I know I’ve paid a lot of attention to Ballot issue #1. But with two other constitutional amendments on the ballot, I thought I would share this information from WAVY10 that aired a couple of days ago.
Ballot issue #2 is a nobrainer, even if it is the result of an activist judge on behalf of Jerry Falwell 😉
I’m beginning to rethink Ballot issue #3, though. I wish the opponents of this amendment had brought its implications out before now. (If they did, I really missed it.) As I mentioned before, I am concerned about those people who may be displaced as the result of areas being designated as blighted. Here in Norfolk, we have seen that happen way too many times. But the thoughts expressed by the opponent in this piece resonated with me. And while I am loathe to admit it 😉 , Insider makes some great points in his post today on this.
Having served on the Board of Review for Real Estate Assessments for four years, I know who the benefactors are of the current tax relief program for renovations – and it’s not the little guy. While this one would be more restrictive – applying only in designated areas – I have to think that those who stand to benefit from new construction will not be those who are moving out of the area.
So as of now, I’m changing my vote on this one. I’m voting NO on #3.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
loathe? 🙂
luv ya!
Not loathe you. I hope you didn’t take it that way. 😉
Heck no. I’m just wondering how scary it is to you to agree with me.
Vivian: Thanks for this post, a lot of people (including myself) don’t know about all those implications in Ballot Question #3. I’ve also changed my vote, and will be voting the same way you are. 🙂
I wouldn’t have known that angle without this post, and Insider’s post was most thought-provoking. Put me in the changed my mind category as well. Thanks.
Well done!
Your voice is important, and it made my day to see that clip.
Best.
If Vivian Page and Hank Howell say “vote no on # 3”, that’s good enough for me.
Vivian, so glad you are recommending “no” on # 3!. I’m with Blacknell! Do we need developers in bed with city councils any more than they are?.
Does anyone else think think this was a marvelous time to sneak in such a proposal?
Thank heaven there’s discussion on this somewhere. I was of a similar position as Vivian… at first. Anything that gives localities greater control over their affairs is fine. But I’ve also seen the result in small communities desperate for any sort of economic developmenet. A large entity moves in, paves a dozen acres, moves in cheap labor, overloads the infrastructure and shutters in a few years, leaving the municipality with a hulking dead facility to maintain, not to mention a substantial number of unemployed.
It may not always play out this way, but I’ve certainly seen it.