Props on Feb Ballot

[AfricanHunter]

Was curious if you guys have been following the propositions on the Feb ballot and if so, what you think of them? Pretty sure I know how I am going to vote on all of them but want to hear everyones opinions.

[Booshanky]

You know, I just got my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday and I haven't got a chance to look into anything yet. (Busy working on a godawful computer).

I'm interested to hear too.

[bwiese]

I vote fat NO on anything that'll cost/spend money or raise taxes.

Period.

[chris]

I will vote NO on all propositions.

[AfricanHunter]

I will vote NO on all propositions.

91 might be worth a yes vote, IMO. Still looking into it though

[Iknownot]

What ever you do, vote no on 93. I despise props that are tricks.

This goes for Measure S if you are living in the city of LA. Vote no on S.

If you vote yes, thinking you are going to get a tax reduction from 10% to 9% you are shooting yourself in the foot, because if you vote no, the tax will go away as it is currently an illegal tax.

No on S = 0% phone tax. The city of LA gets too much money as it is from all it's various fees and taxes.

[1911_sfca]

Was curious if you guys have been following the propositions on the Feb ballot and if so, what you think of them? Pretty sure I know how I am going to vote on all of them but want to hear everyones opinions.

Yup, voted at City Hall today.

no...no..no, NO NO NONONONONONONONONON NOOOOOOOOO. :p

[toolman9000]

VOTE NO on 94, 95,96, 97


Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Southern California to build "super casinos" larger than those found on the Las Vegas strip. These will be on the Feb 5, 2008 ballot...

* Prop 94 - affects Pechanga Casino

* Prop 95 - affects Morongo Casino

* Prop 96 - affects Sycuan Casino

* Prop 97 - affects Agua Caliente Casino


Texts of these four referendums are essentially the same, the only differences being the number of additional slot machines they are allowed to add, and the amount of money they'll be paying to the State.

The Breakdown

What the Casinos get...

* Casinos get to triple or nearly quadruple their number of slot machines (Pechanga goes from 2,000 to 7,500)


* Casinos are no longer subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves.


* Casinos no longer have to have an impartial auditor count the slot machine revenues; they'll be able to audit them on their own. (no third party accountability)


* Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. That is, if an organization other than an indian tribe receives a clearance to build a gambling establishment, the indian casino will be allowed to reduce its taxes to the State, or eliminate them altogether.


What the State gets...

* Casinos will now pay taxes to the State General Fund. Previously, casino taxes were paid to two tribal funds (RSTF and SDF) that the State distributed to smaller tribes, and tribal administrative bodies. The General Fund is spent on all Californians.


* Casinos will now pay more money than before, almost double than under the current compact agreements. But as mentioned above, the Indian tribes will now get to audit their own revenues for the purpose of deciding how much money goes to the State. Under the current arrangement, an impartial auditor is used. So, it's not exactly clear how much more money California will receive.

This is such a bad deal!!! Embarrassing really!

[bruss01]

I'm voting against anything that ARNOLD is pushing.

He betrayed me BIG TIME and I don't forgive and forget so easily.

[paradox]

VOTE NO on 94, 95,96, 97


Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Southern California to build "super casinos" larger than those found on the Las Vegas strip. These will be on the Feb 5, 2008 ballot...

* Prop 94 - affects Pechanga Casino

* Prop 95 - affects Morongo Casino

* Prop 96 - affects Sycuan Casino

* Prop 97 - affects Agua Caliente Casino


Texts of these four referendums are essentially the same, the only differences being the number of additional slot machines they are allowed to add, and the amount of money they'll be paying to the State.

The Breakdown

What the Casinos get...

* Casinos get to triple or nearly quadruple their number of slot machines (Pechanga goes from 2,000 to 7,500)


* Casinos are no longer subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves.


* Casinos no longer have to have an impartial auditor count the slot machine revenues; they'll be able to audit them on their own. (no third party accountability)


* Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. That is, if an organization other than an indian tribe receives a clearance to build a gambling establishment, the indian casino will be allowed to reduce its taxes to the State, or eliminate them altogether.


What the State gets...

* Casinos will now pay taxes to the State General Fund. Previously, casino taxes were paid to two tribal funds (RSTF and SDF) that the State distributed to smaller tribes, and tribal administrative bodies. The General Fund is spent on all Californians.


* Casinos will now pay more money than before, almost double than under the current compact agreements. But as mentioned above, the Indian tribes will now get to audit their own revenues for the purpose of deciding how much money goes to the State. Under the current arrangement, an impartial auditor is used. So, it's not exactly clear how much more money California will receive.

This is such a bad deal!!! Embarrassing really!

And yet I'm still voting yes, mainly on environmental grounds.

With a bunch of super casinos scattered in the LA basin, degenerate gamblers won't have to drive far to get their fix, thus decreasing the cubic volume of pollutants released into the air.

:D

[Japedo]

NO on 93. The Pedophile protector Fabian Nunez terms out this year, and this is his attempt to keep his job. Him and his buddy I can't remember the name at this time, did not have enough signatures to get this prop to the ballot, and some how they got an exemption, and it made it. Here is a little more info.

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house

[Exiledviking]

Him and his buddy I can't remember the name at this time, did not have enough signatures to get this prop to the ballot, and some how they got an exemption, and it made it.

