Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sparky36000's picture
Sparky36000
Offline
Joined: 7/8/05

Specials are assessed for a specific project for a specific amount of time. They can also be disputed if people don't agree they should be done.They are also not tied to the assessed value of your home which will increase your property taxes if you decide to do improvements.  M2 gets a yes vote from me.


mowerman's picture
mowerman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/30/11

VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 

Sparky36000 Said:
Specials are assessed for a specific project for a specific amount of time. They can also be disputed if people don't agree they should be done.They are also not tied to the assessed value of your home which will increase your property taxes if you decide to do improvements.  M2 gets a yes vote from me.

Currently, you are correct.   But nothing stops the legislature from making adjustments to the special assessment statutes so they can be used to do much more than the specific things that specials are currently limited to by statute.   The interim committee has already looked into this issue in the event M2 passes.  That doesn't mean changes will be made, but assuming they won't be making changes is faulty thinking also.    It is one of those unknowns about M2.   My guess is if changes to specials are made there will still be limits on specials because specials are determined by footage and not values so if schools for example were allowed to use specials it is the farmers that have all the footage and they would pay for most of the specials if the legislature isn't careful....

wood duck 30's picture
wood duck 30
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/23/06

A NO vote = common sense

Rooster22's picture
Rooster22
Offline
Joined: 7/27/09

.............................still going with no.     or maby a hell no.    havent decided.

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

The only reason Measure 2 is on the ballot is because people are tired of getting screwed. You can only rip people off for so long before someone stands up and says thats enough.

Thats what we are seeing now.

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

Still going with yes or maybe a hell yes.

Sparky36000's picture
Sparky36000
Offline
Joined: 7/8/05

Ladd Said:
 

Sparky36000 Said:
Specials are assessed for a specific project for a specific amount of time. They can also be disputed if people don't agree they should be done.They are also not tied to the assessed value of your home which will increase your property taxes if you decide to do improvements.  M2 gets a yes vote from me.

Currently, you are correct.   But nothing stops the legislature from making adjustments to the special assessment statutes so they can be used to do much more than the specific things that specials are currently limited to by statute.   The interim committee has already looked into this issue in the event M2 passes.  That doesn't mean changes will be made, but assuming they won't be making changes is faulty thinking also.    It is one of those unknowns about M2.   My guess is if changes to specials are made there will still be limits on specials because specials are determined by footage and not values so if schools for example were allowed to use specials it is the farmers that have all the footage and they would pay for most of the specials if the legislature isn't careful....

And nothing stops the legislature from sitting on their hands and ignoring the problems like they have been doing either. My feelings from reading the research and watching discussions like this is that the money is there, the system will adjust and North Dakota will be an even better place to live than it is now. And that's what I'm going to try and convince everyone I talk to that is on the fence. YES on Measure 2.


PerchMan's picture
PerchMan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/5/02

 After countless hours of reading on this subject, I am on the yes side of the fence.  I dont think that a total abolishment of the property tax is the perfect way to go, but as stated above by Sparky, the legislature has sat on their hands way to long.  Something needs to be done.  How does that saying go:  You cant keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result each time.  Time for some change.  I am voting YES.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Sparky36000 Said:

Ladd Said:
 

Sparky36000 Said:
Specials are assessed for a specific project for a specific amount of time. They can also be disputed if people don't agree they should be done.They are also not tied to the assessed value of your home which will increase your property taxes if you decide to do improvements.  M2 gets a yes vote from me.

Currently, you are correct.   But nothing stops the legislature from making adjustments to the special assessment statutes so they can be used to do much more than the specific things that specials are currently limited to by statute.   The interim committee has already looked into this issue in the event M2 passes.  That doesn't mean changes will be made, but assuming they won't be making changes is faulty thinking also.    It is one of those unknowns about M2.   My guess is if changes to specials are made there will still be limits on specials because specials are determined by footage and not values so if schools for example were allowed to use specials it is the farmers that have all the footage and they would pay for most of the specials if the legislature isn't careful....

And nothing stops the legislature from sitting on their hands and ignoring the problems like they have been doing either. My feelings from reading the research and watching discussions like this is that the money is there, the system will adjust and North Dakota will be an even better place to live than it is now. And that's what I'm going to try and convince everyone I talk to that is on the fence. YES on Measure 2.

So who put these people that sit on their hands over this issue in the legislature?

Why are they still there?

