Referendum Questions
#21
Posted 09 November 2008 - 05:02 AM
As for complexity, I am not saying do nothing. I am merely saying that voters can end up voting against/for things that they wouldn't normally support merely because they don't understand the question. I reference Prop 8 again, which had a misleading question that was changed by the Cali. AG or Washington's I985, which was described as reducing congestion but would actually open car pool and bus lanes to all cars in all non-peak hours which were defined as 3 to 6pm and in the evenings and also divert funds from rural counties to King/Snomish (around Seattle). It was titled "Washington Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative (2008)". Google it, or read more at http://ballotpedia.o...nitiative_(2008)
Anyway, these are just two recent examples. I985 is very clearly an attempt to mislead voters with bad science. It all sounds so pat, until you actually talk to experts who might actually know something about the whole matter (and yes, experts can be wrong, but talk to enough of them and question how they arrived at their answers and you should arrive at something resembling the truth).
#22
Posted 09 November 2008 - 10:18 AM
That said, even when an initiative question is badly worded, the American process still seems to work. Voters were able to see through the smokescreen of I-985 and defeated it anyway.
#23
Posted 09 November 2008 - 10:59 AM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#24
Posted 09 November 2008 - 11:39 AM
As I said, I don't want a majority vote on minority rights. (The article notes that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protected aboriginal treaty rights, and Supreme Court decisions had upheld other rights such as native exemption from taxation.)
A "no vote on minority rights" qualification would also prevent initiatives like California's Proposition 8.
#25
Posted 09 November 2008 - 12:22 PM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#26
Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:31 AM
Some municipalities like referenda. Today's TC:
Central Saanich voters must decide on rec centre reno
Proposed expansion will cost $11.5M
By Richard Watts, Times Colonist
Residents of Central Saanich will be asked to vote in the upcoming municipal election whether to help pay to expand the Panorama Recreation Centre.
The question spells out the estimated additional charge to property taxes, $8.50 per $100,000 of assessed value or approximately $44.31 per household on average over 15 years.
The Panorama Recreation Centre is embarking on an $11.5-million expansion, adding an additional pool, waterslide, kiddie pool and hot tub. Ramps are being installed to make the new upgraded facility more accessible.
All three Saanich Peninsula municipalities, Central Saanich, Sidney and North Saanich, fund the Peninsula Recreation Commission which operates Panorama Recreation Centre. Sidney and North Saanich have agreed to fund the expansion in earlier referendums but Central Saanich has yet to offer a decision.
Tim Chad, chairman of the Peninsula Recreation Commission, said he believes residents of Central Saanich will opt to be participants in the new upgraded centre.
“I know that is popular among many of the people I’ve spoken to, “ said Chad. “It’s going to be a fantastic place.”
He said if the voters don’t agree to chip in, the money is still available. But the commission, said Chad, has not discussed what moves might be taken, if the vote goes against Panorama, such as charging Central Saanich residents extra at the door to use the facility.
The Panorama Recreation Centre question is one of four to be put to the voters of Central Saanich on the Nov. 15 ballot.
The other three are survey-style questions of a general nature to provide direction to the council.
Question 2 asks if higher priority should be given Central Saanich’s own projects, such as a new fire hall/police station.
Question 3 asks if the municipality should raise property taxes to maintain current service levels.
Question 4 asks if the municipality should increase borrowing, to be repaid through property taxes, to finance necessary infrastructure.
But their citizens don't necessarily feel the same way. An online comment on the same story:This same referendum came up several elections back and I can't believe we're going to have to go through this again. Unless the municipality is ready and willing to build their own facility, it is completely inappropriate to let the residents to decide whether to fund their portion of the area's only rec centre. A rec centre is basic community infrastructure, not an option - and certainly not a choice that is made instead of funding other infrastructure necessities like a new fire hall police station. We already know that approximately 1/3 of the users of this facility are residents of Central Saanich. Putting this issue to referendum is just plain wrong. Central Saanich council deserves a spanking. That they would offload an issue such as this onto the largely uninformed and apathetic residents (and you can count me as one of them), is unconscionable, and simply lends strength to the argument for amalgamation of the three Saanich Peninsula municipalities.
John Carswell: 30 September 2008, 07:11
Bizarre. The guy is so apathetic that he's willing to write an angry letter to the paper about it ....
Jacques;
I don't think it is a question of whether or not citizens like referendums, nor is it simply a question of 'public need' as so strongly suggested by a Mr. Carswell; the real question is whether or not our elected representatives are fiscally responsible. I object to my municipal council embarking upon large capital projects without tax payers approval. Central Saanich are to be commended for putting such a large capital project as the expansion of the Panorama facility subject to voter approval through a referendum.
By the way, I am a strong proponent of maintaining good sports and recreation facilities for our youth, it is an excellent investment.
#28
Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:57 PM
More at http://www.cfax1070....hp?newsId=10934
Meanwhile, the City of Victoria maintains that it doesn't need to hold a referendum to borrow $63 million for a new bridge.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users