[outlaw]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

exactly!

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by kansasr

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by NYGUY

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

Originally Posted by Dbinac

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

.........

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but didn't Amendment 4 voted on in August and approved provide for solar subsidies and sell backs?

The big energy vote is coming in 2018. My concern is the long term game plan being played by both utilities and environmentalists and others.

As I analyze Amendment 1 my thoughts go beyond what the proposal states for the vote in November. I wonder what long term percussions may result for either a yes or no vote. What exactly does it mean? Does a vote either way place consumers in a Catch 22 down the road? There has always been caution when it comes to government but since 2008 it seems government by both parties have breached voters trust time and time again. So I do not trust any politician, policy proposal, etc and I do not trust the media. Its time voters did their due diligence and careful consider every proposal. I mean we learned the devastating and costly consequences of what "you have to pass it to know what's in it" We need to move like a hegefox expanding our search to determine the single purpose for these amendments

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

I don't know how many of you have looked at the Florida constitution, but it is a mess. The Index alone is 20 pages!! It has amendments to protect pregnant pigs, bullet trains, tobacco smoke, tobacco education and smoking prevention programs, slot machines, county specific issues, bonds for outdoor recreation, homestead exemptions, and on and on. What a mess. Why do we even have a legislature in Florida? This is the end result of special interest activism abusing the political process; a 78-page constitution.

[JourneyOfLife]

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy

[justjim]

I'm amazed at the conspiracy theories that people imagine without looking at the facts. It seems that some are just "no" on everything. Fore!

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy

Excellent and dead on post.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by justjim

I'm amazed at the conspiracy theories that people imagine without looking at the facts. It seems that some are just "no" on everything. Fore!

Not much of a 'conspiracy,' when the facts are laid out for all to see.

[Johnd]

This is how I ended my first post on this subject.

"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."

Still waiting for the opponents to explain how anyone interested in solar power is "limited" or faces "barriers" from this amendment. Of course, other than the barrier of getting into my pocket to fund your activities.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Johnd

This is how I ended my first post on this subject.

"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."

Still waiting for the opponents to explain how anyone interested in solar power is "limited" or faces "barriers" from this amendment. Of course, other than the barrier of getting into my pocket to fund your activities.

The amendment will also destroy our climate, will shorten our life span, will increase global migration...

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife

Red Flag 1.... If a ballot initiative is worded in a way to confuse "some" voters (trick them)!

Red Flag 2.... When an established industry attempts to use legislation to thwart competition!

Red Flag 3.... Amendment to the State Constitution!!!!! Really??? That sort of permanency is, in itself, alarming.

Red Flag 4.... When a large Monopoly tries to "Justify" Legislation that protects them, by claiming they are protecting you!!!

This piece of legislation looks more like Monopolies trying to have Industry Protection written into the State Constitution and to (in practical terms) eliminate emerging technology and future competition.... in a permanent manner!

Even if one is against Solar or subsidies for it; Lesser legislation would probably be more appropriate than an Amendment to the State Constitution! IOW, Legislation that allow more flexibility in the future... because "No One" can predict the future!

Changes to the state constitution, from the "Individual Consumers Perspective" just seems excessive, with the potential for "Unknown" or "Unintended" negative future consequences to "all consumers". IOW... they want to "Write it in STONE" and make it "Close To" permanent and unalterable!

This is one of those... Its not what you know, that will likely hurt you. Its what you "do not" know that "might very well" hurt you!

Here is what an Amendment to the State Constitution would do: It would send a message to entrepreneurs, existing businesses and investors in alternate energy : "Don't Bother Even Trying to Innovate... You already lost the battle and surely will lose!"

We do not live in Fl... But considering our retirement options. If I were a FL voter, I would reject "An Amendment". If they come back with different legislation later that allows more future flexibility (less than an amendment)... I would look at it again and consider it.


It appears this article tries to give a balanced POV. Proposed Florida amendments would set solar energy policy

You ave done your due diligence...thank you

[GOJODO]

This was an excellent summary of this fraudulently misleading amendment language:
FLORIDIANS: VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1!

This is not cut-and-paste. I spent nearly two hours researching this amendment myself. This is an important issue you should pay attention to.

This year, the incumbent power companies are trying to pass a misleading amendment (Amendment 1) called the "Florida Solar Energy Subsidies and Personal Solar Use Initiative". This amendment is being promoted as "Promoting solar in the Sunshine State". It does the opposite. It give the big power companies the ability to increase the cost - and even make it impossible - for you to install solar power on your homes.

If you have any doubt, just look at the three largest donors to the Political Action Committee supporting Amendment 1:

$5,737,000 Duke Energy
$5,495,000 Florida Power and Light Company
$3,037,347 Tampa Electric Company

Why would the power companies spend nearly $15m (of money from your power bills) to defend your rights? They're not. The fact is that the cost of solar power is rapidly falling below the cost of traditional utility power. The big utility companies are simply using Amendment 1 to defend their legacy business - instead of embracing change that has the potential to help all of us.

I highly recommend you vote no on Amendment 1, and you can learn more at http://about.floridiansolar.org

-Jonathan Taylor, Entrenext

Note: I do not work at or with Solar Power companies. I also have nothing against power companies. I just don't like it when companies try to fool me with misleading causes; and I support solar power because I feel it is required for our country to have a competitive, long term global advantage in power costs. For example, China spent over $90 billion on renewable energy (including Solar Power) in 2014 alone

[rubicon]

I see this dispute as one between utilities and third party vendors.

Third party vendors want to sell a lot of solar products and energy costs, and so they will act to shift as much of their financial burden and their solar customers to the public (taxpayers) .

I am sick of having other individual and corporations shifting their costs to me as a taxpayer.

In my view amendment #4 is a no vote and amendment #1 is a yes vote

[Johnd]

For the 3rd time, I ask the opponents of the amendment to explain exactly how solar activists are prevented from getting and installing solar materials. Nothing but the same tired phrases so far.

Vote yes if you don't want to be forced to subsidize other people's dreams of unicorns.

[Cathy H]

the technology of energy producing solar cell units is still evolving. recently Australian engineers developed (in the lab) a new very efficient solar cell using untried chemical layers within the cells that capture more energy. we should not try to legislate any restriction on this exciting technology as it may be our salvation some day