Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone have any last-minute opinions on tomorrow's referendums? You can get a detailed descroption the by clicking here.
I am most concerned about #2, and am in support of it. We have far too few trauma centers in the State, espeially in some of the rural areas. I am very, very willing to pay an extra $20 for our two cars each year if it might save a life.
Didn't the 'SuperSpeeder' law was suppose to fund that? I Voted no on it, Cut $80M out of the budget somewhere else. And do you think those rural hospital will be able to keep a Trama level staff with just a few Trama's a month? The level of doctor they will need will never go there because they can't keep up there skills doing basic ER stuff most of the time.
Amendment 2: I have just a few problems with it. (However, I still voted YES!)
1) The tax will not generate all of the revenue needed to address the states Trauma care as needed. It is a small tax that will only deal with a small part of the problem. (Makes me wonder if this is only one in a chain of future votes for small amounts)
2) They have not explained exactly which projects this will fund. Will this build hospitals and trauma centers or will it merely boost medical transportation services. I just want to know where the money goes if we vote on it.
3) This is more of a social point, rather than structural to the amendment itself. It mostly stems from the "two-georgias" problem. I am from the core 10-county Atlanta region. It provides 51% of the state's revenue, but yet only gets 37% back. I think most of this money will fund rural areas mainly in South Georgia. I am fine with this as it is needed, but I can't help but to notice we are subsidizing so many rural road,rail, and health projects that connect small towns with underused 4-lane parkways, while Atlanta is choked. I often hear too many people talk about Atlanta with disdain rather than us as fellow Georgians all helping each other
---I am not against subsidizing some rural services as it is an important part of our state, but I do want to see people recognizing where the money comes from and what we (Atlanta) does to help them and not talking about us in such a bad way.---
The state is largely not helping Atlanta's problems and often doesn't even allow us to tax our selves to fix them. Every year there is some rural politician that proposes the state taking over MARTA and Hartsfield, even though by most comparable nation-wide metrics they are more efficient then their peers. Hartsfield pays for itself and is not supported by state taxes, even local Atlanta taxes are not supporting it anymore. It is self-supporting, but yet every year it is the same thing. We need to take Hartsfield over... it is so poorly run. I'm just tired of the disdain and lies. For me to vote yes for something that is mostly for South Georgians, I just want to know that South Georgians realize I am voting yes for it and want to be seen as being on the same side and I don't feel many often see that.
Amendment 1: I definitely voted --NO-- to this. When employees lose their jobs and look for new ones it is very important they don't share proprietary information from their old job. However, if this amendment is passed companies will be able to make it much harder for an employee to find a new job. It can hurt employees who are laid off, but want to find a job in the same industry, because it is what they know best. It can also hurt an employee negotiating a better salary, since it can be harder for them to find a new job. VOTE NO and don't believe those fluffly pro-business commercials. I want to attract businesses in many ways as possible, but an employee needs the right to be able to find another job on the -free market- of labor if they don't like their employer!
Amendment 3: I am definitely FOR allowing the DOT to enter multi-year contracts. This opens up more ways the DOT can fund roadway and bridge improvements. It allows multiple-year projects and the ability to collect money from development projects, private-public partnerships, and pay for the construction over multiple years. If we don't allow this the DOT will always be constrained at how it can spend its money and it will always be less effective and unable to take on large projects without drastically increasing taxes.
Amendment 4: I am definitely FOR. It can help the government operate more efficiently and have less year-to-year costs in the long term by making energy savings. It make take 10 years for those energy savings to pay off, but it makes us off better in the long run.
Amendment 5: Involves an issue in Savannah/Garden City about a few property owners of industrial land that want to be annexed to Savannah and pay for municipal services. Under an Amendment in 1950 and 1956 they were placed in an industrial economic development area that allowed them to get some limited services for a smaller tax, but forces that land to be used for industrial purposes. A yes vote will let them leave the industrial area, join the city, pay full city taxes, and rebuild the property as seen fit by Savannah zoning laws. This seems fine to me. The only hesitation I have... would this have any other consequences in local areas in other parts of the state where things are not so straight forward? I don't really know and that is what concerns me.
