new props on balot in nov

[tufftoy]

the guys and gals on azvjc have been questioning which props are in our best interest heres a link to what they are thinking http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=17421
just some info so we all stay informed
steve

[TBob]

Good stuff thanks for posting

the guys and gals on azvjc have been questioning which props are in our best interest heres a link to what they are thinking http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=17421
just some info so we all stay informed
steve

[crawler#976]

IMO vote "NO" on both Props.

105 favors the developers...

106 favors the fruit loops, woowoos, and envrionmental wackos...

[Fish Taco]

IMO vote "NO" on both Props.

105 favors the developers...

106 favors the fruit loops, woowoos, and envrionmental wackos...

Hey, watch that "environmental wacko" stuff. You're going to offend someone, Crawler.

I try to vote when I can but I get confused on this stuff a lot. However, I'm going to throw my two cents in on this one and anyone can feel free to correct me or argue or whatever...I'm open to a discussion.

Anyway, it seems like Prop 106 would be more beneficial to the State of Arizona and to the school systems. We need more money for education and no off roader in his/her right mind could say differently. I love wheeling but I'm not sure that I would trade a couple thousand more acres of trails for staying the way we are with the school system - 49th in the country as far as funding!

Now, that said, I think both props favor the developers. Both allow for more development than what is allowed right now, I belive. With development comes money but where is that money going in these props?

I do like that Prop 106 appoints a citizen board to help make the decisions about where the land is going. It seems like everyone has an automatic response to "conservation" and beyond that there will be people on that board who are in favor of many different land uses, including OHV travel.

I also think that Prop 106 will help with urban sprawl. The problem with Phoenix and other places in Arizona is that there is no multi-use development. We all want our little plot of land for our big, oversized houses and all of our buildings are set up for one use and single to two-stories. That's a big waste of space but we don't feel that crunch because we have land to expand on to. However, this creates issues with pollution and traffic. We have to drive further to get to our stuff so we pollute more with our vehicles. If everything was a bit closer we could walk or ride our bikes more.

That's not really the issue though. These props will not help with any of that it will just give us more land to make the same kind of negative development on. The issue is where that money is going to.

I think I'm voting no on both props. I'd like to see more money going to the schools but i feel like these props are a little sleazy. I think they are to help disperse monies through other beneficiaries, not the education system. I'm not sure, though. Someone else please chime in with more opinions!

[AZTaco]

the guys and gals on azvjc have been questioning which props are in our best interest heres a link to what they are thinking http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=17421
just some info so we all stay informed
steve
In case you're interested in the rest:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/2006_Ballot_Proposition_Analyses/
These are easier to read as they are not lawyer-speak.

[rijrunr]

Like Megan said, they both sound a little sleazy. I'm not sure if I'm going to vote for either one.

http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/transfers/prop/help/welcome.htm

Check out this link for a "Map Service" that will show the 400,000 acres (105) or the 600,000 acres (106) that would be set aside.

The whole concept of "State Trust Land" is a double-edged sword; the land was given to us to be sold, to bring in revenue for the state and education. We need to realize that, but on the other hand, its hard to envision a "committee" of education professionals that is going to "dispose" of the land that we use and the open space we cherish.

I wish I knew more about the whole process.... here's another good link about the history of State Land Department

http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm

[4xClover]

Thanks for those links Ryan - that map is quite interesting!

I too think both of them are a bit sleazy and will not be voting for either of them. They both seem to benefit people other than they are intended to, at least in the long run.

[Captkirkyota]

Hey, watch that "environmental wacko" stuff. You're going to offend someone, Crawler.

Ok, I addressed this to you in another thread that got deleted before you could read it so here goes......
I have read your website, seen what it is you do, read your posts, conclusion..... you are not an envoro wacko as commonly thought of by people who use the term so please stop "trying" to be offended by that label as it seems clear to me you are not one. :)
Here is what I would consider a granola eating, burlap sack wearing burkenstock only wearing enviro-communist-wacko.

You refuse to allow any type of forest cutting or forest management because all businesses are evil capitalistic pigs and the Government can do it better than a private biz. keep the forest untouched allow not even managed thinning despite all studies showing that Az. forests are too thick and selective cutting would improve them and the environment for the animals living in them.

The sand dunes in one section have a lizard that is only found in that 1-3 mile range, the Gov. needs to completely shut down all 600 square miles.

Drain Lake Powel now.

So what that Mountain Lions in San Diego are coming back so well that they are now attacking joggers. Ok we consent, a few can be shot, but ONLY gov. rangers can do it. We will not allow ourselves to be smart and let private wealthy hunters to BUY from the state for exorbitant prices a couple tags, however many the state deems need to be killed per year, and let the hunter also BUY hunting supplies, a hunter guide and his dogs and all the other things that will contribute to the economy of the state and cost the tax payers nothing and only put money into the state coffers and get done what we are gonna do anyway, because hunters, outdoors-man are evil.

A trickling little stream should never have a vehicle driven thru it.

SUV's are evil and should be banned.
etc etc etc.


You, from all that I've observed, are far from this, you seem to be for responsible enjoyment of all that nature has to offer and for allowing free use of said land in balance with certain guidelines to ensure that it can and will REMAIN usable for generations to come. In other words, you are what I consider myself and many others to be, common sense TRUE environmentalist for proper management and use of our lands.
So please quite self incriminating as an enviro-wacko. :)

Also vote no on both props. :D :thumbs:

[Modesto Scott]

There are so many retarded shitbags that will make up their mind because of "what they heard" or "I saw on a commercial" it just does not matter. The amount of propositions is staggering and I think most of the people have no idea what they really mean. Personally, the only proposition I care about is the one where I roll my window down and say" $20 if you dont have a cock". If that one gets put on the ballot, sign me up. Real things on the ballot like "Do you want the border sealed so that millions of illegals stop coming into this state?" would be good also. Stupid language for stupid people.

