Rhode Island referenda
Nov. 3rd, 2006 05:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jwghI don't have any particular insights about any of these, so I would be interested in the views of others on any of these questions. The full list of referenda and explanations is available as a PDF from here.
Question 1: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (RESORT CASINO IN WEST WARWICK TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED BY A RHODE ISLAND BUSINESS ENTITY ESTABLISHED BY THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE AND ITS CHOSEN PARTNER)
A tentative no, even though I don't really have a problem with the Narragansetts opening a casino. It seems like the same result could be achieved without amending the constitution.
Question 2: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (ELECTIONS – RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS)
This restores the right to vote to all people who have been discharged from a correctional facility. (Previously, if they had a suspended sentence or were on parole or probation they still couldn't vote.)
I will vote yes on this. I don't have a problem with ex-cons voting. Also, it seems like whenever the criteria for who gets to vote becomes more complicated, one result is that a certain number of people who should be allowed to vote are incorrectly told they can't; it's a situation that's ripe for abuse and this amendment seems to simplify things a bit.
There are then a bunch of budgetary ones.
Question 3: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (BUDGET RESERVE ACCOUNT)
Question 4: HIGHER EDUCATION BONDS -- $72,790,000
($65 million for a new college of pharmacy building at URI, the rest for renovations at RIC.)
Question 5: TRANSPORTATION BONDS -- $88,500,000
(Mostly to repair bridges and roads, but also a little money for public transit stuff.)
Question 6: ROGER WILLIAMS PARK ZOO BONDS -- $11,000,000
(It seems to be somewhat vague as to what they will spend this money on. The DEM estimates the 'useful life' of the improvements to be 25-30 years.)
Question 7: FORT ADAMS STATE PARK RECREATION AND RESTORATION BONDS -- $4,000,000
(Half for general improvements, half to restore the fort.)
Question 8: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BONDS -- $3,000,000
(This is 'to provide funding assistance for local communities to develop,acquire or renovate recreation facilities.')
Question 9: AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS -- $50,000,000
(Mostly for the creation of affordable apartments, but $10 million is to create 'affordable home ownership opportunities.)
My inclination is to vote for all of these, but I don't know anything about them beyond what's in the booklet. Does anyone else? Update: The East Greenwich Pendulum discusses the referenda, and some more information is here.
As far as candidates go, I am basically going for a straight Democratic ticket. I do like Senator Chaffee -- he seems to think for himself a lot of the time, and I actually sent him a letter not long ago thanking him for his votes on a couple of bills -- but it just seems vital to me to, if at all possible, get rid of the Republican majority in the Senate, and I feel that by being a member of that Republican majority he is indirectly responsible for some very bad things indeed. (Also, I like Sheldon Whitehouse OK and voted for him the last time he ran for governor.)
What do you think?
Question 1: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (RESORT CASINO IN WEST WARWICK TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED BY A RHODE ISLAND BUSINESS ENTITY ESTABLISHED BY THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE AND ITS CHOSEN PARTNER)
A tentative no, even though I don't really have a problem with the Narragansetts opening a casino. It seems like the same result could be achieved without amending the constitution.
Question 2: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (ELECTIONS – RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS)
This restores the right to vote to all people who have been discharged from a correctional facility. (Previously, if they had a suspended sentence or were on parole or probation they still couldn't vote.)
I will vote yes on this. I don't have a problem with ex-cons voting. Also, it seems like whenever the criteria for who gets to vote becomes more complicated, one result is that a certain number of people who should be allowed to vote are incorrectly told they can't; it's a situation that's ripe for abuse and this amendment seems to simplify things a bit.
There are then a bunch of budgetary ones.
Question 3: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (BUDGET RESERVE ACCOUNT)
Question 4: HIGHER EDUCATION BONDS -- $72,790,000
($65 million for a new college of pharmacy building at URI, the rest for renovations at RIC.)
Question 5: TRANSPORTATION BONDS -- $88,500,000
(Mostly to repair bridges and roads, but also a little money for public transit stuff.)
Question 6: ROGER WILLIAMS PARK ZOO BONDS -- $11,000,000
(It seems to be somewhat vague as to what they will spend this money on. The DEM estimates the 'useful life' of the improvements to be 25-30 years.)
Question 7: FORT ADAMS STATE PARK RECREATION AND RESTORATION BONDS -- $4,000,000
(Half for general improvements, half to restore the fort.)
Question 8: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BONDS -- $3,000,000
(This is 'to provide funding assistance for local communities to develop,acquire or renovate recreation facilities.')
Question 9: AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS -- $50,000,000
(Mostly for the creation of affordable apartments, but $10 million is to create 'affordable home ownership opportunities.)
My inclination is to vote for all of these, but I don't know anything about them beyond what's in the booklet. Does anyone else? Update: The East Greenwich Pendulum discusses the referenda, and some more information is here.
As far as candidates go, I am basically going for a straight Democratic ticket. I do like Senator Chaffee -- he seems to think for himself a lot of the time, and I actually sent him a letter not long ago thanking him for his votes on a couple of bills -- but it just seems vital to me to, if at all possible, get rid of the Republican majority in the Senate, and I feel that by being a member of that Republican majority he is indirectly responsible for some very bad things indeed. (Also, I like Sheldon Whitehouse OK and voted for him the last time he ran for governor.)
What do you think?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 04:47 am (UTC)Chaffee vs. Whitehouse is tough. Chaffee certainly seems principled; he voted against the Iraq war, which is more than a lot of Democrats can say. But having the Republicans in control of the Senate has been so awful ...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 05:26 am (UTC)Also, it's nice to have some reasonable people moderating the Republican party. We all win when reasonable people are in both parties, and we all lose when either party becomes dominated by irrational extremists. In fact, that's really the biggest problem with the Republican party as it's been lately, thanks largely to Rove's strategy of screw-the-moderates,just-turn-out-the-nutcase-diehards.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 05:36 am (UTC)Chaffee's actually gotten a lot of support from the RNC for this election, because they think he could win. Do you think they would support him if they didn't think his presence in the Senate would help them further their goals?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 08:09 am (UTC)Then again, maybe the RNC figures if the Senate is extremely close, maybe Chafee will tow the party line more than he has so far with a comfortable Republican majority. There's also the PR aspect of how many seats change hands, though I suspect that's a small issue compared to having a Senator you expect to vote with you.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 11:56 am (UTC)