties and some land lots that were enshrined into the State Constitution years ago. This would be the last time you'd ever see such an amendment as all the others similar enshrinement have been approved.

Referendum 5: Doesn't bother me but I wonder if it really does make new businesses that hold large inventories think twice before coming to Georgia?

 

Gem Man 86

[Nitro]

Here's something I find funny...

 

Some of you are willing to vote on what Clark Howard has told you about the proposed amendment.

 

Now, along comes Pubby with a post and now you've changed how you are planning on voting.

 

No disrespect to Pubby or Clark Howard, but really, why don't you people decide for yourself

how you're going to vote and stop relying on other people to interpret the amendment for you?

 

READ the amendment. Read it thoroughly. Read it again.

 

Voting is a seriously responsibility and too many people vote on what someone else tells them

to believe or what someone else thinks the poll question is asking.

 

Go to the website. Download the PDF with of the amendments and READ them.

They are not simply questions, like you see on the ballot.

They are full explanations of what the amendment is about and what it encompasses.

 

Stop listening to what OTHER people are telling you... do the research yourself and decide for yourself

how you are going to vote.

[GoodNeighbor]

Ammendment 2: I don't get the correlation.

 

There is much more to trauma than auto accidents.

 

gun shot wounds

drownings

electrocutions

fires

the list goes on and on

 

Maybe during the next election they'll want to add an extra tax on shoe sales in order to cover the cost of sprained ankles.

 

 

I'm not against the trauma centers at all. It's just the way the want it paid for seems strange.

[MarkPalm]

Wow...an honest, open, civil political discussion on Pcom. I weepy. I can't believe I've actually witnessed this historic thread. Good job guys for keeping it civil. I have found things to agree with for all of you. I'm voting no to all except 5. Number 1 could potentially (a very real potentially mind you) put me completely out of business. I'm begging you, no matter how you vote, please vote no to Amendment 1.

[TabbyCat]

There's been a ton of disscussions for the past three months about this. I know y'all don't like the political fourm, but that is where these things are disscused/diseccted and debated on. Most often way before 6 days before the vote is to be taken.

 

Sorry if this has come off snarky, but........

 

Yes, you DO sound a bit snarky. But that's OK.

 

I obviously have read the proposed amendments and have given my vote consideration. I think most others have, too. But a discussion of the issues involved, OUTSIDE of the PF (where you acknowledge many prefer not to tread, and with good reason), even just days before the vote, is much better than no discussion at all, wouldn't you agree?

[The Sound Guy]

Actually, I read it differently.

 

What it does is allow those companies that sell these goods to sell the state the energy saving upgrades on a time sales contract that allows the state to continue budgeting, say, the same $200,000/yr for electric service to the State Capitol (just an example not an actual budget figure). The state continues budgeting $200,000/yr for the electric service but because the check written to GA Power is cut by 40 percent ($120,000) that line item in the capital operating expense shows a $80,000 surplus. Now the cost of upgrading the fixtures/etc. to attain this 40 percent saving was $800,000 (including interest).

 

So, this amendment would allow the state to enter into a multi-year contract that pays the contractor the $80,000 not spent on electricity annually for a period of 10 years. The contractor installs the money saving new technology and the state pays the 'savings' over the period of years for the payback.

 

Right now, because each legislative session and budget year is discrete, to gain the funds for the upgrade - lets say $600,000, would have to be available in this years budget. That the state would save $80,000 a year (or more with rising energy costs) for 30 or 40 years after the payback, means the payback of the new technology can be over two to six or even ten years on the improvements.

 

The other side is that federal rules regarding energy saving including cutting carbon emissions (electricity does generate those through coal burning) means we're going to have to either raise taxes to pay the money in one lump sum or create some 'creative financing' approaches that will make the modern technology affordable.

 

I'm voting yes on #4.

 

 

Tell you what, if two people can read the same thing and get two totally opposite meanings from it, then as far as I'm concerned, its *way* too vague to be allowed into law.

 

I will say, I was looking at the ballot wording and not the actual amendment, here is the actual change to the constitution:

 

The General Assembly may by general law authorize state governmental entities to incur debt for the purpose of entering into multiyear contracts for governmental energy efficiency or conservation improvement projects in which payments are guaranteed over the term of the contract by vendors based on the realization of specified savings or revenue gains attributable solely to the improvements; provided, however, that any such contract shall not exceed ten years unless otherwise provided by general law."

 

I *still* don't see what you are saying in the above. It says the STATE goes into DEBT for the improvements. (i.e. we pay for it) But the payments are guaranteed by the the Vendors? What does that mean? Who's paying what to who?

 

Problems I have:

 

1) Are the building managers savvy enough to understand these projects and prevent pitfalls? What if the contractor promises to add a lighting control system and projects $20,000 a year savings for the 10 years. The manager takes him up on it. What the contractor didn't say is that to get that savings, he plans on turning off all the indoor lighting off 1 hour after 5:00 and all outdoor lighting in the parking lot at 8:00 in a building where many people work late. It's implemented and the government office complains they need light later and force the contractor to leave them on. Contractor sues in court that the state has prevented him from generating the savings he predicted, so the state owes him that money anyway. Who wins? The Lawyers?