Referendum A: This one I am on the fence about. It removes taxes on business that have inventory stored up. (think about cars sitting on a dealership lot). I like the premise of removing this and allowing businesses to not be taxed for unsold inventory, however it will remove $2 million in taxes from the state budget without any value back to the citizens. It will allow some businesses to function more effectively. I want to remove it, but I also think that $2million in revenue needs to be made up in another way. We keep squeezing our state budget tighter and tighter and don't get anything done. I want this done, but I want it to be --Budget Neutral--
Didn't the 'SuperSpeeder' law was suppose to fund that? I Voted no on it, Cut $80M out of the budget somewhere else. And do you think those rural hospital will be able to keep a Trama level staff with just a few Trama's a month? The level of doctor they will need will never go there because they can't keep up there skills doing basic ER stuff most of the time.
It is indeed unreasonable to upgrade a rural ER to Level 1 or 2 in the middle of nowhere, but this money could be used to ensure availability of faster air transport services from these rural hospitals to a well equipped trauma center (e.g. helicopter pads at hospitals.) It could also be used to train doctors at rural hospitals on critical patient care (e.g. how to stabilize seriously injured patients prior to transport.) I work in an ER at a rural hospital. I have not yet seen a single gunshot wound, and only a few stabbings. However, I have seem a multitude of automobile accidents, and one individual who was burned over much of his body after a lawnmower exploded. Serious car accidents major such as these can happen anywhere, and people can die if they do not get he help they need ASAP. As I said, if my $10 per car per year has a slight chance to save one life, then I am more than willing to fork over the dough.
Your suggestion of cutting $80M out of the budget somewhere else" would work, if any of the other State's budget could afford a cut. As it is, we have cut too much from too many other budgets, and there is no money left to cut.
cwkimbro has a good question regarding how the funds will be spent. The fact is we don't know; we simply have to trust that the funds will be used efficiently and appropriately. I must admit that I am a little leery about this. I certainly plan to vote "yes" on this matter, though.
I found these interesting links about the trauma center issue. The first is clearly a political ad for it, but it has an interesting map!
(http://www.yes2savelives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mapV2.jpg (broken link))
I found an older ad from the last time they tried to get money for it (http://www.gha.org/Keyissues/TraumaDocument.pdf (broken link)). It has an interesting map highlighting counties of building new trauma centers.
This is a Word Document that shows a rough trauma center plan. It does not seem to have any specifics though, but it shows some of their organizational goals
A few key points:
-Form geographic areas for organizational structure of Level I trauma centers
-enhance medical communication
-regulate air medical transport to spread helicopter readiness throughout the state rather than centered at a Level 1 trauma center.
-build 4-6 level II-III in southern Georgia
Of course none of this lists costs and this document does not tell what this tax will/won't fund, but it shows the state's general 5-year plan.
This is an interactive map from the CDC that shows 1-hour ambulance/helicopter trauma center access in the U.S. (Note: It seems to be missing a hospital in Savannah that is a level 1 Trauma center)
(CDC - Injury - Trauma Care)
Amendment 2: I have just a few problems with it. (However, I still voted YES!)
1) The tax will not generate all of the revenue needed to address the states Trauma care as needed. It is a small tax that will only deal with a small part of the problem. (Makes me wonder if this is only one in a chain of future votes for small amounts)
2) They have not explained exactly which projects this will fund. Will this build hospitals and trauma centers or will it merely boost medical transportation services. I just want to know where the money goes if we vote on it.
