Wednesday, October 25, 2006

PruDog Political Endorsements

I endorse Crow's endorsement of voting no on I-933.


At Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:01:00 AM, Blogger stokediam said...

I'd love to hear XXC's take on 933 from his perspective as proponent of organic farming, local food sources, etc.

And (in a slightly different vein) what about Seattle's Referendum 1? Are we supposed to believe that consenting adults keep all that behavior indoors and aren't an evil influence on surrounding neighborhoods?

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:46:00 AM, Blogger P-Dog said...

the problem with I933 is that it doesn't protect farms. it's a thinly vieled welfare program that allows people to use existing zoning restrictions to sue for compensation for assinine lost economic opportunities. for example, if i wanted to put a strip club in in my back yard i could sue for lost economic gain because zoning doesn't allow it. and, to add my own cynicism, given the sponsors of i-933 i suspect that is exactly what it is intended to do, not just what it actually does.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:09:00 AM, Blogger Steve said...

The only problem is that there are too many folks out there who read the stranger as the end all be all to protecting the alternative/neohippy/liberal/bushhater lifestyle. I-933 is crap. The farmers know it, knowledgable chefs know it, and hopefully the state and counties will realize it before its gets voted on. I also enjoy getting fresh salmon fat, and if this goes the wrong way, it will allow for development that will encroach on salmon streams. Remember, this initiative goes hand in hand with the salmon haters out there who want to get wild salmon OFF the endangered species act so that they can farm salmon more in washington. I need my salmon fat for my beautiful fur and good eyesight.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:29:00 PM, Blogger Walter said...

You guys are way off base on opposing I-933!!!!

It’s kind of scary to think the government can legally take the roof out from over your head.

This what they are capable of...

Don’t let them.

Vote yes on I-933!!!!

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:42:00 PM, Blogger P-Dog said...

Gosh so many ways to go on this response. But I'll stick to the basics. How does Section 1 of I933 change Imminent Domain seizures in Washington? And how do you justify Section 2's provisions that require the government to reimburse land owner's for restrictions on theoretical opportunity costs that have nothing to do with imminent domain.

And how come the Yes on I933's link to the text of I933 doesn't work? And no one seems to have noticed or cared? And why don't any of their examples of abuse have sourcing? Not particularly impressive.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:44:00 PM, Blogger P-Dog said...

oh, and you can find the text of I933 here:

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:12:00 PM, Blogger CROW said...

Walter, you are a fool along with some many other ignorant doofuses who gobble up this "government taking" line of crap like it was a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts thrown over the fence at a fat farm. First, there is no guarantee anywhere that land will always increase in value. Remember this is a free market system. Second, there is no guarantee anywhere which, states that individuals can do whatever they wish with their property. As in the example of free speech, folks can say a lot of stuff, but clearly can not yell fire in a theater. Why? Because, Walter, yelling fire does nothing to serve anybody and really only causes harm. Similarly, doing what ever you want on private property doesn’t always serve the public good. If zoning laws are rolled back, due to I-933, the nice rolling roads out there in our rural valleys are all prone to heavy development, likely in manners that have little or no consistency with the nice, quiet farm road that you love to ride on. But even if we were talking about, “Government Taking,” Walter, I-933 only serves greedy developers and speculative buyers who, under I933, will be able to purchase land specifically with the intent of government (taxpayer) compensation for a perceived loss in value. And really, Walter, you’ll be the first to bitch when a gravel mine moves in next door, or you find out that King county paid some enterprising land corporation millions for a law that prevented them from moving in.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:46:00 PM, Anonymous andrew said...

I'm pretty sure Walter, Duke, and Mary Collins here are all the same overzealous Tim Eyman wanna be. Google Blogsearch is great for finding these sort of things:


Mary Collins:


They all use essentially the same weak argument and text. What's funny is the top two get called out for both posting from an IP in Connecticut. Cute eh?

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:56:00 PM, Blogger P-Dog said...

my word! are you suggesting i have been visited by a troll????? oh the horror. well then maybe he can get that link fixed, since "he" probably works for teh campaign.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:13:00 PM, Anonymous andrew said...

Nah - mostly hoping that Crow doesn't think too hard on rebutting the guy. Chances are, most reasonable folk already agree with him, and "Walter" won't be back to read it anyway.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:11:00 PM, Blogger pnwbuckeye said...

I'm not sure I have ever seen an initiative that was worth voting on one or the other with the exception of the smoking ban in public places, oh yeah and the new initiative that I am proposing to ban all further initiatives.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:26:00 PM, Blogger P-Dog said...

i think the initiatives are quite the little Northwest Cottage industry.

At Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:31:00 PM, Blogger Double C said...

Folly & Foes-

The initiative is poorly drafted and could create as many problems as it solves.
Let's just say there are some people & companies “builders” that do very well when property values increase,”



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home