 

2) So will there only be one project per building? What if someone does an insulation project and another does a lighting control project. The electric bill goes down 20% instead of the combined 30% projected. Who gets their payment cut? "attributable solely to the improvements" sounds good but how the heck do you tell where "savings" is? This has court challenges all over it.

 

3) What happens if the A/C fails in a building where an insulation project has been done. The State has to decide to put in a 10 SEER or 14 SEER. However, if it pays more for the 14 SEER, the state won't see the savings, because all savings in the building goes to the contractor that put in the insulation. So does the state put in the 10 SEER or pay more of our tax money for the 14 SEER that we won't see the savings for? Can the contractor sue because the state *didn't* put in a high efficiency unit? How do you tell what "savings" the A/C caused vs the insulation. That is the major fallacy with this thing, *SAVINGS* can't be quantified. It's not measurable in many cases. It is long term savings, or short term? Lifetime savings?

 

Contractor adds Solar cells and controller to a building that generate power. The contract is for 10 years, the cells have a lifetime of 12. After the contract is over, who pays to uninstall the things when they quit working or do we just disconnect them and leave them on the roof?

 

4) Biggest thing I see is while it sounds good, (don't most govt plans *before* they get implemented) I think IT WON'T WORK. Here you are putting a third party in charge of saving energy in a building full of people that don't work for it. I see never ending conflicts between the "energy" company and the employees and the blame game going on 24/7 between the two if bills don't drop. The contractor puts in insulation to save X$, but the building manager then lowers the A/C by 2 degrees. Court case!!

 

No, this is too loose for me to vote for. I see court cases all over due to bad contracts being written. They'll have lawyers writing the contracts instead of engineers and we will be the ones getting screwed.

 

 

I am voting NO on number one ... even though it would be beneficial to have non-compete contracts for a business like mine. I personally don't think it is fair and, despite assertions that liberals don't like competition, I actually believe in the role of innovation and know it comes through free competition.

 

I'm considering voting for #2 as I think we do deserve top-flight trauma care throughout the state.

I'd rather see a $25 fee on every moving violation ticket written in the state by *any* department. Let those who drive like heck pay for the accidents they cause. The "Super Speeder" bill was a joke and a political grandstand. It's like taxing the Rich, there are not enough to make a major difference. Make EVERY traffic ticket pay the fee. There should be a $100 court fee on every ticket also, PLUS the fine. Tickets should hurt.

 

To me, #3 is much like #4 in that it allows for more of a pay as you go process. I think the passage of a measure of this nature will allow the acceleration of projects like the four-laning of GA 92 and even Macland from Hardy Chevrolet to McEachern HS two or three years quicker than otherwise would be the case.

This seems to be a way for a session of the Legislature to spend money we don't have yet and not have to take responsibility for it. With the current system, they have to authorize the funding to make sure the project can be finished at the start. With this amendment, if the next Legislature doesn't like the project, they can just remove funding, then leaving the project to die on the vine and leaving us with an unfinished road. You know what this sounds like? A way for the politicians to get around the balanced budget requirement for the state. It's the "Gone with the Wind" solution... "Fiddle, dee, dee. We'll think about paying for the rest of it... tomorrow"

 

Nope. BAD idea. See Federal Government for an reason why borrowing without a payment plan is bad.

 

 

#5 is more a housekeeping measure than anything else. It simply fixes the process of property designations in two counties and there is no reason to deny them that freedom.

 

Which is another reason I hate the way they write this crap. Why not say so? But they don't. They write specific laws for one situation (much as they did with NO in the Health care law) that while they sound general, are very specific. I *might* vote for this one, but I might vote for open government too and vote *no*.

 

Guess we'll have to cancel each other out Pubster.

[gpatt0n]

I guess we will have to cancel our votes, Sound Guy. That is what the process is about.

 

I actually thought that the contracts empowered, which limit the future payments to proven efficiency savings, demonstrated that government could be concerned with efficiency and could create a way to fund those savings from virtually thin air.

 

Sure all these things are subject to additional contracts and I understand your concern on that point but the amendment limits the liability of the state to the 'savings' attributed to the improvements.

 

What I do know is that if we don't make these kinds of accommodations - create innovative funding options - even the 'sworn to not raise your tax' representatives will have to come up with the money for these kinds of energy efficiency improvements as per federal mandates to cut energy use.

 

I actually think the ability to write those kinds of contracts - our part is to remove the prohibition against multi-year contracts - is something we ought to grant.

 

That you don't simply shows you have no trust or confidence in government. I understand that too.

 

pubby

[Lady Raider]

I believe Lowrider posted all the amendments and the it was moved to the political forum.. so check in there TC

 

I have done voted and I voted NO on all of them