XPost: alt.california, ca.politics, alt.drugs
XPost: alt.drugs.pot
From: billzzstring@starband.net
"B Sellers" wrote in message
news:79be9iF1pua7kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Brooklyn ain't blue wrote:
>> On 10 Jun 2009, never@millions.com posted some
>> news:h1t035tucscr08o3u846lp5ohi3vl213b9@4ax.com:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:56:23 -0700, "Billzz"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tim Howard" wrote in message
>>>> news:4a306172$0$23764$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>>> There is already a problem with people growing marijuana on public
>>>>> lands, but if the Governator gets his way and closes the parks the
>>>>> problem will skyrocket. Most state parks are not gated and for
>>>>> those that are, it is still easy to get in most of them. Without
>>>>> tourists, campers and park employees, drug dealers will run ramped
>>>>> in them. And I am not just talking about pot, I mean hard drugs
>>>>> like speed. If homeless can build makeshift buildings and campsites
>>>>> in wooded parks when they are open and go undetected for a long
>>>>> time, then don't you think drug dealers can set up meth labs? Some
>>>>> park employees are speaking out about this. Hopefully the voters of
>>>>> Kalefonia will get their representatives to stop this short-sighted
>>>>> idea to save money, because the costs will far outweigh any savings
>>>>> a few years down the road. No matter what you think of drugs (and I
>>>>> favor decriminalization and for some, legalization), they do not
>>>>> belong in our CA State Parks.
>>>> That's a good point, and worthy of a letter to the editor of the
>>>> Sacramento Bee. Someone will read it
>>> In Sacramento, political folks read a lot but understand little.
>>>
>>> DCI
>>>
>>
>> It's just noise to put pressure on the Democrats. They're responsible
>> for the fiscal mess anyway. The Caliphonya legislature voted against
>> every measure that would restrict or reduce spending in the last six
>> years. The were responsible for the de-regulation mess that cost Gray
>> Davis his job too.
>>
>>
>>
> Oh and when have the Republicans allowed tax measures to go
> forward? The present California Republican legislators are wanting
> to run the state government out of business so they will be unfettered
> in the exploitation of the States remaining resources. They want to
> cut down the timber in the state parks and open up reserved areas
> to development. IMO.
>
> later
> bliss
Barbra Streisand had a property, close to the coast, but not quite, that she
could not sell for the unheard of price that she wanted, and so the deal was
that the state of California would pay some millions, and she would not have
to pay taxes, and it would be a park. Every non-thinking person in the
State of California thought that was good. Gee, we get another public park.
What it actually meant was that the rest of us are now paying Barbra
Streisand's property taxes. Not only that, we also have to pay for the
extra park rangers that the state just had to hire to guard the place
against us, the people who are paying for the place. And, we the people, do
not get to go into "our" public park because it actually belongs to the
state and the state guards, who have their family picnics whenever they
want, while locking you out. And you have to pay some half-a-hundred
dollars to visit "your" park, that you are paying the property taxes on.
Isn't that special?
"They want to cut down the timber in the state parks and open up reserved
areas to development."
So exactly what is so sacrosanct about timber, here or there? It does grow
back you know. And what is so sacrosanct about *not* having development,
where development is warranted? And what is wrong with the state *making*
money instead of spending money?
The history of the state, and the current conditions, indicate that more and
more private property will fall to the state, and fewer and fewer people
will be paying taxes, until the few people are unable, and/or leave, and the
state implodes. That is actually what is happening.
My broker offered me a State of California 6.25% tax-free bond. I would not
touch that. I do not believe it's any good. They'll default, and I'll be
holding the bag. That's how they are going to get their taxes, one way, or
the other.
The state of California has done, in the past, everything they could do to
chase away private enterprise, and have everyone work for the state. That's
working. What is not working is who is going to pay for that.
Cisco systems is building seven large buildings for five thousand workers
for their new research center. It's in Richardson, Texas. I'll bet you did
not read that in any California newspaper.
The California Development Commission was all fired, and put themselves up
for sale, to the highest bidder, in the WSJ. Like what other state wants to
kill economic development? This is the team for you!
Fort Ord used to house the US Army 7th Infantry Division, about 15,000
troops, all of which had to pay California state taxes. Now there is hardly
any army left in the state, one fort - or air force for that matter - only
two bases, and, since California has a coast, there is some navy left. But
the armed forces, who used to contribute many millions, in federal salaries,
federal school impact funds, state income taxes, free fuel, and I could go
on... they are all gone.
Bah. We retired to California, after living all over the world, and living
here, off and on, for many years. The Sierra Nevada is just as nice. The
people are just as nice. The politicians are the worst in the world.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
