[n8xwb]

Amendment 1 is primarily bankrolled by Florida’s big power companies and promoted by a group calling itself Consumers for Smart Solar. While the title, “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice” sounds like a great thing for solar in Florida, let’s be clear: Amendment 1 will not promote solar, it will block the sun.
“Let pro-solar energy consumers beware” warned Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente about Amendment 1 back in March. She said the amendment is “masquerading” as a pro-solar energy initiative and labeled it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Here’s three reasons to be wary of Amendment 1:

Amendment 1 is funded by Florida’s big utilities to protect their monopoly markets and limit customer-owned solar.

Amendment 1 paves the way for barriers that would penalize solar customers.

Amendment 1 misleads Florida voters by promising rights and protections that Florida citizens already have!

BTW, I spoke with a SECO representative and he indicated that SECO did not support the amendment....I presume because SECO is a co-op and is not a for profit power company.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by n8xwb

Amendment 1 is primarily bankrolled by Florida’s big power companies and promoted by a group calling itself Consumers for Smart Solar. While the title, “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice” sounds like a great thing for solar in Florida, let’s be clear: Amendment 1 will not promote solar, it will block the sun.
“Let pro-solar energy consumers beware” warned Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente about Amendment 1 back in March. She said the amendment is “masquerading” as a pro-solar energy initiative and labeled it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Here’s three reasons to be wary of Amendment 1:

Amendment 1 is funded by Florida’s big utilities to protect their monopoly markets and limit customer-owned solar.

Amendment 1 paves the way for barriers that would penalize solar customers.

Amendment 1 misleads Florida voters by promising rights and protections that Florida citizens already have!

BTW, I spoke with a SECO representative and he indicated that SECO did not support the amendment....I presume because SECO is a co-op and is not a for profit power company.

What does this amendment say concerning tax credits for buying solar? what does this amendment say concerning solar owners right to sell excess power back to utilities?

[kansasr]

Nothing. It basically places protections for utility companies in our state constitution.

[Johnd]

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

[n8xwb]

If you think voting yes gives you any protection, you are sorely mistaken. When was the last time you got a good deal or lower rates from a major utility company?? Perhaps, like me you are fortunate to have SECO as your electric power provider.

As for subsidies, the state of Florida gives no subsidies that I know of to folks that install solar panels.

If anything, installation of privately owned panels takes pressure off the grid at peak times, during the day when energy is needed to run air conditioners, etc.

[NYGUY]

Amendment #1 should have been called the "Big Energy Income Security Act". I have already voted and voted NO!!

[Dbinac]

I voted no also. Hope many people vote no also.

[NavyNJ]

Originally Posted by Johnd

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

Well, I hate to say it.....but in this case - You're wrong. To get answers to your questions, take a few minutes and peruse the info presented at the site shown at the link below. I think you should find the answers to your questions, and then some, if you give it careful review. I know I was scratching my head more than a little at how the proponent group financing (Consumers For Smart Solar) was primarily (Top 5 donors) comprised of Fla. Power Companies!!

In the end, you need to decide, of course.....but doing so without at least availing yourself of the contents of this web site would be ill advised.

Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use, Amendment 1 (2016) - Ballotpedia

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by NavyNJ

Well, I hate to say it.....but in this case - You're wrong. To get answers to your questions, take a few minutes and peruse the info presented at the site shown at the link below. I think you should find the answers to your questions, and then some, if you give it careful review. I know I was scratching my head more than a little at how the proponent group financing (Consumers For Smart Solar) was primarily (Top 5 donors) comprised of Fla. Power Companies!!

In the end, you need to decide, of course.....but doing so without at least availing yourself of the contents of this web site would be ill advised.

Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use, Amendment 1 (2016) - Ballotpedia

I read your reference. It states that amendment 1 allows people to have solar, BUT NOT at the expense of everyone else being required to subsidize their solar. What's wrong with that? BTW, I don't think a constitution should be used for such things no matter what the subject is, such as bullet train funding, etc.

[Henryk]

Amendment 1 is a total SCAM by the utility companies.

Why in the world would be need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to deal with solar power. Regulations, maybe, but even then NOT from the utility thieves.

NO CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON ENERGY!

VOTE NO on Amendment 1. Don't let the utility jerks fool you.

[biker1]

A point-by-point discussion of what the Amendment includes, including the pros and cons of each, would probably make more sense than a blanket condemnation void of any facts.

Originally Posted by Henryk

Amendment 1 is a total SCAM by the utility companies.

Why in the world would be need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to deal with solar power. Regulations, maybe, but even then NOT from the utility thieves.

NO CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON ENERGY!

VOTE NO on Amendment 1. Don't let the utility jerks fool you.

[Henryk]

Originally Posted by outlaw

I read your reference. It states that amendment 1 allows people to have solar, BUT NOT at the expense of everyone else being required to subsidize their solar. What's wrong with that? BTW, I don't think a constitution should be used for such things no matter what the subject is, such as bullet train funding, etc.

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

How do you know the truth about amendments on state ballot?

BY MARV BALOUSEK OCTOBER 10, 20169 COMMENTS copied from ************** dot com

A television commercial for a solar energy constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot says it would bring solar energy to Florida. Another commercial for a marijuana amendment says it would make the drug widely available as candy.

Both commercials are misleading, according to Beth Hicks of The Villages/Tri-County League of Women Voters.

Hicks offered details about four proposed amendments in a presentation Monday to The Villages Civil Discourse Club at the Savannah Center.