Why do people suddenly think these same people that have not "fixed" this is 130 attempts over 30 years  (or whatever the figures are) will suddenly get everything right now if this measure passes as worded?
  
Are specials considered a "tax"?

If specials are based on footage as stated are they stilll not a tax that is tied to property?

This is the wording of the 1st section of the measure.

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships, school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions taxes, and other state resources.
 

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 

Sparky36000 Said:

Ladd Said:
 

Sparky36000 Said:
Specials are assessed for a specific project for a specific amount of time. They can also be disputed if people don't agree they should be done.They are also not tied to the assessed value of your home which will increase your property taxes if you decide to do improvements.  M2 gets a yes vote from me.

Currently, you are correct.   But nothing stops the legislature from making adjustments to the special assessment statutes so they can be used to do much more than the specific things that specials are currently limited to by statute.   The interim committee has already looked into this issue in the event M2 passes.  That doesn't mean changes will be made, but assuming they won't be making changes is faulty thinking also.    It is one of those unknowns about M2.   My guess is if changes to specials are made there will still be limits on specials because specials are determined by footage and not values so if schools for example were allowed to use specials it is the farmers that have all the footage and they would pay for most of the specials if the legislature isn't careful....

And nothing stops the legislature from sitting on their hands and ignoring the problems like they have been doing either. My feelings from reading the research and watching discussions like this is that the money is there, the system will adjust and North Dakota will be an even better place to live than it is now. And that's what I'm going to try and convince everyone I talk to that is on the fence. YES on Measure 2.

The money is not there.   That is fiction.   What the M2 people do to mislead people about the state budget is count all the money that is in constitutionally protected trust funds that can't be spent other than for their intended purpose unless the people vote to change the constitution down the road.   For example, the common schools trust fund is funded by grazing, farming, and mineral leases on state lands and has $2-3 billion in it.   That money is constitutionally targeted to paying for the 70% of public school funding, and local schools get this  money that doesn't have to come out of general sales and income taxes.   Trusts like this were established years ago by our fore fathers to try and address problems that come up with ND's boom and bust economy.   We have a similar trust fund for water.    Also, the M2 crowd often cites the Legacy Fund which was just established by the voters in 2009 and has about $700 million in it by constitutionally protecting 30% of our oil revenue, which our constitution says can't be spent until 2017, and then only the interest goes into the general fund unless 2/3 of the legislature votes to spend up to 15% of the principal every two years.  
One of the many misleading things in the M2 Beacon Hill report is it says the state has "$5 billion" sitting around.   What they don't tell you to fool you into voting for M2 is that ,most of that money can't be spent unless we change our constitution and raid these trust funds.   And that would be stupid to do because it would only take a few years and the trust funds would be empty and then we would have to fund schools and other things with general tax dollars.  

The real state budget numbers can be found on the OMB website and that shows that the state will have a $592 million budget surplus in June.    Since M2 is retroactive to Jan 1, 2012,  that means that if it passes in June the state will be about $200 million in debt, unless the legislature raids the DOT money that has been allotted to build roads in the oil patch and has yet to be spent.     These numbers don't count the $126 million a year that will have to be made up from sending property tax dollars out of state to NR land owners.   It also doesn't count the tens of millions of dollars in coal and oil in lieu of taxes.   This year the coal companies paid their in lieu of taxes "under protest" because they say they shouldn't have to pay lieu of property taxes if other people aren't paying property taxes.    Oil companies haven't yet filed a a protest, but the first 5% of our 11.5 % oil tax is an in lieu of tax that oil companies aren't going to want to pay that if property taxes are eliminated.    The same is for the electric companies.  Investor owned utilities pay property taxes (MDU, etc..), and the rural electrics pay lieu of property taxes.    There is no way the courts or legislature can allow that to stand if M2 passes.

