9/12/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 58 P-Ar,F 2`17 are at stake. For the consideration of the Commission, Mr. Zorc presented the results of a newspaper poll conducted by ACT. He pointed out that the poll was handled by mail and every ballot received meant that someone took the time to clip it out of the newspaper, stamp it and mail it back. The results of the poll are as follows: 1st Question: I do support spending City, County and Federal tax dollars to pump sand to restore beaches. Results: Out of 100 ballots received, only one answered if 2nd Question: I do not support the above. Results: 98% stated they did not support it. 3rd Question: Please request the County to include a referendum question on the November ballot asking if we favor spending any tax dollars to pump sand. Results: 98% voted that they wanted the referendum. 4th Question: Please ask the County to print pro and con statements in the local paper from _ those supporting and those opposing sand pumping for beach renourishment. Results: 60% voted for the above. As a result of the poll, ACT members are formally requesting that a referendum be held in November. Mr. Carroll Palmer thanked the Commission for this opportunity to present the Taxpayers Association's request that a referendum be held in November. He recalled that although a referendum on the beach renourishment issue has been repeatedly promised to the County voters, it never has been held, and the Taxpayers Association feels that now is the time for the Commission to get an official indication of how the taxpayers feel in re to this matter. Mr. Palmer stressed that the cost would be minimal if the referendum is on the November ballot. He noted that it has been argued that the beach renourishment question is not a proper referendum matter, and activists for the beach renourishment project have alledged that the voters are not qualified to vote on this issue. However, just a couple of years ago, the voters tackled the issue of an $8 -million school bond 43