I believe it was Pistol Packin Don Perata...:rolleyes:

[MedSpec65]

The State legislature doesn't need us to help them throw our tax dollars down a rat hole. The Term Limits Proposition is a cleverly-crafted hoax to insure "Pistol Packin' Don" Perata and a host of his compadres are not termed out this year. I wish the majority of voters in this State had the smarts exhibited on this forum, but unfortunately, most of this destructive nonsense will get the nod and become law.

[Rob P.]

Vote NO on 93. It's a scam to get around term limits.

Vote no on all the casino propositions. They do nothing to help and are an "end run" around the no-gambling statutes in California. If you want to allow gambling then repeal the statutes and let the whole state in on the fun. Otherwise, go to Vegas or Reno.

[Smokeybehr]

Vote NO on 91-something better was already passed in the special election last year.

Vote Yes on 92 -The Community College system needs to be better funded.
Vote HELL NO on 93 - Fabian Nunez and Don Perata want to stay in office longer instead of being termed out at the end of their current term. Backers of 93 are the state employee unions, and even a couple of assembly members. Conflict of interest anyone?

94-97: I'm voting yes, simply because Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers is against it.

[slamfire]

What they said no on all the props

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I have a rule of thumb that if the Teachers Union, the Public Employees Union, the Nurses Union and the Correctional Officers Union is for it, I'm pretty much already against it.

Nothing against Unions, its just the way they think I have a problem with.

Also, if money is to come out of my pocket, I'm against it.
And if a California politician is pushing it, I'm against.

Vick

[CitaDeL]

California is in a state of fiscal emergency, so I can imagine people pushing the casino props alleging that this will save us from cutting school funds, State Parks and keep 22,000 BG's in the klink...despite this argument, I'll be saying no to bigger, better casinos, no to higher taxes and certainly no to more of the status quo.

[Silverback]

I vote fat NO on anything that'll cost/spend money or raise taxes.

Period.

I've been doing the same for years. If California can't cut spending they sure can't be trusted with more money. If there is a hint they want money or they will not use the money correctly then the answer is No. If Arnold is behind it then the answer is not just NO.

[N6ATF]

No on all state props.

Why?
91 is redundant to a recently passed law - the sponsors said so themselves
92 makes us pay even more for community college tuition fees when the students are already paying $20/unit which is dirt cheap. Also read that it would screw a lot of students out of financial aid, apparently calculated partially or wholly on how able they are to pay the fees (which are more fixed in price than books and lodging), but the aid itself covers more than just the fees.
93 is a trick so the Dick Dastardlies in the legislature can stay in office in excess of their existing term limits
94-97, the way I see them, just gives the state more revenue to flush down the toilet. CA needs to go into bankruptcy before it will come up with a decent budget. I say let's help them break the addiction.

[bluestaterebel]

I vote fat NO on anything that'll cost/spend money or raise taxes.

Period.

+1! will vote:nono:

[Zhukov]

If I'm correct, 91 fixes an issue 1A failed to address.

From what I recall, 1A failed to close a loophole that allowed people to take money from the Transportation Fund and put it in the General Fund. It closed most of the problems, but not all.

And the people that are saying it is redundant want all the extra cash they can get out of the transportation fund to throw around to whatever catches their fancy. I'd rather be CERTAIN they cannot move the money out of repairing our roads/highways which NEED that cash.

[Bad Voodoo]

I just voted today - Yes on 91; No on everything else.

[berto]

Read the pamphlets last night, voting no as usual.

The tribes would get a lot more sympathy from me if they increased their payments to the state by at least the same percentage they're increasing the number of slots.

[Scarecrow Repair]

I am really puzzled by the people voting against the casino props. I don't see how it is the government's business whether casinos exist in the first place, let alone who audits them or how much money they give the state; I'd just as soon the state got no special share of their profits. The Indians got screwed over enough; why should this continue? Another victimless crime, another government controlled monopoly under the color of gaining tax revenue.

If there is more to this, please enlighten me.

[Bad Voodoo]

I am really puzzled by the people voting against the casino props.

I might have voted differently had the good Governor decided NOT to play politics with the lead ammo ban and microstamping issue. I'm also tiring of CA trying to fiscally save itself on the backs of the fools who frequent the Indian casinos. You want to balance the CA budget? Start dumping all the ridiculous social programs that keep digging us deeper!

[BigDogatPlay]

The supporters of 91 want us to vote no as it's redundant to 1A and doesn't really solve anything not already solved from my read. Based on Zhukov above I am going to go back and re-read it.

Changing term limits is about keeping Nunez, Perata and about two dozen others in office longer, at least so they can run for a statewide office in two years with benefit of all the free publicity remaining in office would give them. This measure is a scam through and through and I'm voting no.

The casino props... law enforcement and most of the unions are against it because it could easily be manipulated into an "Indians pay little or nothing" situation. While I rarely agree with the unions, on this I do.

If Arnold actually had a pair, at least not a pair shrivelled into non-existence by steroid abuse, he'd negotiate meaningful compacts... with full adherence to CEQA, 35% of the gross to the state with full right to audit, including spot audits, and full adherence to California criminal and civil law with all right of sovereignty waived by the tribe. Let them live like the rest of us and have to deal with the state's hand on their throat. I'll be voting no across on these.