Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
No on Prop 224![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: No on Prop 224!
- From: <Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:08:30 EDT
To my fellow engineers: I have sent the following message to everyone in my e-mail address book and would encourage you all to cut and paste it and do the same. Thanks, Bruce Resnick, SE Parker Resnick Str. Eng. To all: While I am normally not very involved in politics, I would strongly encourage all of you California voters to vote tomorrow (June 2) and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION. 224. This is an anti-competitive measure that would raise taxes, lower quality, and really hurt privately owned architectural and engineering design firms such as Parker Resnick. More info can be found at "www.no224.org". (a little bit of which I copied below). Even if you are not from California, please copy this message and forward it to everyone on your mail list. If you send it to 50 people, and they send it to 50 people, etc., etc., ... soon the whole state will get the message! Thanks for you help and support, Bruce >From the "www.no224.org" Web Page: HEADLINE NEWS! "Nothing on this June's election ballot threatens the economy and budget of California more seriously than Proposition 224, a poorly drafted, ill- conceived initiative pushed by self-serving special interests." Sacramento Bee (May 5, 1998) "A sneaky sham... Proposition 224 is a bad idea in every way" San Diego Union Tribune (May 14, 1998) Beware! The so-called ?competitive bidding? initiative is NOT what it pretends to be. It?s a wolf in sheep?s clothing. If you support competitive bidding and taxpayer savings, you?ll want to vote AGAINST Prop. 224. Prop. 224 is opposed by California Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, PTA, Structural Engineers Association of California and many others because it would mean bigger state government and higher taxes. In fact, Prop. 224 would result in 15,000 new state employees at a cost of $1.7 billion a year.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: News Funnies
- Next by Subject: Re: No on Prop 224!
- Previous by thread: Re: 8th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering (June 13-16, 1999) Vancouver, Canada
- Next by thread: Re: No on Prop 224!