Author Topic: Early Voting #'s  (Read 2378 times)

Offline XSleuth

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1481
  • XSleuth aka Fred
    • XSleuth
Early Voting #'s
« on: October 31, 2007, 07:17:25 AM »
"Anna: 491 people have voted — 63 on Monday — in the election in regards to the legal sale of beer, wine and liquor election for off-premise consumption."  http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/2007/10/31/mckinney_courier-gazette/news/aaanews08.txt

I wonder who's doing all that voting?  Is it easier to get people to go to the polls over something they already have and want to keep, or over something they want to change?  Seriously asking here.  I'm sure there's some psychology folks here that could provide insight.  Besides, everybody's a psych-something after they've had a few (psychologist, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, psychotic, etc).

By the way, why don't more psychics win the lottery?  I'm just curious.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 07:30:48 AM by Fred08 »

Offline ehowton

  • Colonel COURAGEOUS Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 7702
  • Fingering the Muse
    • http://ehowton.livejournal.com
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2007, 09:54:53 AM »
My guess would be neither.  The issue at hand is a hot topic, and people feel strongly about their point of view.  Its likely because the population is so galvanized that we're experiencing a record turnout.  Who's doing all the voting?  Myself, and everyone I know.  If I know you, you've voted.  Period.  The question I have is, "Who hasn't voted, and why?"
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 11:04:37 AM by ehowton »

Offline Meta

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2007, 11:44:32 AM »
I showed off my sticker! My vote obviously counted!
Anyone who isn't dead or from another plane of existence would do well to cover their ears right about now.Dogma

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.~~ Margaret Mead

Offline XSleuth

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1481
  • XSleuth aka Fred
    • XSleuth
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2007, 12:17:35 PM »
"Who hasn't voted, and why?"

I haven't yet.  I'm still undecided.  I'm leaning toward voting against, but I'm concerned about the wording.  What does it mean by "110 percent, or a greater percentage"?

Proposition 3 reads "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year."

It seems to me, this would not limit the appraisal increase to 10% as I believe it was intended.  For example, suppose my tax appraisal last year was $100k.  And suppose this years market value is $115k, then the max I could be taxed at is ambiguious.  It would be the lesser of $115k or $110k+.  I think it's the "or greater percentage" that gets me, along with the fact that the market value is determined by "the appraisal entity".

Please help me understand why I should vote FOR.

Daisy

  • Guest
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2007, 12:20:33 PM »
I believe that drinkers are more likely to vote on this ballot.  And that people on the fence are more likely to be non-drinkers who are ambivalent and won't vote.

I believe there are more drinkers in Anna than non-drinkers and therefore I think that the FOR will prevail by a landslide.

Offline XSleuth

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1481
  • XSleuth aka Fred
    • XSleuth
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2007, 12:53:46 PM »
Just to complete that thought, it appears the Maximum Appraisal is only limited by the Market Value which is determined by the Appraisal Entity.

Last   110%   Market   Max
Year   and up   Value   Appr
100k   110k +   95k   95k
100k   110k +   100k   100k
100k   110k +   105k   105k
100k   110k +   110k   110k
100k   110k +   115k   115k

Offline ehowton

  • Colonel COURAGEOUS Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 7702
  • Fingering the Muse
    • http://ehowton.livejournal.com
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2007, 01:56:35 PM »
"Who hasn't voted, and why?"

I haven't yet.  I'm still undecided.  I'm leaning toward voting against, but I'm concerned about the wording.  What does it mean by "110 percent, or a greater percentage"?

Proposition 3 reads "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year."

It seems to me, this would not limit the appraisal increase to 10% as I believe it was intended.  For example, suppose my tax appraisal last year was $100k.  And suppose this years market value is $115k, then the max I could be taxed at is ambiguious.  It would be the lesser of $115k or $110k+.  I think it's the "or greater percentage" that gets me, along with the fact that the market value is determined by "the appraisal entity".

Please help me understand why I should vote FOR.

As a rule, I vote against constitutional amendments (unless they're for creating a smaller government) and things which  end in "And the levy of a tax in payment thereof."  Simple.

Offline JORDAN

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2007, 12:27:48 AM »
Fred, I am suprised to hear that you are unsure of how you will vote.  You have been very out spoken on the issue.

