Comments on: A couple of encouraging signs from Jones Street http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/ Affecting NC public policy through informed, energetic and progressive conversations. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:14:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gregflynn http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2191 gregflynn Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:23:53 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2191 The members who made those observations were applying them incorrectly. Commissioners <em>may</em> levy the tax if the majority in a referendum vote for it. It is "non-binding" only to the extent that commissioners are not required to levy the tax. However the reverse is not true. There is no authority to levy the tax without a majority voting for it in a referendum. The members who made those observations were applying them incorrectly. Commissioners may levy the tax if the majority in a referendum vote for it. It is “non-binding” only to the extent that commissioners are not required to levy the tax. However the reverse is not true. There is no authority to levy the tax without a majority voting for it in a referendum.

]]> By: Jim Stegall http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2172 Jim Stegall Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:48:27 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2172 Several members made the observation on the floor today that the local referendums authorized by the budget would not be binding. After all the rhetoric coming from the left-hand side of this debate regarding the virtue of letting the public decide (a powerful arguement, in my opinion), why should the public's decision not be decisive? Several members made the observation on the floor today that the local referendums authorized by the budget would not be binding. After all the rhetoric coming from the left-hand side of this debate regarding the virtue of letting the public decide (a powerful arguement, in my opinion), why should the public’s decision not be decisive?

]]> By: Anglico http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2170 Anglico Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:17:35 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2170 Who said anything about mandates besides you? Local communities want options. If the voters approve, this will given them those options. Who said anything about mandates besides you?

Local communities want options. If the voters approve, this will given them those options.

]]> By: Dallas Woodhouse http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2169 Dallas Woodhouse Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:07:41 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2169 it is not in the law, to say it will be used for schools may be true, or it may NOT be it is not in the law, to say it will be used for schools may be true, or it may NOT be

]]> By: Greg Flynn http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2168 Greg Flynn Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:06:11 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2168 The local part The local part

]]> By: Dallas Woodhouse http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2007/07/28/a-couple-of-encouraging-signs-from-jones-street/#comment-2167 Dallas Woodhouse Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:11:45 +0000 http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?p=526#comment-2167 What part of the law mandates that a new transfer tax be spent on school? NONE What part of the law mandates that a new transfer tax be spent on school?

NONE

]]>