What does Amendment 1 REALLY say?

[hfojvt]

I see conflicting ads, both claiming to be on the side of Missouri farmers.

Not that I vote in Missouri anyway (the border ruffians usually come the other way) but based on this, I am inclined to vote no.

http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right-to-Farm,_Amendment_1_(August_2014)

Kinda wonder what my brother-in-law thinks though, since he and his family can voted in Missouri.

[Sherman A1]

1. I have decided to vote No

Last edited Thu Jul 31, 2014, 05:20 AM - Edit history (1)

on all the amendments offered. Received a mailing from the Sierra Club just the other day on Amendment 1 (The right to farm) and on Amendment 7 (the sales tax to support road repair and construction) and I must agree with their positions requesting NO votes on these issues.

Locally I am looking at 3 tax increase proposals
1). The State Sales Tax for Roads (mentioned above)
2). The School District wanting to increase taxes due to a combination of increased costs and declining property valuations from the fiscal crisis and foreclosures.
3). The Fire District wanting to increase taxes for the same reasons as the school district.

Last Year we increase property taxes to support the Library which I voted to support, but at this point unless the state legislature does something to increase the minimum wage and get economic growth going (so people can buy, maintain homes & increase property valuations) , I am voting against every tax increase that comes up.

Encourage Your Brother in Law to take time, research the issues and certainly go vote. His decision on any and all of the issues are his, but hopefully he will make informed decisions.

Text from email from Sierra Club on Amendment 1
"Dear Friend,

Protect Our Farms, Protect Our Food
Farmers Markets
Vote No on Amendment 1
On Tuesday, August 5, the Missouri Sierra Club urges you to vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 1. This misnamed "Right-to-Farm" amendment is an attempt to make it easier for big agribusiness to locate more CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) in Missouri while sidestepping opposition from local communities.

In addition, according to former State Senator Wes Shoemyer, passage of Amendment 1 could make it more difficult for farmers who wish to use organic practices or avoid genetically modified crops.

Missouri's Amendment 1 is part of a nationwide campaign by ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) to pass similar legislation in several states. ALEC's goal is to make it more difficult for us to protect ourselves from negative environmental and health effects associated with some modern agricultural practices.

That is why organizations representing small farmers, like the Missouri Farmers Union, are calling for a “no” vote on this measure. The Missouri Sierra Club agrees with the Kansas City Star, the Jefferson City News Tribune and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. On Tuesday, August 5, vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 1."

[lastlib]

2. I'm with you.

Essentially, it's a license for corporate farms to evade environmental, health, safety, and worker protection regulations. Not good for actual people.

I'm developing a strong inclination to oppose on principle anything that comes out of our legislature lately.

[Sherman A1]

3. Agreed

"I'm developing a strong inclination to oppose on principle anything that comes out of our legislature lately." That is my default position on any State issue until I research it and find that I might vote otherwise.

If I am asked by our charming GOP lead legislature to approve anything, the first response is an automatic NO.

[lastlib]

4. I'm having mixed feelings about Amendment #9 though....

the electronic data protection amendment. The ballot language says it gives people the right to be secure in our electronic communication along with person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. It's probably only a symbolic gesture as long as the federal govt can collect data on people, but at least the state would have to jump thru a few hoops to get private data. There could be some adverse consequences (somebody said it could bar the state from giving conceal-carry permit data to the federal govt), but the overall weight might be benign. So...........I dunno............ .

[Sherman A1]

5. From what I read

This amendment does nothing. SOCTUS already made the decision on cell phones and as you said it would not apply to the Feds, so it is probably worthless.

[lastlib]

6. On that basis alone.....

so it is probably worthless.

I'm inclined to vote against it. In principle, it's OK, the reality is, you could wipe your ass with it for all it's really good for.