Instead of bringing solar energy to Florida, the amendment, supported by several utility companies, actually would restrict future solar technology innovations such as storing energy, she said. Opponents include environmental groups and the League of Women Voters.

“The biggest problem with solar right now is storing it,” Hicks said. “If we put this amendment into the constitution, it will lock in where we are right now. If you vote no, you are not voting no to solar power in Florida.”

The marijuana amendment would not make the drug available wherever candy is sold, as implied by the commercial. She said it would be available only with a medical prescription to people with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

Medical marijuana treatment centers would be established to dispense the drug.

“Chronic pain is not one of the debilitating conditions,” Hicks said. “It is medical and it will not be sold in pot shops.”

Medical marijuana is legal in 25 states while three states, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, allow recreational use, she said.

The amendment is a tightened-up version of a similar 2014 amendment which came 2 percent short of the 60 percent majority needed for passage. Supporters include labor unions, the Florida Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Opponents include the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Medical Association.

A Florida law enacted two years ago allows a medical marijuana extract to be used by children with seizures.

Two other ballot amendments deal with property tax exemptions.

Amendment 3 would authorize the Legislature to exempt first responders such as police officers and firefighters who are permanently disabled from injuries they received in the line of duty. The constitution already provides exemptions for spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.

The final proposed amendment would ensure that low-income seniors do not lose a special property tax exemption even if their home values rise above a $250,000 threshold.

Current law allows seniors over age 65 with annual incomes below about $29,000 who have lived in their homes for at least 20 years to qualify for the exemption. But they now lose the exemption if their home values rise above the threshold.

Hicks said 128 Lake County homeowners and none in Marion or Sumter counties qualify for the exemption.

She said property tax exemptions require passage as constitutional amendments and cannot be granted through legislation.

Constitutional amendments can be initiated by the Legislature or as a citizen initiative, which requires at least 600,000 petition signatures collected from at least seven different counties.

The state Constitutional Review Committee, which meets every 20 years, also can propose amendments. The committee’s next meeting is in 2017.

[Henryk]

Originally Posted by Henryk

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

http: // http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Henryk

http: // http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

Please provide the website so that we may have an opportunity to read for ourselves

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Henryk

I'm voting NO. You may wish to read this:
http://www.**************.com/know-t...-state-ballot/

How do you know the truth about amendments on state ballot?

BY MARV BALOUSEK OCTOBER 10, 20169 COMMENTS copied from ************** dot com

A television commercial for a solar energy constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot says it would bring solar energy to Florida. Another commercial for a marijuana amendment says it would make the drug widely available as candy.

Both commercials are misleading, according to Beth Hicks of The Villages/Tri-County League of Women Voters.

Hicks offered details about four proposed amendments in a presentation Monday to The Villages Civil Discourse Club at the Savannah Center.

Instead of bringing solar energy to Florida, the amendment, supported by several utility companies, actually would restrict future solar technology innovations such as storing energy, she said. Opponents include environmental groups and the League of Women Voters.

“The biggest problem with solar right now is storing it,” Hicks said. “If we put this amendment into the constitution, it will lock in where we are right now. If you vote no, you are not voting no to solar power in Florida.”

The marijuana amendment would not make the drug available wherever candy is sold, as implied by the commercial. She said it would be available only with a medical prescription to people with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

Medical marijuana treatment centers would be established to dispense the drug.

“Chronic pain is not one of the debilitating conditions,” Hicks said. “It is medical and it will not be sold in pot shops.”

Medical marijuana is legal in 25 states while three states, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, allow recreational use, she said.

The amendment is a tightened-up version of a similar 2014 amendment which came 2 percent short of the 60 percent majority needed for passage. Supporters include labor unions, the Florida Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Opponents include the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Medical Association.

A Florida law enacted two years ago allows a medical marijuana extract to be used by children with seizures.

Two other ballot amendments deal with property tax exemptions.

Amendment 3 would authorize the Legislature to exempt first responders such as police officers and firefighters who are permanently disabled from injuries they received in the line of duty. The constitution already provides exemptions for spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.

The final proposed amendment would ensure that low-income seniors do not lose a special property tax exemption even if their home values rise above a $250,000 threshold.

Current law allows seniors over age 65 with annual incomes below about $29,000 who have lived in their homes for at least 20 years to qualify for the exemption. But they now lose the exemption if their home values rise above the threshold.

Hicks said 128 Lake County homeowners and none in Marion or Sumter counties qualify for the exemption.

She said property tax exemptions require passage as constitutional amendments and cannot be granted through legislation.

Constitutional amendments can be initiated by the Legislature or as a citizen initiative, which requires at least 600,000 petition signatures collected from at least seven different counties.

The state Constitutional Review Committee, which meets every 20 years, also can propose amendments. The committee’s next meeting is in 2017.

Why would environmental groups oppose solar energy? bottom line for me is I do not want to subsidize another taxpayers choices be it solar panels on their homes or buying Telsa autos. and i do not want to subsidize corporation such as Telsa and those who make claim via Import/Export laws. Sufficient is to say I'm getting sick of the government abuses and their lack of leadership as to personal and corporate welfare Enough is enough

Isn't the real reason for the medical marijuana amendment a basis to pave the way for legalizing recreational marijuana usage? The issue for medical marijuana is an emotional one and proponents leads voters to believe that it is first altruistic and secondly the only solution to alleviate symptoms for the so called target illnesses. Come on legalizing recreational marijuana means billions to a few people follow the money and you identify each of them.

the remaining two amendments appear to benefit people in real need