Even without addressing all these things,  The current state budget is about $4 billion. for 2 years.  Replacing property taxes will take about $1.7 billion for 2 years, a little under half the state budget when you consider that lost revenue that will go out of state.    Despite what the M2 people claim, there is nothing in M2 that requires local governments be funded before state government, except in the replacement of what schools levied for property taxes in 2011.    The rest of it the legislature will determine what proper funding levels for the townships, counties, cities, and other local entities.    None of the $1.7  billion it will take to just break even on current property tax revenue counts in all the pie in the sky claims that everyone will get a new school and other new buildings all funded by the state if M2 passes.   Just in the claims I have heard the M2 people make at debates I was at or on talk radio you can easily add $1 billion to the $1.7 billion.    Or,  of the current $4 billion state budget, the claims of the M2 supporters would have the state having to absorb about $2.7 billion into that.     In other words, cut the state budget by about 3/4 in order to fund the pipe dreams of the M2 sponsors...Good luck with that....I think the most irresponsible thing the M2 people are doing when they play with these numbers is they are taking our current booming economy, and they still can't pay for M2, and trying to get us to change our constitution and cement tax policy into it has if we will always have a booming economy.   2/3 of our economy is agriculture despite oil being in the paper everyday.   And as everyone but the M2 people know, Ag is depends on the weather, farm bill, trade agreements, costs of credit, transportation to market costs, etc.    In this short window in time we have had both booming oil and a good Ag economy with reasonable credit costs - you have to believe it will always stay the same, which it won't, to think that M2 makes any long term sense even with the major budget cuts and tax increases it will take to fund M2 in the best of times..... 

 

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

Yes on 2-------------- Hell yes on 2

Sparky36000's picture
Sparky36000
Offline
Joined: 7/8/05

gst Said:

So who put these people that sit on their hands over this issue in the legislature?

Why are they still there?

Why do people suddenly think these same people that have not "fixed" this is 130 attempts over 30 years  (or whatever the figures are) will suddenly get everything right now if this measure passes as worded?
  
Are specials considered a "tax"?

If specials are based on footage as stated are they stilll not a tax that is tied to property?

This is the wording of the 1st section of the measure.

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships, school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions taxes, and other state resources.
 

The people of ND put them there. Unfortunately, like most politicians, what they say they will do while they are trying to get elected, and what they actually do after they are elected are not the same thing. So are we supposed to wait another 30 years to see if they fix it? I don't think so. People are mad as hell, and now the decision will be made for them. They will get a clear message about who they work for. YES on measure 2.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Sparky36000 Said:

gst Said:

So who put these people that sit on their hands over this issue in the legislature?

Why are they still there?

Why do people suddenly think these same people that have not "fixed" this is 130 attempts over 30 years  (or whatever the figures are) will suddenly get everything right now if this measure passes as worded?
  
Are specials considered a "tax"?

If specials are based on footage as stated are they stilll not a tax that is tied to property?

This is the wording of the 1st section of the measure.

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships, school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions taxes, and other state resources.
 

The people of ND put them there. Unfortunately, like most politicians, what they say they will do while they are trying to get elected, and what they actually do after they are elected are not the same thing. So are we supposed to wait another 30 years to see if they fix it? I don't think so. People are mad as hell, and now the decision will be made for them. They will get a clear message about who they work for. YES on measure 2.

The message that will be sent is here are the purse strings figure it out for us and tax us how you wish..

Can a township impose any of the revenue sources that must replace the property tax as specifically listed in this measure?
 

How about holding people accountable at the voting booth and put people in that actually will hold themselves accountable to the people that put them there?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships, school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions taxes, and other state resources.

Will someone please list which of the entities listed in the wording of the measure that can levy the revenue sources the wording of this measure says MUST replace property taxes?

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

 

bdog Said:
The only reason Measure 2 is on the ballot is because people are tired of getting screwed. You can only rip people off for so long before someone stands up and says thats enough.

Thats what we are seeing now.

That is one of the big problems with Measure 2, it is like giving the guy who just robbed you your checkbook and bills and tell him to make sure everything gets paid.

Too many unknowns and the same people who haven't done it right in 130+ attempts will be the ones responsible for trying to get it right this time. In a short time frame with serious repercussions if they get it wrong. 

You can't aim a duck to death.

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Thanks Ladd.  Excellent discussion.  

We all hate taxes and distrust politicians and the knee jerk reaction is always "get rid of the taxes"  but this measure obviously creates multiple  headaches in necessary  govt financing, and would do far more harm than good, both in the short and the long term.    A classical example of "the law of unintended consequences!"

Unfortunately many well meaning voters will jump on the "get rid of some taxes" bandwagon, exactly as a lot of well meaning people buy into PETA or HSUS's "stop animal cruelty" stuff,  Its' difficult or impossible to get every voter educated about the nuances of this bill.   On the surface it sounds great but underneath it all......

NO from me for sure!

