When “NO” Means “ Yes” And “ Yes” Means “No”: The Florida Constitutional Amendment On Solar Energy
Right when I feel that things are just maybe getting back to normal and that the oligopolistic forces in our nation are somehow, maybe taking a step back… I am reminded why I continue to fight for the little guy… and just can’t stand the power of monopolistic corporate behavior.
As background, the Florida Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court have approved Amendment 1 on the Florida election ballot on November 8, 2016. That ballot initiative would amend Florida’s Constitution supposedly make solar energy more accessible.
If you vote yes for this Amendment, you will be encouraging additional costs for those people who decide to start utilizing solar energy. In fact, the whole purpose of the Amendment, according to the dissenting opinion by the Florida Supreme Court is to allow the electric power companies to charge those individuals who switch to solar power and thus, ultimately, discourage the further utilization of solar power in the State of Florida.
In fact, the dissenting opinion calls the wording of the initiative “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Maybe that is why virtually every major newspaper in Florida is opposed to Amendment 1.
Today, the New York Times did a full analysis of the ballot initiative, and all I can say is that this is, once again, an absolute disgrace and demonstrates why as a public body we need to make sure that this initiative is voted down. The large oligopolistic monopolies think we are idiots, and it’s an insult… to say the least.
Therefore, to be clear, if you are in any way in favor of the generation of solar electricity in the State of Florida, which will allow individuals to cut themselves from the grid and to give us the opportunity, as a nation, to be less dependent on foreign oil, voting yes will, in fact, do exactly the opposite of your desire.
Thus, I am voting NO and ask you to do the same.
From the trenches,
Roy D. Oppenheim