Talk:Mimi Walters/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Proposition 90

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The neutrality of this article is disputed

I tagged this article because the discussion of the proposition is too positive. Prop 90 was about a lot more than property rights. Prop 90 would have made it difficult for government to do anything. A more balanced discussion of Prop 90 is needed.

Alleged lack of neutrality

While it is true that Proposition 90 would have substantially curtailed governments' ability to take private property, it is governments' role and responsibility to protect citizens' rights, not trample on them. The objection to Prop 90 was that it took away governments' tool of eminent domain, but the claim is patently untrue. When property is to be taken in order to build a school, a road, or some other public use, the restrictions imposed by Prop 90 largely do not apply. It is when private property is taken to be given to another private entity that the sanctions of Prop 90 come into play. It is not a public use to take property in order to increase tax revenues for a governmental entity. It may serve some public purpose, but it does not fall under the long held traditional "public use" definition.

As to the restrictions on regulatory takings, while those provisions do indeed go further than the Kelo decision, it is important that a local government not be allowed to rezone a parcel(s) specifically to reduce property value in order to make it easier for the government to purchase desired property (often for a much more affordable price), to then rezone at a higher property value, thus gaining a larger revenue stream via higher property taxes and, most likely, sales taxes as well. This potentially threatens any property owner who is protected by Proposition 13 and/or does not produce sales tax revenue as a retail business(es) would.

It is also telling that the user who cited a lack of neutrality did not sign his/her comment. Based on that alone, the user's comment should be removed, or at the very least, removed until the user signs his/her handiwork.

Rocksavs 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing POV

I should have signed the first entry and I'm sorry I didn't. Proposition 90 is very controversial. There are some negatives to Prop 90 that you did not mention. If California passes a new law, say to regulate air quality, than that law could potentially be seen as a taking. Some city planning students that I have talked to have claimed that a similar Proposition in Oregon effectively brought about the end of planning in Oregon. Moderate Republican Arnold Swarchenegger urged voters latter in the election to vote against Prop 90.

Classifying the issue as "property rights" is a non-nuetral frame of the issue. I changed the article's languange to restricting "eminent domain" because that is a more nuetral and technically more accurate.

Further, I found the sentence about why Prop 90 failed to be particularly biased because it lacked a source and is hardly a consensus conclusion. Prop 90 might have failed for a variety of complex reasons including voters real belief that it was a bad proposition. Some Prop 90 opponents believe that Prop 90 got as much support as it did because it was low visibility.

It is not neccessary for me to win the arguement against Prop 90, I must merely establish that their is an alternative view, which would make sense because a majority of California voters did vote against Prop 90. The last edits I made kept this article clean of the contention over Prop 90. Discussion of Prop 90 should occur on the California Proposition 90 page on not on the Walters page. More work shouold be done to improve the Prop 90 page. User:calbear22 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mimi Walters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 - Mass removal of content

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

First off, I want to disclose my own conflict of interest on this article. I have previously donated to an opponent of Mimi Walters. As such, I have limited my edits on this page to reverting the mass removal of content to avoid introduction of content in any way that could lack neutrality due to my own biases.

Now that's out of the way, I want to open a discussion regarding the removal of content on this page. It appears Krieg13 has removed a lot of sourced content that generally seemed to be presented from a neutral point of view because he/she believes this page was being edited by the article's subject's opponents (per edit summaries). I noted that the edits seem to indicate that Krieg might also have a conflict of interest and I posted a notice about that on his/her talk page. I and another editor had reverted Krieg's edits, and Krieg had inadvertently violated the three revert rule and was subsequently warned by Oshwah. (Note: I also am sitting on the verge of 3RR and per above COI, I'm going to limit myself to contributing to discussion on the talk page moving forward.)

I think this page could use some disinterested eyes. I acknowledge that some of the material that Krieg removed was unsourced, and thus is possibly removable, or at least could have used {{citation needed}} tags. However, I think the sourced material should be re-added absent showing that the sources were unreliable.

@Krieg13: Would you agree to re-adding the sourced material?
@Citizen Canine: Pinging you since you also had some reverts here in case you have broader thoughts.
@Oshwah: Thank you for your guidance. Do you have suggestions on where this discussion could be posted?

Thank you all for your work to improve the project. --Policy Reformer (c) 22:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I just got involved as I noticed Krieg13 was continuing to reinstate their changes despite having been reverted by ClueBot. To address the edit summary: "Opponents of this elected official have been editing this page to manipulate her record". I'm not sure how they can claim to know this, or even what is intended by "Opponents". But as mentioned, the article does not seem to display any bias, either in its presentation of content or in its selection of sources. So even if true, the assertion is surely quite irrelevant. I've been exercising restraint as I myself made three reverts (though I was not restoring the exact same material each time). The material should definitely be re-included, at least for the moment. If Krieg13 believes there is good reason for its removal, raising concerns on this talk page seems a good place to start. Citizen Canine (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The article should be restored to how it was before Krieg13 started deleting everything s/he thought made Congresswoman Walters look bad. If Krieg13 feels that the article is POV, he should discuss it here -- especially since there appears to be consensus for inclusion of the information. The opinion piece, from The Hill, s/he keeps trying to use as a source is unreliable -- and POV. -- Ríco 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Snooganssnoogans took this to RPP, and Swarm decided rather than protect the page, the best course was to block Krieg13. Posting this update to preserve in one place for posterity. --Policy Reformer (c) 01:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason given was, "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)" -- Ríco 01:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Question raised by Federal taxation legislation of 2017

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Federal taxation legislation of 2017 section tells us how the Congresswoman voted on the initial House bill in spite of some reservations she had about cuts to tax deductions that were popular in California. Then it says the Senate bill did not address those reservations. Anyone who knows the way Congress works knows there had to be a third vote on the reconciliation bill. The article needs to tell us how the final bill affected those tax deductions, and how she voted. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)