HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Michigan (Group) » Michigan ballot proposals

Sat Oct 3, 2020, 10:38 AM

Michigan ballot proposals

Hi! Been trying to read up on our ballot proposals. Would like your input.

My local Democratic Party endorsements are "yes" for all three.

2 & 3 seem obvious yeses to me. Having some reservations on one. While I have no issue with using money collected from fossil fuel industries to help protect the environment from them, this argument against worries me....... specifically the part in bold. I'm curious if this argument is BS or does it hold and water? How are you all voting?

Source:

https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_1,_Use_of_State_and_Local_Park_Funds_Amendment_(2020)



Sierra Club Michigan Chapter: "Sierra Club recognizes and agrees with the need for greater investments in maintenance of recreational facilities within Michiganís state owned public lands. We have long advocated for the Legislature and Governor to find ongoing sources of funding to ensure that recreational facilities are properly maintained. However shifting prioritization of money from the MNRTF away from purchasing land and to the maintenance of facilities is shortsighted. Requiring revenue from a non-renewable source to go to ongoing, increasing funding needs creates financial problems, it doesnít solve them. If we are to mitigate climate change, we need to be protecting and preserving land and we need to be working to find new funding sources for the funds as we work to get ourselves off of fossil fuels. We canít continue to rely on oil and gas royalties as a funding source, when we urgently need to end our reliance on them to combat climate change and protect our environment. We need to find new, sustainable, long-term funding sources for the funds. ... Land is non-renewable. If we miss out on the acquisition of a spectacular parcel and it gets sold and subdivided, thatís thatówe missed it." [Source]


5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I'm voting YES on proposal 1
3 (60%)
I'm voting NO on proposal 1
2 (40%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

6 replies, 1882 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Takket (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2020, 10:39 AM

1. I voted yes on both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idziak4ever1234 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 3, 2020, 12:12 PM

3. I'm leaning towards Yes on 20-1 but would be interested in your take on the proposal.

Are there any scenarios where not needing a search warrant would be advantageous?

I'm thinking along the lines of human trafficking or child porn purveyors, etc. I was once in public library administration where I was involved in an undercover policeperson who came in one day to arrest a state senator for using our public computers to look at child porn. Would the policeperson have to wait to get a warrant? I'm just brainstorming here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2020, 12:07 PM

2. Your link doesn't work. Also, there are only 2 proposals on the ballot.

I'm sitting here and just now filling out my ballot which I received yesterday. Despite the Sierra Club's concerns (I've been a member in like, forever) I'll still vote Yes. I do agree with the Sierra Club that we need to work toward zero reliance on fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen any time soon, and in the meantime at the very least some of the funds are set aside for conservation.

I'd be interested in your take on Proposal 20-2 about search warrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 4, 2020, 10:40 AM

4. my third proposal is a millage for schools, so it is local to me

I'm voting yes on 2. People keep their entire lives on their phones now and i think their entitled to as much privacy there as they are in their homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 4, 2020, 10:53 AM

5. I sort of thought so. I have no local initiatives this time.

Re: Proposal 2 - I never thought of that, probably because I don't use a cell phone for anything other than having a Tracfone in my car for emergencies.

I was thinking more along the lines of if these Qanon/militia types or mass shooters are planning something and the authorities want to monitor them to ward off a disaster, I'm all for that. Or if they want to see who all are involved in a child trafficking ring it would be advantageous (aka Epstein).

On this issue, I seem to be able to see both sides of it. The police in this country have become so corrupted that I look at everything through that scenario, but they haven't always been so militant.

P.S. I think people would be foolish to think there is anything "private" about what they do on their cell phones these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2020, 11:01 AM

6. Yes on both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread