"Prop 202 (Minimum Wage) NO, havent we lost enough jobs. Free markets please. PS if you're raising a family on $5.15 you and your children need to be sterilized. The gene pool needs a little chlorine." I literally spit soda out my mouth when I read this. Too true.

I agree across the board, except the Gay marriage, I say yes, stop letting people get stuff they have not earned. I have to 16 and pass a test to drive, I have to pass a test to get a diploma, and you have to be married to be considered a couple who can enjoy the benefits of such.

On 201 and 206 you are dead right, to hell with private property rights I guess, let the bar owners lose their ass as long as your kid who shouldnt be in the bar to begin with don't in hale smoke. Both of these are bulls***.

And 203, didn't we just have a 1 billion dollar surplus we were so proud of, use some of that money, or better yet, give it back to the people you took it from... US.

And the punitive damage one I disagree with also, sorry, they are illegal, they sholuld be in Mexico anyway, waiting for a visa, not working here to begin with, you get no protections from me.

MIC, sorry I didn't respond to you right away but I wanted to re-read Prop 106 again before I address it with you.

Before we dive into 106, what is wrong with the cruuent system that 106 will fix? I'm asking you because I don't know

OK, Prop 106 sets up an un-elected "board of trustees" that we can't get at when they make boneheaded decisions, assuming they're honest and theres no envelopes full of cash stuffed in a freezer somewhere. Based on the "Pro 106'" folks, it looks like the teachers unions will get some power out of this deal, which begs the question - what the hell do teachers unions know about raw land, ranching, conservation and real estate transactions? More on this latter.

Our constituion reads now, Article X, Section 4, (a) "All lands, timber, and other products of land, before being offered, shall be appraised for their true value, and no sale or disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration LESS than the value so ascertained. Sounds simple right? This is what it appraised for and wwe won't sell for a penny less

Prop 106 adds the words "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED" then goes on to list how this board of trustees can GIVE the land away to developers in a profit sharing scheme, no s***, read it. ""EXCEPT FOR CONSIDERATION CONSISTING OF A SHARE OF GROSS REVENUES GENERATED BY LEASE OR SALE APPROVED BT THE BOARD"

106 is full of special give away clauses for both public and private reasons. Well they don't say giveaway, they call it "NON-MONETARY CONSIDERATION". Read Section 4, B for that list.

106 takes 5% off the top to support itself. Thats 5% LESS school kids will get next year, and the year after, and the year after. At some point they (the "board") will need more money because they've grown into another tenticle of the government and they'll want 10%, maybe more

And my biggest problem, wheres the access guarantee. I'll save yeah the trouble, aint one. The best you get is "REASONABLE PUBLIC ACCESS". Nothing to define what's "reasonable"! No system to challange "reasonable"! Just the word of "the board"

But Dave, It'll never get abused you say. To which I respond, MIC you short sighted SOB, please see page 61 of your voter handbook and kindly look toward the bottem of the page where Chad Harper makes his argument for 106. Note the title in bold, " Increase Teachers Union Power by Supporting Prop 106" Chad goes on to note what I already know, that the "board will have the POWER to disperse the funds as they see fit"

Chad also reads 106 the same way I do, noting, "Another great facet of 106 is it will allow "the Teachers Board" to give the land away to conservationists". Note how he's already calling the board of trustees 106 sets up, "the Teacher Board" HAHAHAHAHA!!! No power grab here, I don't want the ring!!

The next argument for 106 on the same page is even better, it says " Protect Teachers Unions and Developers by Voting Yes" There not even hiding it!!

Protect Haliburton, Vote Republican this Nov 7th, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Please take another look at 106 and remember our bet, your elk steaks may be on trust land as we speak and it might not be "reasonable" for me to jump the fence and pack them out

Dave

I agree mostly with Hunter's votes, except

206 - I plan to hold my nose and vote yes on this one. It has enough exceptions to be tolerable. One or the other is going to pass so vote for the one that allows businesses to choose under most circumstances.

205 - Vote no, gee let's send ballots out to everyone so operatives can follow the postal truck collecting enough ballots to get their candidate "elected". It's funny how many of the people whining about corrupt vote counting want to mass mail out ballot like Publisher's clearing house tickets.

BTW I will vote no on 107 because I object to the injunctions on employers and governments providing medical benefits. That isn't the government's business. My objection is to overreaching government. The government does has the right to decide who does and doesn't get a marriage license. Put a straight yes or no proposition on the ballot regarding gay marriage and let us vote on it.  

I agree with much of what you say.....and want to just add that in general, I get tired of these state trust land deals and the whole set up... it's like an unwinable situation (gee, where would that be) or an unanswerable question (have you stopped beating your spouse?).... whatiz called, Hobson's Choice?  .....in that, by statute, we sell off public lands, many of them pristine, open areas . . . to developers (don't they control the state enough as it is) BUT the money goes for education, and how can anyone be against education?

We need a better way to fund education, AND keep as much open land as we can.  The developers would fill the Grand Canyon with water and sell lake-front property if they could  . . . our legislature is too much in their pockets, good heavens we have even had a governor who was a developer and a "real estate" mayor . . .

Near where I live, in the city limits of Phoenix, a section of public land, which for many years was attached to hiking trails, etc. got sold off in this manner, and now we have a McDonald's Cardboard Tasting Burger Shop, and a Walgreen's Can't Find Your Prescription, instead.  Progress?  Oh oh, the money went for education, must be win-win all around . . .

--KZ