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

I'm going to vote no.   Too vague of a law imho.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

WHOPPERSTOPPER's picture
WHOPPERSTOPPER
Offline
Joined: 3/31/02

Please vote NO!

Second place is the first loser

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Once (if) this measure passes, I say we target the rest of the tax system too.  Propose a "no income tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, and in general a tax-free North Dakota". 

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Superfreak's picture
Superfreak
Offline
Joined: 2/4/09

Allen Said:
Once (if) this measure passes, I say we target the rest of the tax system too.  Propose a "no income tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, and in general a tax-free North Dakota". 

What color of Kool-Aid are you drinking today? I like Grape!

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

I was on the fence. Besides all the personal BS, this thread has been a real eye-opener. I have read nearly every page. I was a 'no' just months ago but am now a definate YES.

Our current system is broken and seemingly 'drastic' changes are the only ones that seem to have an impact.

Let the people TRULY own their homes.

******Proudly Voting YES on M2******

 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

Superfreak Said:

Allen Said:
Once (if) this measure passes, I say we target the rest of the tax system too.  Propose a "no income tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, and in general a tax-free North Dakota". 

What color of Kool-Aid are you drinking today? I like Grape!

i too prefer grape btw

 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07
Our current system is broken and seemingly 'drastic' changes are the only ones that seem to have an impact.

Let the people TRULY own their homes.

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

 

jsthntn Said:

Let the people TRULY own their homes.

Then you still have to get rid of special assessments and income tax, otherwise you are still paying and if you don't, your home can still be taken.

You can't aim a duck to death.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Superfreak Said:

Allen Said:
Once (if) this measure passes, I say we target the rest of the tax system too.  Propose a "no income tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, and in general a tax-free North Dakota". 

What color of Kool-Aid are you drinking today? I like Grape!

I agree.  Get rid of those guys who fix the roads, law enforcement, and the works.  Turn this place back into the wild west where only a horse can manage travel and those quickest with their six shooter make the rules. 

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: 7/14/03

Go ahead an keep your six shooter, I'll be shooting from the window of my house with the long rifle and when in range the Sig with a 13 round clip might come out of the safe, lol.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Superfreak Said:

Allen Said:
Once (if) this measure passes, I say we target the rest of the tax system too.  Propose a "no income tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, and in general a tax-free North Dakota". 

What color of Kool-Aid are you drinking today? I like Grape!

LOL, your sarcasm detector needs a little tuning. 

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Superfreak's picture
Superfreak
Offline
Joined: 2/4/09

No I got it, I was just trying to be funny.

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

If taxes are the reason some say that they never really "own their homes" then that has to be the absolute dumbest thing I've read on FBO yet.    Paying taxes is part of the community upkeep if you will, for roads, police, and everything else.   Basically doing your duty as a citizen.
As I've said before, we are all against Government waste!  No question there!  But  getting  rrd of property tax will FIX  nothing and claiming it will make true home owning is absurd.   In any civilized country, we all pitch in and do our share.   Want to change our share of community responsibility by stopping wateful programs?  Great!   There's lots of  positive things you can do - GET INVOLVED - don't just go down and vote yourself a temporary little bit of gadget money saved for a year or two until the politicians set another tax up to make up what you now take home.    Won't work a bit!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

bobkat Said:
If taxes are the reason some say that they never really "own their homes" then that has to be the absolute dumbest thing I've read on FBO yet.    Paying taxes is part of the community upkeep if you will, for roads, police, and everything else.   Basically doing your duty as a citizen.
As I've said before, we are all against Government waste!  No question there!  But  getting  rrd of property tax will FIX  nothing and claiming it will make true home owning is absurd.   In any civilized country, we all pitch in and do our share.   Want to change our share of community responsibility by stopping wateful programs?  Great!   There's lots of  positive things you can do - GET INVOLVED - don't just go down and vote yourself a temporary little bit of gadget money saved for a year or two until the politicians set another tax up to make up what you now take home.    Won't work a bit!