3) This is more of a social point, rather than structural to the amendment itself. It mostly stems from the "two-georgias" problem. I am from the core 10-county Atlanta region. It provides 51% of the state's revenue, but yet only gets 37% back. I think most of this money will fund rural areas mainly in South Georgia. I am fine with this as it is needed, but I can't help but to notice we are subsidizing so many rural road,rail, and health projects that connect small towns with underused 4-lane parkways, while Atlanta is choked. I often hear too many people talk about Atlanta with disdain rather than us as fellow Georgians all helping each other
---I am not against subsidizing some rural services as it is an important part of our state, but I do want to see people recognizing where the money comes from and what we (Atlanta) does to help them and not talking about us in such a bad way.---
The state is largely not helping Atlanta's problems and often doesn't even allow us to tax our selves to fix them. Every year there is some rural politician that proposes the state taking over MARTA and Hartsfield, even though by most comparable nation-wide metrics they are more efficient then their peers. Hartsfield pays for itself and is not supported by state taxes, even local Atlanta taxes are not supporting it anymore. It is self-supporting, but yet every year it is the same thing. We need to take Hartsfield over... it is so poorly run. I'm just tired of the disdain and lies. For me to vote yes for something that is mostly for South Georgians, I just want to know that South Georgians realize I am voting yes for it and want to be seen as being on the same side and I don't feel many often see that.
Amendment 1: I definitely voted --NO-- to this. When employees lose their jobs and look for new ones it is very important they don't share proprietary information from their old job. However, if this amendment is passed companies will be able to make it much harder for an employee to find a new job. It can hurt employees who are laid off, but want to find a job in the same industry, because it is what they know best. It can also hurt an employee negotiating a better salary, since it can be harder for them to find a new job. VOTE NO and don't believe those fluffly pro-business commercials. I want to attract businesses in many ways as possible, but an employee needs the right to be able to find another job on the -free market- of labor if they don't like their employer!
Amendment 3: I am definitely FOR allowing the DOT to enter multi-year contracts. This opens up more ways the DOT can fund roadway and bridge improvements. It allows multiple-year projects and the ability to collect money from development projects, private-public partnerships, and pay for the construction over multiple years. If we don't allow this the DOT will always be constrained at how it can spend its money and it will always be less effective and unable to take on large projects without drastically increasing taxes.
Amendment 4: I am definitely FOR. It can help the government operate more efficiently and have less year-to-year costs in the long term by making energy savings. It make take 10 years for those energy savings to pay off, but it makes us off better in the long run.
Amendment 5: Involves an issue in Savannah/Garden City about a few property owners of industrial land that want to be annexed to Savannah and pay for municipal services. Under an Amendment in 1950 and 1956 they were placed in an industrial economic development area that allowed them to get some limited services for a smaller tax, but forces that land to be used for industrial purposes. A yes vote will let them leave the industrial area, join the city, pay full city taxes, and rebuild the property as seen fit by Savannah zoning laws. This seems fine to me. The only hesitation I have... would this have any other consequences in local areas in other parts of the state where things are not so straight forward? I don't really know and that is what concerns me.
Referendum A: This one I am on the fence about. It removes taxes on business that have inventory stored up. (think about cars sitting on a dealership lot). I like the premise of removing this and allowing businesses to not be taxed for unsold inventory, however it will remove $2 million in taxes from the state budget without any value back to the citizens. It will allow some businesses to function more effectively. I want to remove it, but I also think that $2million in revenue needs to be made up in another way. We keep squeezing our state budget tighter and tighter and don't get anything done. I want this done, but I want it to be --Budget Neutral--
I voted no on Amendment 1, and yes on everything else.
I don't think most people understood what question 1 was about. The wording on those amendments is setup as to be confusing and mislead. Had that question been worded in a way that indicated the true meaning, it would have probably failed.
Question 2 was a tough call, but I voted in favor. You would assume the Legislature could find $50 million per year for something as important as trauma care (assuming 5 million cars @ $10/car). It seemed like they wanted to punt it to the voters to escape any responsibility for doing their job. Now they will have to do the right thing and pass funding.
I don't think most people understood what question 1 was about. The wording on those amendments is setup as to be confusing and mislead. Had that question been worded in a way that indicated the true meaning, it would have probably failed.
Hooray for a retarded electorate and an election system that lets you put "BILL TO SAVE THE WORLD AND CURE POVERTY AND AIDS" as the wording for something that's going to screw workers and entrepreneurs while scaring future business away
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
