Here are some thoughts about the Nov. 4 ballot propositions that are also explained in the 124-page publicity pamphlet from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.
• Proposition 100 would ban state and local governments from enacting sales taxes or transfer fees on real estate sales in Arizona. Proponents say real estate is already taxed annually for property taxes, so a transfer tax would be unfair.
I agree.
|
|
• Proposition 101 claims to preserve "freedom of choice" for Arizonans to select health care for themselves, their families and their employees.
Opponents say its passage could block future attempts to enact an expanded health-care program. To preserve that option for my children and grandchildren, I’ll vote no.
• Proposition 102 is a shorter version of a measure voters defeated last year to define marriage in the Arizona Constitution as a union between one man and one woman.
State law already says that, but proponents fear a court or future constitutional amendment could legalize same-sex marriages in Arizona.
Assuming you have strong feelings on this, I’ll leave it up to you.
• Proposition 105 would require a majority of all registered voters, not just a majority of those casting ballots, to pass any future initiative measure mandating a spending or tax increase.
"Majority rule" may sound as good as "mom" or "apple pie," but this version really means almost certain death for any future tax or spending increase.
We Americans don’t always go to the polls, and those who do don’t always vote on the propositions. If this passes, voters who don’t mark their ballots or who have died, moved, taken ill or stayed home would count as "no" votes on tax and spending measures.
It would be almost impossible to pass anything, so I’m a "no" on this one.
• Proposition 200 was written by payday loan firms to ensure they can continue to charge outrageous rates as long as anyone is alive to pay them. Don’t be fooled by the sponsoring name, "Arizonans for Financial Reform," or the website, "ReformAZPayday Loans."
If this initiative loses next month, current state law says payday firms must stop charging interest of up to 458 percent in 2010. The limit would then be 36 percent, the same as the ceiling for banks, savings and loans, and other lending firms.
Vote no on 200.
• Proposition 201, which calls itself the "Homeowners’ Bill of Rights," would allow both homeowners and prospective homeowners to sue builders if a new home develops a serious problem in its first 10 years.
Why would non-buyers be authorized to sue builders?
Opponents say buyers already have good protection for resolving home defects through negotiations. This measure would require disputes to be settled in court, probably doing more for lawyers than for homeowners.
I consulted for some homebuilders several years ago, but I’ve also owned five homes over the years. This measure goes too far, so I’ll vote no.
• Proposition 202 would amend some rules and penalties for firms that might hire illegal workers.
I have a gut feeling that a federal law on this topic would make more sense than a state measure. I’ll vote no.
• Proposition 300 is something I strongly favor. It would raise legislators’ salaries from the $24,000 we approved in 1998 to $30,000 a year starting in January.
Thirty grand still isn’t enough for working in Phoenix for six months of a regular session and umpteen more days during the other six months of the year. We should reward those who will do it. Maybe some better people will run for the seats.
• Proposition 403 is on the ballots of those who live in Tucson Unified School District. Pleave vote for it. It would allow a modest budget override for the next seven years to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes, just as most other local districts have done.
TUSD has made some mistakes, but it has two new board members and a new superintendent.
Most of all, the kids deserve more help.
Contact Steve Emerine or e-mail comments for publication at editor@azbiz.com. Emerine is a regular Monday guest on the John C. Scott radio talk show, which airs from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and from 11 a.m. to noon weekdays on The Voice KVOI 690-AM. This column appears weekly in Inside Tucson Business.







Comments
Steve Emerine wrote on Oct 16, 2008 3:56 PM:
JMoritz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:53 PM:
B Klein wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:12 PM:
Kay wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:00 PM:
It bothers me that these initiatives are so hard to understand. "
Cindy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:50 AM:
This was the first time I voted against giving the Legislators bigger salaries. While I agree they are underpaid, they did not mind raising the fees, some by astronomical amounts, on everything possible this year. Should we now reward that with a pay raise, or should we expect them to tighten their own belts in a recession like the rest of us? "
Bill Heuisler wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:14 AM:
Again, we agree on most everything. Who has changed? Or have we both become all squishy in our dotage?
One difference: on 403, when you write the kids deserve more help, I agree. But this override merely allows budget shifts - higher salaries for the latest Superintendent and his "Assistants" who don't deserve the collective millions they demand. Money for kids? Let's hire lower paid bureaucrats and spend the difference on classrooms and teachers.
Best wishes, Bill "
Sanda wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:27 PM:
sallad4 wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:33 PM:
AZ RN wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:28 PM:
Prop 105 isn't about taxes - it's about taking away our voting rights. It would affect every citizen initiative because all measures require enforcement or administration - even if it's a minimal cost. Prop 105 has no place in Arizona's Constitution which was designed to protect our rights - not destroy them as this measure would do.
More information at The Voters of Arizona: http://thevotersofaz.com "