Vote for the CTLAC's Petitions get your friends to vote for them

You are optomistic Fred. It might be gone before then.

Your comment about D1 certainly validates one of the reasons that CTLAC harped on about why we didn't want at-large commissioners doesn't it? This is exactly what they said could happen and so it will.

D1 will have Davis, the first at-large has already been determined and she lives in D1 and as for the other at-large regardless of who gets elected he will be from D1 also.

Regardless of how those two at-large operate, it certainly gives the appearance of unfairness doesn't it? And it is in fact totaly unbalanced.

If I lived in one of those other districts (especially D4) I know I would certainly feel a little (or a lot) under represented.

But hey, fear not, Roy Lyons is riding to the rescue to protect our rights. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Mike, I may be an optomist as you say, but I have researched how he Courts have handled situations like this in the past.

It is always hard to figure out how a Court will rule, but the Florida Supreme Court as well as the US Supreme Court typically rule for the people initiatives.

On at least 2 occasions I have noted Florida Appelate Courts wait until after the election to render its ruling.  In both of those instances they have taken the position that the people have spoken.

So People Speak, Speak Loud and Clear with your votes.  This is one time that your voice may override the financial considerations of the special interests whose decisions drive up your tax burden and fatten their own wallets.

Even if the appelate court rules with Roys Protective Order for Special Interests as I call it, an immediate appeal to the Florida Supreme Court would stay that order and allow the citizens to vote.  I ask each of you reading this to ask 3 of your friends to vote for the CTLAC's petitions, and ask each of them to ask 3 of their friends and so  on and so forth.

I still feel Watts has violated legal ethics rules discussed under JD's blog, If you feel the same way maybe a grass roots complaint to the bar will send a message to attorneys about the way they deal with conflicts of interest.

Fred;

I figured there would be some really obtuse and meaningless blogs posted just to chase yours off the front page. I'm pleasantly surprised that there have not been.

I still haven't quite made up my mind about the 60% one, but I am certainly voting yes on two of them.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Finder said:

I figured there would be some really obtuse and meaningless blogs posted just to chase yours off the front page. I'm pleasantly surprised that there have not been

Not to say anything for or against CTLAC or anyone else, but the idea that bloggers are going to chase someone off the front page is silly.  It has been my experience with MCS that you never, ever

a) say anything bad about CTLAC

b) say anything bad about independent candidates

c) say that the county government is not wasteful and corrupt

If you say either of these three things you will be involved in a very long blog in which 2-6 people will take turns explaining how wrong you are.  You people own MCS.

Not to say anything for or against CTLAC or anyone else, but the idea that bloggers are going to chase someone off the front page is silly.

Not silly at all Felix. Unless you have been here under a different screen name you haven't been around long enough to have made that statement. 

It has happened on numerous occasions when someone starts a blog that is against the 5+2 or CPVR. Go back and do some research on some of the key2life blogs and go to those pages on the site. You'll see that within an hour or so there were 12-15 blogs posted to get the one against 5+2 off the front page. 

Felix I fail to see how you connect being against the 5+2 is being for CTLAC. Just like being for the 5+2 doesn't make you for CPVR.

I'm not saying CTLAC is infallible but so far they're doing a whole lot better than CPVR. Though, as I said, my jury is still out on the 60% amendment. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Or look up Linda5 aka Key2life aka karen lake, where we talked about the concert on the green.   There have been some other bloggers who have done the same.  So it's not silly.  However, i agree with your other two points felix, eventhough i rarely care if anybody writes something negative about the CTLAC or an Indy.  On that same token, if this hypothetical individual approaches the situation in a calm manner opened to debate, i doubt they'll be murdered on the blogs.  But you are right, this is typically (and i'm guilty) a critical forum of government (spending), and typically rather on purpose or not finds the bad in elected officials before the good is revealed.

Usually we support the independents b/c they are usually not constrained by special interests and many truly have the people and good ideas in mind, (they're never elected).  Heemer puzzles me sometimes running for a position that he disagrees with being in place, but he's explained that before, just puzzled at times. 

I'm not saying CTLAC is infallible but so far they're doing a whole lot better than CPVR. Though, as I said, my jury is still out on the 60% amendment. 

Mike, I'm with you 100% on the first staement. I think this group of sneaks needs to be dipersed or run out of the county. I also see nothing I'd want from the shifty CRC bunch either. They seem to be always at odds with the community and are only looking to help a select few especially in regards to this toll road they want at the expense of their neighbors. They are really nasty individuals.

I will say I am dead set aginstthe 60% level. It just hits me as unAmerican. Where does it stop? 70%? 75%? No, a fair vote, the only fair vote is 50% + 1. Anything else is stacking the deck. I would like to see that ammendment repealed, especially as it was passed by less than 60% ov the voters.

OGV;

The 60%, if it makes it past the courts will/is on the ballot this time around. A 50%+1 majority of no votes will leave our charter at the 50%+1 level. A 50%+1 majority of yes votes will change all future amendments to require 60% for approval.

I understand why they put this amendment on the ballot. It brings changes to the charter in line with the 60% requirement for changes to the state constitution. I understand that and have no problem with it being on the ballot. Enough people signed the petition to say that it should be voted on and that is how the system is supposed to work.

I'm just not sure I like the idea for the county, or the state for that matter. But the state is already a done deal.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.