And I never agree with bobkat

Neat

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

been gone awhile.  well i have to disagree w/ bobkat for the first time in a while.  there is a fundamental difference between property taxes and other taxes... like specials, sales, service fees, etc...

specials are tied to a specific project that provides a specific benefit to the homeowner.  and citizens have the potential to have much more input on specials than property taxes.  and just because the local entity might be able to still levy a special and eventually take your home, doesn't mean the fact that it makes it right w/ property taxes.  someone can take your home in a judgment too.  but, there are all kinds of things that come first before your home and we give you an exemption up to a certain value.  sales taxes are paid based on the more you spend.  poor people dont' spend as much as rich people.  service fees are tied directly to services provided... water, sewer, etc... and can those services can be turned off.  income taxes are based on how much you make and the extremely poor usually don't pay anything in. 

property taxes are a whole different animal... they are tied directly to the value of your home and go up anytime the value goes up and/or you do something to improve the value.  and they are a whole lot more than a special.  and only a small percentage is tied to anything that has anything to do w/ providing a direct service to the payor.  doesn't something like 70% to towards putting kids in school? 

give me a sales tax, a fuel tax for roads, a higher vehicle registration fee for roads, make me pay for my own kids to go to school, impose a higher state income tax for police, fire, etc... collect the money from me any way you want... even if it means i have to pay more in the long run.  just don't put a direct tax on my home w/ a short route to confiscation if i don't pay. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

bobkat Said:
If taxes are the reason some say that they never really "own their homes" then that has to be the absolute dumbest thing I've read on FBO yet.    Paying taxes is part of the community upkeep if you will, for roads, police, and everything else.   Basically doing your duty as a citizen.
As I've said before, we are all against Government waste!  No question there!  But  getting  rrd of property tax will FIX  nothing and claiming it will make true home owning is absurd.   In any civilized country, we all pitch in and do our share.   Want to change our share of community responsibility by stopping wateful programs?  Great!   There's lots of  positive things you can do - GET INVOLVED - don't just go down and vote yourself a temporary little bit of gadget money saved for a year or two until the politicians set another tax up to make up what you now take home.    Won't work a bit!

I don't think most of us argue that we need legitimate government services.  However, we disagree on the manner in which those taxes should be administered/collected.  One side thinks that they can be collected in a way that does not cause them to live in fear.  The other side does not.  One side believes in private property.  The other side does not.

I happen to fall on the side that believes they should be collected in a manner that does not put people's homes/property at risk.  It's a simple fact that if you have to pay someone to keep something, then it is not yours.

I do agree with you about getting involved though.  People should be involved.  And I believe that's what we're doing with Measure 2.  :o)  

More convinced than ever... VOTING "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

-Justin

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

and imho... get rid of the ability of the government to take your home thru specials too.  but, one thing at a time i guess.  make the failure to pay a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail.  judge's aren't likely to throw someone in jail if they have a legitimate excuse like i am poor as hell.  if they just refuse to pay, jail time is an option i guess.  at least the the few people who can't afford them, won't end up homeless. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

I forgot what this is about, but it's unanimous, right? A YES vote on number 2

fconcolor's picture
fconcolor
Offline
Joined: 3/27/07

BringingTheRain Said:
I forgot what this is about, but it's unanimous, right? A YES vote on number 2

nope

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

Sooo.... This is shaping up to be the landmark decision of our time in ND.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Meelosh Said:
Sooo.... This is shaping up to be the landmark decision of our time in ND.

Could be... I don't want it to pass as written but am well aware that for most people who don't feel strongly one way or the other the "yes" vote is going to be pretty appealing.

I'm still in the no category but I appreciate all the good debate that these threads have created. Even if a person read all these pages and has now decided to vote yes it's better than an uninformed vote IMO

J

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

iluvswnd Said:
 

Meelosh Said:
Sooo.... This is shaping up to be the landmark decision of our time in ND.

Could be... I don't want it to pass as written but am well aware that for most people who don't feel strongly one way or the other the "yes" vote is going to be pretty appealing.

I'm still in the no category but I appreciate all the good debate that these threads have created. Even if a person read all these pages and has now decided to vote yes it's better than an uninformed vote IMO

Both sides make very compelling arguments. I am still not swayed either way.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

diamondguy81's picture
diamondguy81
Offline
Joined: 9/20/06

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

I sure hope it passes.

walifan's picture
walifan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/23/06

I am voting yes for the simple reason that the local taxing authorities out west have found themselves a cash cow.  The house valueations are going up  15-25% per year.  Yet the taxing authorities are not lowering the mil levy: i.e. RE taxes are going up 15-25% each year.  How many people can keep withstanding such an increase without hurting.  Not everyone is working in the oil patch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Vote yes for those of us living out west and not employed in the oil patch.

Pages