1)I am not going to say that crime does not increase because of the sales of alcohol, but I will say that the City of Anna has not seen a noticable increase in crime.  People do not come to Anna to cause trouble, and then buy their alcohol, as some have suggested.
2)Brookshires
3)Alcohol does not make the town look trashy.  Look at fossil creek and anna fine wine and spirits, they are in multi million dollar facilities.  The Coyote Den looks much more inviting and professional, and if it were not for the increase in sales the owner might not have been able to make those much needed updates to the building.
4)The SOB issue has already been taken care of by the City Council.  They have passed ordinances to make it very difficult for them to set up shop in Anna.  Every city has a place zoned for those types of businesses, so it is not just Anna that has to worry about them.
5)The revenue lost from the sales of alcohol are not just the several hundred thousand dollars from the taxes, but also from the people who come to Anna for alcohol, and spend their money at other businesses in Anna.
6)The city services are partially funded from this revenue.  We have a Volunteer Fire Dept that works very hard, and could use better equipment, and will eventually be a paid department.  Public works could use more manpower, and equipment.

Fred, I respect your beliefs and like your involvement on this forum.  I am not trying to change anyone's beliefs or values.  I dont buy the idea that Anna will send a bad message to other businesses it alcohol is voted out.  I think that Anna will grow with or without alcohol, just not at the same pace.  300,000 to 500,000 is not alot of money to loose for a town like McKinney or Plano.  However it is for a town the size of Anna.  The housing market is down all over the country, and Anna is suffering from it too.  Building permit sales are very low in Anna right now, and if you take away the alcohol, I think the city will suffer because of it.  The other night I was driving through town, and I saw a red sign that stated "keep THEIR alcohol, out of OUR town".  When I saw that sign I finally realized that they(you know who I am talking about) were not backing this petition because they wanted to BETTER Anna, or make Anna SAFER.  If you have a personal agenda, SAY IT, dont say it is for other reasons that are not true.  I was raised in a family of non drinkers.  My grandfather(mom's dad) owned a winery in Gunter, and would have a glass of wine every night.  My other grandfather was a Baptist Minister, so I come from both sides of the fence.  I see both sides of the issue, and it is my opinion that right now it helps more than it will EVER hurt.  Just my opinion.

Offline XSleuth

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1481
  • XSleuth aka Fred
    • XSleuth
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2007, 08:32:50 AM »
LOL.  My subtle redirection got you.  I was talking about Proposition 3 and property taxes.  I think I've been clear on the alcohol issue.  Once a flip-flopper, always a flip-flopper, so don't be surprised if I come out against it in the end.

I understand your arguments.  My concern is an irrational one when viewed through the human eye.  Mine is a spiritual battle.  I drank it, said the stupid stuff, did the stupid things, hurt people along the way, and have been delivered.  And it is my desire to not be a stumbling block for others.  That's what I believe Anna has chosen for itself.  We are the place to come if you have no self control.

So what is your affiliation with the city?  I know you don't represent them here, but I'm just curious.

Offline CAB

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2007, 09:21:04 AM »
Anyone know the hours to vote?  I assumed they were the same hours as city hall, but I am pretty sure I saw something that said voting hours were open until 7 pm.. ??

Offline ehowton

  • Colonel COURAGEOUS Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 7702
  • Fingering the Muse
    • http://ehowton.livejournal.com
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2007, 09:30:59 AM »
Anyone know the hours to vote?  I assumed they were the same hours as city hall, but I am pretty sure I saw something that said voting hours were open until 7 pm.. ??

Yes CAB, 0700-1900.  or 7:00AM - 7:00PM for you civilians.

Offline ehowton

  • Colonel COURAGEOUS Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 7702
  • Fingering the Muse
    • http://ehowton.livejournal.com
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2007, 09:42:36 AM »
I drank it, said the stupid stuff, did the stupid things, hurt people along the way, and have been delivered. 

THIS!  THIS I understand.  You have not ever said THIS before!

Hell man, dragging the truth out of people is killing me!  For example, have you seen the doorhanger?  "Studies show SOB's follow liquor?"  We asked Mr. Deragon which studies he referenced.  His reply?  "Oh, that was just my opinion."  THEN WHY THE HELL DID IT SAY, "KNOW THE FACTS?"  (I know the answer to this, actually, but refuse to say it in a public forum.)

