To My New York Facebook Fam: Amendments on the Ballot for Approval Proposal One - Authorizing Casino Gaming: Liz Kruger (D-State Senator) - someone I listen to because of her critical thinking - thinks that the wording of this amendment on the ballot is misleading, in that it focuses more about economic development and job creation (the hoped-for after-effects) than what the amendment actually does, which is authorize an expansion of casino gambling. This proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the state constitution is to allow the legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos. She voted in the Senate against this proposal for multiple reasons, largely stemming from her concerns that the amendment and the previously-passed implementing legislation do not ban political contributions from casino operators, do not adequately address issues of local control over casino siting and preserve a communitys right to say no, and do not permanently guarantee a fair portion of gambling revenue will be allocated to local governments. Her last reason is significant enough for me. I would vote against this. Proposal Two – Additional Civil Service Credit for Veterans with Disabilities Certified Post-Appointment: This proposed amendment would create an exception to the one-time-only additional credit rule in the civil service system. It would permit veterans who are certified disabled after having already received credit at one appointment or promotion (because of their status as veterans) to receive additional civil service credit one more time after certification of their disability. I support this proposal. Vets put their lives on the line for this country, whether right or wrong, and anything that can be done for them is worth it. Proposal Three – Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities: The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 5 of article 8 of the state constitution is to continue to allow counties, cities, towns, and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness incurred for the construction or reconstruction of sewage facilities. Liz supports this proposal, which provides flexibility to localities in ensuring access to clean water. I would agree. The state legislature is iffy with this whole fracking thing and anything that allows localities with flexibility to ensure access to clean water is a no-brainer. Lets say that localities had to rely on getting a lot of their so-called clean water from areas that are near places doing hydro-fracking. So it is necessary that localities arent put in a position to compromise their water resources, which they would do if they incurred debt for the construction of sewage facilities. Proposal Four – Settling Disputed Title in the Forest Preserve: This amendment would allow the legislature to settle 100-year-old disputes between the state and private parties over ownership of certain parcels of land in the forest preserve by giving up the states claim to disputed parcels. In exchange, the state would receive land for incorporation into the forest preserve. Liz supports this proposal, which is necessary because of an esoteric constitutional prohibition on any changes to forest preserve land. I would vote no on this at the moment until I fully understood the dynamics of how the land was acquired. The land was taken from the natives in the first place. So I wouldnt be quick to say that this land belongs to a private party (hes already unjustly enriched). At least with the state still having claim to the land it might wind up getting back to indigenous people. Proposal Five – In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals: This amendment would allow the state to convey approximately 200 forest preserve acres to NYCO Minerals for mining. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the state as much or more land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million. This land would be added to the forest preserve. Liz supports this proposal, which, as with the previous one, she thinks is necessary because of an esoteric constitutional prohibition on changes to forest preserve land. For the reason I gave in Proposal 4 I would say no this time around. Proposal Six – Increasing Age Until Which Certain State Judges Can Serve: The purpose of this amendment is to increase to the age of 80 the maximum age until which Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals may serve, upon certification of need and competence. Liz supports this proposal. She claims that the reality of people living longer and remaining active contributors to society at older ages would justify this change. She generally doesnt support mandatory retirement ages, which she believes are a form of age discrimination. I love Liz, but Im going to say no to this. Heres why: A lot of older white judges still carry racist views when it comes to giving justice to Black folks. So why do we need a racist judge still in power for another 10 years? Im quite glad to see some of these judges go at 70. The younger white ones coming along have interacted with Black lawyers and Black judges so their thinking is a little different, although some of them have to be watched too. But when we vote for a Supreme Court Judge the power of the governor, by being able to appoint him/her to the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals, overrides our original intent of voting for a justice, which more than likely was never to give someone a lengthy power which often turns into a dictatorship type of power. So I say the retirement age of 70 is good enough at this time. When we start seeing a considerable amount of decisions toward Black folks being justly made then we can talk about amending that provision.
Posted on: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 06:31:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015