Starchild,
Are you asking for a formal ExCom vote to "authorize us to go back to
square one?" If so, as a member of the ExCom, I am voting NO, since
voting yes, would indeed be overturning what was voted by almost 15
people at the last meeting.
I have no problem at all going back to square one. I do have a
problem with going back to square one when people at the meeting
voted not to do so.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:
I see... well, in that case, since I understand Phil is now
not
favoring a curb rights measure, perhaps it would be best to have an
ExCom vote authorizing us to go back to square one and entertain
proposals for initiatives on any topic. This would not be
overturning
the vote of the membership at the meeting, as I don't believe the
ExCom
should do such a thing, simply a vote to hear other additional
proposals. A curb rights measure would still be on the table, if in
name only, until the next meeting when the membership could
formally
rescind last meeting's vote. Unless of course others still want a
curb
rights initiative.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>>
>> I was not aware that such a vote was taken, but I'm glad there
was a
>> group vote, even though I was not there to participate and would
have
>> voted differently had I been there. If the vast majority of
people at
>> the meeting voted for a transportation initiative, then that's
what we
>> should go with. Therefore I suggest simply amending the process I
>> proposed to require that any initiative submitted be related to
>> private
>> transportation.
>
> The formal decision at the meeting was to the effect that the
LPSF
> would
> pursue a proposition on the subject of "curb rights", and then
that a
> committee made up of anyone who joined the discussion on lpsf-
activists
> should prepare a report for the next meeting describing a proposed
> proposition (not yet in legal language) for consideration by the
> regular
> meeting as to next steps. This was not necessarily a binding
> commitment to
> see such a proposition through to a ballot, but to put some
formal
> oomph
> into getting the process moving. The proposition developed in this
> committee still has to be reported to the regular meeting in
March.
>
> As a point of order, I'm curious whether "curb rights" was
generally
> understood to mean selling or leasing curbs specifically, or to
mean
> libertarian approaches to urban transit in general. I understood
it as
> the
> latter, as opposed to marijuana legalization and other diverse
topics,
> such that medallions were still open for consideration.
>
> The main driver for that motion was that there had actually been
some
> proposals drafted on this topic, by Phil Berg and by Michael
Edelstein.
>
> -J-
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos