Ballot measures: what's your take?

[LWolf]

There are 2 that I know I'll vote "Yes" on: 80 & 85

Two that are definite "NOs:" 82 & 83

The rest? I'm currently undecided, although I tend to lean one way or the other.

What are your thoughts?

[luv_mykatz]

1. I always look at who supports, and who opposes the measure.

I am voting No on 79. Groups supporting the measure are all Chambers of Commerce, and other Suits ( see Edward Abbey, for definition of Suits). I feel I am more likely to agree with the groups and the one realtor who posted arguments opposing it.

The Voter's Pamphlet does not list any arguments in opposition for either Measure 77 or 78. 77 seems pretty straightforward. Its purpose is to help the State government be better able to respond to and help with Oregonians affected by natural disasters.

78 simply aims to change some confusing descriptions of parts of our state government that are different than what kids learn about when they study in school. The purpose seems to be to help people become better informed about how Oregon's State government works, based on having terms match what they learn in our schools.

Neither measure seems likely to be costly to implement, and 77 has language providing for State funding to be returned to whatever level and function it would normally have been prior to any disaster happening.

I am voting Yes on Measure 80. It won't benefit me, but I hope it passes, and helps those who need it.

I am voting Yes on Measure 81. I have seen the carnage done by gill nets, and the damage to the fish that are caught by that method. Ugh! Definite Yes on this one, for me.

[LWolf]

6. I look at that, too.

I'm ready, just need to sit down and get it done.

[luv_mykatz]

2. Thanks for the heads-up on the other measures.

I was pretty tired when I looked at the Voter's Pamphlet the other night. I didn't see the other measures. Guess I need to do some more reading and research.

85 looks like a definite Yes vote.

I am not sure how I feel about Measures 82 and 83.

Oh, now I see you are voting No on these two measures. That sounds sensible to me.

[DreamGypsy]

3. I confess, I am unduly influenced by the endorsements of the Eugene Weekly...

OK, that's off my chest.

77 is OK. Yes, Give the Governor the ability to respond to disasters (eg. the Ducks and the Beavers both lose on the same weekend)
78 is stupid - uh, the constitution says 'department' meant to say 'branch', but take the hit now
79 is a No - Realtors do not want to complicate transactions, but shucks local governments can't do that now, and the state legislature would have to pass a bill
80 is whoa, dude. Corvallis Orange - Yes. don't fill the jails with potheads while Dad's polishing off a quart of JD; there will be adjustments to how pot is controlled, but let's allow that discussion
81 - here's a case of Eugene Weekly influence. NO. Kitzhaber has a new approach for restricting gill-netting on mainstream Columbia, but allowing on tributaries. Let's give the proposal a chance. Formerly a 'yes'.
82 - private Casinos - NO, nuff said. 'Family friendly gambling??' Don't think so. Let the Tribes have that revenue
83 - a particular private Casino - NO
84 - Eliminate Inheritance tax - on family farms worth over $7.5 million?? NO. OK, kinda close to home, as we have a blueberry farm. but if the value ever reaches $7.5 million, then the heirs will just have to deal with it.
85 -corporate kicker goes to education. YES. but I'd like to see a provision saying "not if creationism or climate change denial are part of the established curriculum".

[0rganism]

4. just voted this weekend, here's my take

77 and 78 - basically harmless, voted yes.
79 - hell no
80 - yes. "hell it's about time" yes.
81 - tossup. probably the hardest measure on the ballot for me. my wife voted yes because she thinks gill nets are inhumane. i didn't vote on this one.
82 and 83 - no. I like the poetic justice of tribal casinos, small consolation though it may be. and there's been a study showing the more slot machines the "Grange" installs, the less money schools get from the lotto, to the point where the education budget stands to lose money if the "Grange" develops to its (would-be) legal potential.
84 - NO. rich people pay the fuck up.
85 - yes. the kicker has always been a stupid idea. at least if this measure passes, some of the money gets rolled back into the education budget.

[cascadiance]

5. I'm getting close to finishing mine...

77 and 78 - Yes. These are more procedural fixes and I don't think there's too much opposition to what they do, and to prevent problems that might happen if these don't happen in emergency situations, etc.
79 - NO!
80 - Yes - I know the local Democratic party here has chosen not to taken a position on this, since though many don't have a problem to do what it tries to do, one person noted to me that it is poorly written. Not sure of the details on this. But I say even if it isn't written well, let's get it in to law, and if there are problems with it, we can fix them later. But we need to get this law in place to help us not criminalize people for smoking pot, which as big a prison population as we have, that is more heavily black and minority, I believe is another form of voter suppression of Democratic Party votes.
81 - I still haven't decided on this one yet and this along with the judge selections are what I'm still trying to work on before I turn in my ballot. I'm leaning yes, but I think you need to have work done with the state of Washington to make sure that those really trying to game the system and use gill nets in a bad way will just work from the state of Washington instead to do the same thing.
82 - No - we can go to the Indian casinos or play the lotto. If you have this in place you take away revenue the state gets from the lotto games too.
83 - No
84 - NO! - Another gift to the rich. This is even made worse that Oregon's laws on inheritance already have a loophole that costs the state $2 billion each year in lost tax revenue. This is that when you inherit an asset that has a capital gain associated with it (or at least if it was sold by the person that owned it before, they'd have to pay tax on the unrealized capital gain from the time they required this property. State law absolves those who receive this property from this unrealized/untaxed capital gains liability and instead has any capital gain liability starting with the day the property transfers to the inheritor. If you add this removal of inheritance tax liabilities, then you will increase the gaming the system that those owning big assets that have unrealized capital gains game the system. They simply will just hold on to this asset with the most capital gains liability, knowing that even if it is valued very highly, it won't be taxed to the inheritor, in addition to that inheritor not paying those unrealized capital gains taxes. This is NO with an exclamation point for me! We should have another proposition to change the way capital gains are assessed on these properties too.
85 - YES - the corporate kicker needs to either go altogether or be used for something that helps the average Oregonian like this prop does.

[OregonBlue]

8. I voted the same on all of these except 81 is a definite yes.

[LWolf]

7. I'm done.

I'll mail the ballot on my way to work this morning.

77/78/81 Yes,

79/84 No.

The hardest part was what to do about my state senator. He's a republican running unopposed. My voter's guide says "republican democrat." I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean, but he is definitely a republican. I couldn't find a Democrat in this region to write in. So I left it blank.