VA Constitutional amendments?

[Anonymous]

Glad I checked the sample ballot bc I had no idea these were on there.

[Anonymous]

Neither of them seem too controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither of them seem too controversial.

Why do you say that?

[Anonymous]

Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

Why yes on the second one. I am voting dem as well, but plan on voting no to both. Not sure why the property tax relief should continue no matter where in state you move, just because your spouse was a veteran. Yes, I appreciate veterans and spouses, but fee at some point the exemptions for taxes just have to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

OP here. That was my plan--to vote no on the flooding one and yes on the other one.

[Anonymous]

Voting yes on both.
/Dem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

Why yes on the second one. I am voting dem as well, but plan on voting no to both. Not sure why the property tax relief should continue no matter where in state you move, just because your spouse was a veteran. Yes, I appreciate veterans and spouses, but fee at some point the exemptions for taxes just have to stop.

The amendment is not for any and all vets. It is not even for most vets.

It is for the small portion that are at 100% disability.

Do you know how damaged your mind and body must be to get a 100% disability rating?

This is not a perk like a military discount.

These are not typical vets.

These 100% disability vets are extraordinary families with extraordinary sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

I'm planning to vote no on the flooding one. The kinds of things they want to give tax breaks for now are things that responsible builders/homeowners should have already done. And I don't think the cost of shoring up those beach houses should be born by people who probably have significantly less wealth than the people who own those beach houses. It's a measure backed by the real estate industry so people won't be discouraged from building/buying in flood-prone areas, which seems foolish to me.

I'm more inclined to vote yes on the military spouse amendment. When I try to think of who might benefit from that amendment, I'm envisioning a surviving spouse who, after the disabled spouse has died, might decide to sell their existing house and move to something less expensive and more manageable for them, which wasn't feasible while their spouse was alive (e.g., disabled spouse needed wheelchair accessibility of other housing accommodations). Disability tends to have a major impact on military families financially, and spouses often have to stop working or dramatically cut back on work in order to care for their spouses. Allowing them to transfer their property tax exemption to that smaller/less expensive home seems like a small thing to give them. Plus, if that would be the dominant trend, it could actually help tax revenue by allowing people to more their tax-exempt status to a lower-value (and thus lower-taxed) property while selling higher-value home to someone who will pay full property taxes on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm planning to vote no on the flooding one. The kinds of things they want to give tax breaks for now are things that responsible builders/homeowners should have already done. And I don't think the cost of shoring up those beach houses should be born by people who probably have significantly less wealth than the people who own those beach houses. It's a measure backed by the real estate industry so people won't be discouraged from building/buying in flood-prone areas, which seems foolish to me.

I'm more inclined to vote yes on the military spouse amendment. When I try to think of who might benefit from that amendment, I'm envisioning a surviving spouse who, after the disabled spouse has died, might decide to sell their existing house and move to something less expensive and more manageable for them, which wasn't feasible while their spouse was alive (e.g., disabled spouse needed wheelchair accessibility of other housing accommodations). Disability tends to have a major impact on military families financially, and spouses often have to stop working or dramatically cut back on work in order to care for their spouses. Allowing them to transfer their property tax exemption to that smaller/less expensive home seems like a small thing to give them. Plus, if that would be the dominant trend, it could actually help tax revenue by allowing people to more their tax-exempt status to a lower-value (and thus lower-taxed) property while selling higher-value home to someone who will pay full property taxes on it.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

Why yes on the second one. I am voting dem as well, but plan on voting no to both. Not sure why the property tax relief should continue no matter where in state you move, just because your spouse was a veteran. Yes, I appreciate veterans and spouses, but fee at some point the exemptions for taxes just have to stop.

It's not giving them a new benefit, it's just letting them carry the existing benefit to a different property so you don't end up with military spouses stuck in homes that otherwise don't work for them after the veteran spouse dies (too expensive, not near family, etc.), because they can't afford to give up the property tax exemption.

[Anonymous]

Dem and agree with 'no' on flood areas. We need to start buying up this land and declaring it 'no build'. And people should not get federally subsidized flood insurance at all. All of these coastal developments are a taxpayer drain and environmental disaster

[Anonymous]

Voted yes on the flood issue. It does not require a locality to do that, it ALLOWS a locality to do that. I think the way Va law and constitution hem in decision making by localities sucks, and I will vote for almost anything that allows localities choices. If you don't want it in YOUR county or city, you can vote for people who agree with you for local govt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

Why yes on the second one. I am voting dem as well, but plan on voting no to both. Not sure why the property tax relief should continue no matter where in state you move, just because your spouse was a veteran. Yes, I appreciate veterans and spouses, but fee at some point the exemptions for taxes just have to stop.

It's not giving them a new benefit, it's just letting them carry the existing benefit to a different property so you don't end up with military spouses stuck in homes that otherwise don't work for them after the veteran spouse dies (too expensive, not near family, etc.), because they can't afford to give up the property tax exemption.

Well, if only the spouse could, you know, get a JOB to fund her choices, instead of suckling off the government teat.

Anyone voting yes to this had better not complain about useless people getting handouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local Dems are saying to vote "yes" on both, but I'm planning on voting "no" for the flooding one and "yes" for the spouse of veterans one.
For the flooding one: I think we need to discourage continued building in flood prone areas. I also of course think we need to work on climate change, but I don't think this amendment is a good idea.
Agree the second one is not controversial.

Why yes on the second one. I am voting dem as well, but plan on voting no to both. Not sure why the property tax relief should continue no matter where in state you move, just because your spouse was a veteran. Yes, I appreciate veterans and spouses, but fee at some point the exemptions for taxes just have to stop.

It's not giving them a new benefit, it's just letting them carry the existing benefit to a different property so you don't end up with military spouses stuck in homes that otherwise don't work for them after the veteran spouse dies (too expensive, not near family, etc.), because they can't afford to give up the property tax exemption.

Well, if only the spouse could, you know, get a JOB to fund her choices, instead of suckling off the government teat.

Anyone voting yes to this had better not complain about useless people getting handouts.

Often times these spouses had to stop or dramatically cut back on working to care for their disabled spouses, all the while running through their savings on medical care. If you’re 62 when your spouse dies and have been out of the workforce for 15 years for caretaking, what kind of job do you think you’re going to find? I’m voting yes, and won’t claim for a moment about the cost of providing for military families.