Ballot issues 1&2

[John Viglianco]

We all know about the COUNCIL-AT-LARGE decision, gambling on Issue 3, and the County issues 5 & 6. I am looking at my absentee ballot, and there are two issues that are not being discussed.

ISSUE 1- Authorizing Bonds to give Veterans of the Middle East Wars additional compensation.
ISSUE 2 - Establish a New Livestock & Poultry Board.

I am not familiar with veteran, cow, and chicken issues. This early ballot allows me to think before I am forced to vote.

The PEE DEE is too busy promoting Issue 6 than informing us about the other choices that we have to make.

[Ed Dickson]

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/28062

Here is a link to a whole show on NPR about issue 2. Haven't listened yet but will so I can be an informed voter. On the surface, something seems awfully odd about the way this is put together but this should shed some light.

[Missy Limkemann]

From what I am understanding about #2 it is bad. I am still trying to figure out everything on the ballot.
http://argybarple.katgyrl.com/imgs/NoOH2.htm

[Stan Austin]

John--- I listened to the show that Ed is referring to. I am voting NO on issue 2. The farm/industry/agribusiness lobby in Ohio is trying to hopscotch ahead of any citizen initiatives or legislation which would outline humane procedures that farmers would be required to follow as in California.
They want to put into "stone" the Ohio constitution, a board comprised of industry friendly members to make rules for them.
What a scam! Almost as good as being forced to pay $20 for $5 light bulbs and then pay for electricity that wasn't used!!!!
Stan

[Ed Dickson]

After listening to the link I posted, I agree with Stan. I'll vote no.

Here is another point/counterpoint article from the Columbus Dispatch.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/ed ... ml?sid=101

[Heather Ramsey]

Haven't heard anything about Issue 1, but as a few have said, I've heard from a lot of places (Sierra Club, Humane Society, etc) that Issue 2 is bad news.

[Justine Cooper]

That is really good to know. Can someone write a small piece about if for the LO to let others know in terms of industry versus animal rights?

On issue five and six I am still confused so any light shed would be helpful!

[Paul Schrimpf]

The link that Ed posted from the Columbus Dispatch provide excellent overviews of both sides of the issue. I don't think there's anyone in this city qualified to write about this issue. Real journalism on agriculture issues is dead in Cleveland and has been for some time.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

I voted NO on 2 and I encourage others to do so also. What I have learned is consistent with what Stan posted.

Issue 5 is the issue the County Commissioners put on the ballot to create a commission to study whether the structure of county government should be changed.

Issue 6 is a citizen initiative that actually changes the county government from the current 3 commissioner system into a county executive with 11 county councilmembers. Many officials currently elected (auditor, coroner, recorder, etc) would be appointed under this system. You would vote for the executive and your council member. The districts roughly reflect state rep districts.

[Paul Schrimpf]

I would encourage you to educate yourself on Issue 2. The Ohio Farm Bureau is hardly an "agribusiness lobby" in the sense that a large ag corporation is -- it has 60,000 members of all sizes, and having worked with farm bureaus in the past I know they will not make a position statement without a clear majority of members on board. The idea has to have merit for farms of all sizes.

[Ed Dickson]

Paul,
Issue 2 is not a good thing. It would amend the Ohio Constitution to include this Governer appointed board basically made up of a majority of people from the farming industry. Basically, they want to write it into the constitution that they are just fine with policing themsleves. Very dangerous precedent to set.

Of course, people can read the info and decide for themselves. I have much more information available on the issue if anyone feels they need it.

Ed

[Justine Cooper]

Thank you Ryan

[Paul Schrimpf]

I've visited with farmers personally and done quite a bit of research myself, and do not agree with you, Ed. I would encourage people to check it out themselves.

[Ed Dickson]

Which I would do as well.

Farmers will spin it one way. Animal Welfare people will spin it the other. I sit in the middle, educate myself on the issue and make my own decision.

May I ask you Paul, what did the farmers tell you that made you say what you are saying? Have you had discussions with people about this other than people in the farming industry?

[Paul Schrimpf]

Here's the bottom line. Farmers are fiercely independent, even those that urbanites are convinced are in the back pockets of fertilizer, seed, and chemical companies (they're not). They see this as a way to avoid having out of state "citizen groups" like PETA, Sierra Club, WWF, etc., from coming into the state and attempting to create/influence legislation that is over the top. Farmers don't like legislation, and some are against it as a matter of principle. For the rest this is a pragmatic solution to an uncertain and likely unhappy alternative.

I have talked to farmers both for and against, yes.

At this point I don't think it can pass as the rhetoric has been so polarizing. I don't care how people vote, I just think we should at least honor the idea by exploring it and making an educated choice.