On Voting day I will do the samething as you. But when I am done I will have a soggy napkin and a sore arm. Then I will eat a sandwich and take a nap. So I cant complain the next day when the world changes. But I sure can jerk off again, and that usually makes me feel better+

[rijrunr]

I hope he's voting by absentee ballot! :xmoon:

[4xClover]

I hope he's voting by absentee ballot! :xmoon:

Yeah..no kidding! :rofl:

[Captkirkyota]

Hmmm, after further review, it seems to me that voting either yes on both 105 and 106 or no on both would have the effect of canceling each other out.
It seems as I read it that 105 yes and 106 no to me ( my views as an offroader as well as anti big gov. guy ) that would be the best way to go 105 yes, 106 no.
Anyone else think differently and why?, I'm open to further enlightenment.

[Fish Taco]

Hey Capt Kirk! Nice description of "enviros". Unfortunately, you only see part of what I do. I will not mention that I'd live in a tent if I could (a yurt would be better). I never wear shoes. I LOVE granola. I actually think I can talk to trees. Animals are people too. Sure, Drain Lake Powell. I make my own shampoos and soaps and lotions. I study herbalism. I can't stand being in a room without plants in it. I wish I had an alternative fuel vehicle and solar electricity in my house. I keep an eye on greenhouse effects. Not all big business is capitalistic but most are and it sucks the life out of the employees. Patagonia rocks! Mountain lions are attcking because we are encroaching on THEIR territory. And I actually know that margarine is only one molecule away from plastic.

Shhhh, don't tell anyone!

But I also consider myself very similar to you and your description of yourself. And I will continue to defend the enviro-wacko name if only to annoy people! :)

By the way, I'd like to see that other posting that got deleted! :D

[crawler#976]

[thread hijack = on]

Hey, watch that "environmental wacko" stuff. You're going to offend someone, Crawler.

Quite frankly, I really don't care - being PC is not one of my strong points. I will not lie to you or anyone else about my convictions, nor will I pretend to be anything other than what I am. I've been trying (90% of the time unsuccessfully) to keep the anti-recreationalist/environmental extremists from closing OHV usable roads/trails since the early 80's. It's lead me to form some pretty strong opinions about the far left eco-whackos. I'm sick and tired of the small groups like the Sierra Club forcing the FS/BLM/State Trust managers via law suits to "manage" OUR (the collective right of all the people) properties in such a way as to prevent US (again, the collective right of all the people) from using them.

You certainly have the right to be offended if you so choose.

I doubt that you fall into the category of an eco-whaco.

I don't think you would take part in the monkey wrench activities they promote - tree spiking and deliberately damaging roads/trails to harm people, starting fires at ski resorts, cutting down power lines, burning SUV's or the other bullshit the ELF/ALF/EarthFirst! types promote.

You obviously have a great regard for preserving and protecting, and also using the outdoors for your and others enjoyment. You obviously enjoy the sport of extreme OHV use - crawlin' cannot be described any other way. It's no different to me than any other extreme outdoor sport - be it back country skiing, canyoneering/climbing, etc, etc, etc. All of us need to have the right to enjoy/use public lands as we choose - as long as we also respect and protect the lands at the same time.

As a side note, I see the death of unorganized dispersed crawlin' coming very soon. Enjoy it while you can. There are too many whacos cutting new trails, too much oil being spilled, too much damage being done to viable riparian areas to be tolerated.

[thread hijack = off]

again, I'll say vote no on both measures - they both are both bad alternatives to the original State Trust land policies.

Mark

[FAUX X 4]

[thread hijack = on]



Quite frankly, I really don't care - being PC is not one of my strong points. I will not lie to you or anyone else about my convictions, nor will I pretend to be anything other than what I am. I've been trying (90% of the time unsuccessfully) to keep the anti-recreationalist/environmental extremists from closing OHV usable roads/trails since the early 80's. It's lead me to form some pretty strong opinions about the far left eco-whackos. I'm sick and tired of the small groups like the Sierra Club forcing the FS/BLM/State Trust managers via law suits to "manage" OUR (the collective right of all the people) properties in such a way as to prevent US (again, the collective right of all the people) from using them.

You certainly have the right to be offended if you so choose.

I doubt that you fall into the category of an eco-whaco.

I don't think you would take part in the monkey wrench activities they promote - tree spiking and deliberately damaging roads/trails to harm people, starting fires at ski resorts, cutting down power lines, burning SUV's or the other bullshit the ELF/ALF/EarthFirst! types promote.

You obviously have a great regard for preserving and protecting, and also using the outdoors for your and others enjoyment. You obviously enjoy the sport of extreme OHV use - crawlin' cannot be described any other way. It's no different to me than any other extreme outdoor sport - be it back country skiing, canyoneering/climbing, etc, etc, etc. All of us need to have the right to enjoy/use public lands as we choose - as long as we also respect and protect the lands at the same time.

As a side note, I see the death of unorganized dispersed crawlin' coming very soon. Enjoy it while you can. There are too many whacos cutting new trails, too much oil being spilled, too much damage being done to viable riparian areas to be tolerated.

[thread hijack = off]

again, I'll say vote no on both measures - they both are both bad alternatives to the original State Trust land policies.

Mark

:clap:

[TBob]

Yea vote NO and suport the greenies! - look at the props, Siera club wants u to vote no.

IMO vote "NO" on both Props.

105 favors the developers...

106 favors the fruit loops, woowoos, and envrionmental wackos...