Quote:It does when you see who is behind Amendment 1. Which also is why it was worded to make you think it supports solar yet is designed to punish anyone that chooses to unplug.
The person behind Amendment 1 has nothing to do with whether the concept of punishing solar users makes sense or not.
Quote:The person behind Amendment 1 has nothing to do with whether the concept of punishing solar users makes sense or not.
This is really not the topic for you dubbers.
Quote:This is really not the topic for you dubbers.
I am just trying to figure out what issues will be on my ballot and get other voters' opinions about them.
Quote:I am just trying to figure out what issues will be on my ballot and get other voters' opinions about them.
It's okay to ask questions, the ballots can be confusing and they word them like you need a law degree to understand them sometimes! Lol
Quote:It's okay to ask questions, the ballots can be confusing and they word them like you need a law degree to understand them sometimes! Lol
Not to defend jdub (god knows that's the last thing I'd do lol) but that's why I made the thread.
Quote:The person behind Amendment 1 has nothing to do with whether the concept of punishing solar users makes sense or not.
Quote:I am just trying to figure out what issues will be on my ballot and get other voters' opinions about them.
Quote:It's okay to ask questions, the ballots can be confusing and they word them like you need a law degree to understand them sometimes! Lol
Of course there is nothing wrong with asking questions and trying to figure things out. The statement I replied to is not a question, it's a statement presented as fact which is also wrong as it pertains to politics. I could have been less snarky but the condescension gets old sometimes.
Quote:#jdubworldproblems
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
Quote:What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
It's a play on words about the saying "first world problems".
Quote:We need a ballot amendment to ensure all ballot amendments are worded in a clear, simple and straight forward manner. It would probably be convoluted though.
Understand that the convolusion is intentional, and then the big picture will come into focus. There are dozens of instances where citizens accidentally voted in a bill for the opposite of their intent. Classic
Quote:Understand that the convolusion is intentional, and then the big picture will come into focus. There are dozens of instances where citizens accidentally voted in a bill for the opposite of their intent. Classic.
When I lived in Ohio, there were competing ballot issues related to smoking. One was going for a constitutional amendment, so passage of Issue 5 (smoking bans) would have been useless if Issue 4 (smoking allowances) passed.
Quote:It prevents non-solar families from subsidizing the cost of solar. Electric companies can charge solar users for their negative impact on the grid. Anyone with solar who is off the grid would have no problem.
Let me add that very few of the solar households would be among the poor and lower middle class, so asking them to subsidize the well-to-do people who buy solar panels is a regressive policy.
So it really would not help the people it reportedly is intended for?
Quote:So it really would not help the people it reportedly is intended for?
Correct. If you wonder how things like this get on the ballot, worded in misleading ways, ask the lobbyist who pushed for it or the politicians who approved it. Then ask how much they got paid for it.
Quote:It prevents non-solar families from subsidizing the cost of solar. Electric companies can charge solar users for their negative impact on the grid. Anyone with solar who is off the grid would have no problem.
Let me add that very few of the solar households would be among the poor and lower middle class, so asking them to subsidize the well-to-do people who buy solar panels is a regressive policy.
Kind of vague, though. What exactly constitutes a "subsidy?" And how can a solar user have a negative impact on the grid?
A constitutional amendment prevents the legislature from passing laws that contradict it. So someone wants to handcuff the legislature. What kind of law could the legislature pass that the supporters of this amendment are worried about? Would this amendment prevent the state or local government from passing a tax credit for solar panels? Why is the power industry worried about such a thing?
I just don't get why the power industry wants this amendment. Solar power is such a miniscule thing compared to the power generated by power plants.
I voted no because I just don't understand what the heck this amendment is all about.
It's about monopoly. And no game has caused more fights than that one.
Quote:Mom bought the condo and pays taxes on it. I don't pay a cent for anything on the planet.
You should run for President in 2020 on the GOP ticket. Sounds like you meet the criteria of the preliminary voters.
Quote:It prevents non-solar families from subsidizing the cost of solar. Electric companies can charge solar users for their negative impact on the grid. Anyone with solar who is off the grid would have no problem.
Let me add that very few of the solar households would be among the poor and lower middle class, so asking them to subsidize the well-to-do people who buy solar panels is a regressive policy.
Here is the problem with that, it is against the law to go off the grid in metropolitan areas.
Also, what do you mean by negative impact. Solar users still have to pay a nominal fee to be connected to the grid even if they don't tap into it. In times where they do need to subsidize their solar use they are currently charged at the same rate as you and I. Amendment 1 allows the power companies to charge solar users at a higher rate for using less electricity. This amendment is backed by the energy companies for the sole purpose of killing solar power.