[Vision2020] HJR 7

[lfalen]

Good point
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:26:41 -0700
To: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] HJR 7

> Joe,
>  
> I am not asking we vote on everything. I am just asking we still vote on going into debt. Isn't that the fiscally responsible thing to do? Is it honestly ethical to ask future generations to pay $10 Trillion worth of debt without even a vote on if it is a good idea or not? The baby boomer generation is the first generation in US History to make things worse, not better, for following generations. What honestly do they have to show for this debt handed down? The generation in charge needs to practice paygo, not keep debiting everything to their children and grandchildren as the solution to every problem. 
>  
> Donovan J. Arnold
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/25/10, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] HJR 7
> To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 4:53 PM
> 
> 
> 
> Why not scrap state government altogether and let people vote on every single issue? Then we'll start to save money! Then we'll get things done!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I object to this HJR 7 amendment first because it allows a city to go into debt WITHOUT voter approval. I think if a city is going to go into debt it should have the full 2/3 consent of its taxpayers. It should be a basic right for citizens to vote on this big of an issue. To eliminate it is to eliminate a basic constitutional right of the people. 
>  
> Second, I object to it because they are going to raise the rates of electrical power. There is no distinction between those that use electricity and those that pay taxpayers, it is the same pocket that is being taken from, regardless of if you call it taxes or increases in utility rates. It is still an increased cost of living to every resident, and they will not get a vote to stop it either. And it will increase taxes as well because there are taxes on your utility bill. Bad idea IMHO. 
>  
> Donovan J Arnold
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/25/10, ringoshirl <ringoshirl at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: ringoshirl <ringoshirl at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] HJR 7
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 5:35 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Visionaries:
>  
> I also support this one, but here are the details.
>  
> Shirley
>  
> 
> H.J.R. 7
> “Shall Article VIII, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a New
> Section 3D to provide that any city owning a municipal electric system may: 
> (a) acquire, construct, install and equip electric generating, transmission and distribution facilities 
> for the purpose of supplying electricity to customers located within the service area of each system 
> established by law and for the purpose of paying the cost thereof, may issue revenue bonds with the 
> assent of a majority of the qualified electors voting at an election held as provided by law; and 
> (b) incur indebtedness or liability under agreements to purchase, share, exchange or transmit 
> wholesale electricity for the use and benefit of customers located within such service area; 
> provided that any revenue bonds, indebtedness or liability shall be payable solely from the rates, 
> charges or revenues derived from the municipal electric system and shall not be secured by the full 
> faith and credit or the taxing power of the city, the state or any political subdivision?” 
> Proposed Amendment to The Constitution of the State of Idaho: New Section 3D, Article VIII 
> Legislative Council’s Statement of Meaning, Purpose and Result to be Accomplished of Proposed 
> Amendment: 
> This proposed amendment has two parts. The first part will allow any city owning a municipal 
> electric system to acquire, construct, install and equip electrical generating, transmission and distribution 
> facilities for the purpose of supplying electricity to customers within its service area. The city 
> will be authorized to issue revenue bonds to pay for such facilities, with the assent of a majority of the 
> qualified voters, provided that these bonds are paid for by the electrical system rates and charges, or 
> revenues derived from the municipal electric system, and not with tax dollars. 
> (H.J.R. 7 Continued) 
> The second part of this proposed amendment will allow any city owning a municipal electric system 
> to enter into agreements to purchase, share, exchange or transmit wholesale electricity to customers 
> within its service area, without voter approval. Any indebtedness or liability from these agreements 
> will be paid for by the electrical system rates and charges, or revenues derived from the municipal 
> electric system, and not with tax dollars. 
> Statements FOR the Proposed Amendment 
> 1. This amendment will clarify that a city owning a municipal electric system may enter into 
> contracts or agreements for the purchase of wholesale electricity, helping to ensure that its citizens 
> have low-cost and stable electric utility rates. 
> 2. This amendment will allow a city owning a municipal electric system to responsibly upgrade 
> and modernize electricity-related facilities and help to stabilize electric rates. Such cities will be 
> allowed to issue revenue bonds, with the assent of a majority of voters, in order to finance investment 
> in electric generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. 
> 3. This amendment provides that voter-approved revenue bonds and other indebtedness or liability 
> shall be payable solely from the revenues derived from the municipal electric system. The amendment 
> specifically provides that the revenue bonds and other indebtedness or liability shall not be 
> secured by the taxing power of the city, state or any political subdivision 
> Statements AGAINST the Proposed Amendment 
> 1. The existing Idaho constitutional requirement mandating a two-thirds assent of the voters before a 
> city owning a municipal electric system can enter into agreements resulting in debt is an important 
> safeguard for all Idaho citizens. 
> 2. Currently, the Constitution requires two-thirds assent of the voters of a city to approve the 
> issuance of revenue bonds by a city owning a municipal electric system. If adopted, the proposed 
> amendment will require only a majority of the voters to approve the issuance of revenue bonds by 
> the city to finance electric generating, transmission and distribution facilities. 
> 3. Changes to the Constitution should be made only for major issues of interest to the entire state or 
> in the event of a constitutional crisis.
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>              http://www.fsr.net                      
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 
> 
> 
>