Fred, yes, I understand.  I also must admit something.  I've never done drugs, I've never done regrettable stupid things under the influence, nor hurt people along the way because of it.  I'm sorry you have, and you alone sir, have to live with that.

I WILL FIGHT FOR MY RIGHT TO DRINK!  DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME FOR THOSE REASONS ABOVE!

Once again, we come to personal responsibility.  Some have it, some don't.

When I lived in Wise County our vehicles were vandalized and I called the Sheriff's department.  Want to know what he told me?  "Well, boys will be boys."  I NEVER DID THAT KIND OF STUFF WHEN I WAS A BOY!  So just who the hell is he talking about?  Other boys? 

There's no right answer Fred, except this:  Do NOT operate on the assumption that you have a duty to protect me from my own harmful behavior, and that you know best what constitutes harmful behavior.  I was never one of those "Other boys" and as long as I am able, I will fight those who wish to regulate me because of them.

Offline Glodowg

  • Major FANTASTIC Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2503
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2007, 09:51:25 AM »
I voted this morning.  They lovely ladies working there said I was their first taker.  They said to send all my friends cause they were bored.  LOL!  I told them I was the last of my friends to vote.

I am surprised there has not been more voting - what with all the bruuhahhahahhaa   and all.
"The view represented in this post are mine alone, unless otherwise quoted.  They do not necessarily represent those of my employer or any group of which I am a member.  These views are also not necessarily indicative of official policy." ~Wingnut

Yeah what he said!

Offline drax0r

  • Major FANTASTIC Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3481
  • Muckraker Extraordinaire
    • Anna Texas Community Forum
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2007, 10:33:53 AM »
I am surprised there has not been more voting - what with all the bruuhahhahahhaa   and all.

There have been almost as many people vote in early voting so far as the total number of people that voted in the 2005 alcohol election.  I think the turnout has been fantastic.

Also, Anna has something like 1.5% of the population of Collin County and yet Anna residents represent 10% of the early votes so far county-wide. I think that's pretty cool.
Everything I say, do, imply, or infer is the sole representation and responsibility of the individual who owns this account and does not represent the opinion, policy, position, or intent of any organization or other entity, public or private.

Offline XSleuth

  • Captain Awesome Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1481
  • XSleuth aka Fred
    • XSleuth
Re: Early Voting #'s
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2007, 10:36:27 AM »
Sorry if I missed it when you dragged.  Just a simple question, assuming it mattered, would have gotten a similar response.  I say this because I don't see that it matters if I've done these things.  The past shapes us, but it does not define us.  Today, I am not the same person I once was.

I am impressed by your control.  It is very hard, from my perspective having done these things, to believe that you've never acted out of character under the influence, speaking stupid things that you wouldn't have otherwise said.  I find it hard to believe that you've not performed some act under the influence, that looking back you think 'now that was pretty ignorant'.  I find it hard to believe others have not been impacted in any way by staying out late with the drinking buddies instead of spending that time with family, or by those spoken words that strained friendships.

I did.  But now I don't.  And I don't want to encourage anyone else to do the same.  Yes, I've tried to refute the arguments here with logic because to some that's all that will make sense.   But I've defined my position in terms of 'family friendly' before, and that still stands.   We agreed (not necessarily you & me) that it's just a difference in definition of 'family friendly' and a different tolerance level in what is acceptable and what is not.  To some, it's ok to go to the strip club, as long as you don't go home with one.  To others, you can look but don't touch.  To some, you don't go, but it's ok if others do.  To some, we don't want them to exist.  Similarly, the liquor stores, though they are not an eyesore and they bring money to the city, I don't want them here.  I'd prefer them not exist, but I have less of a vote in that matter.  I do have a significant vote in this one.

I have great respect for the people here, and judge no one.  I'll share an example I heard recently.  If you take the most righteous man and elevate him to the roof tops and the most lowly person down in the gutter, then consider God is the sun looking down on the two, from where He sits, there's no difference in the two men.  They are both so far from God that the difference in elevation is negligible.  We are all somewhere in the middle and it serves no one to try to negotiate status.  We all have a long way to go to get there.  My goal is to make sure everyone keeps heading in the right direction.