It’s that time of the election cycle again when people start asking me how they should vote on this or that. Almost everyone needs guidance on ballot questions that don’t get as much news coverage as the candidates.

Except for the medical marijuana amendment, the second on the ballot, folks are pretty unaware about the other questions — probably because they haven’t received much media attention. There aren’t as many questions as we’ve had in the past, so it should not be discouraging — unless you live in North Miami Beach, where there are 10 charter amendments on the ballot. Other cities like Miami and Miami Beach also have questions posed to their voters. We may come back to those later.

But for now here are Ladra’s summaries and recommendations on countywide questions:

Amendment One: Rights for Solar Choice.  Vote NO

No matter what anybody from either the Republican or Democratic parties say, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are the biggest fraud on the ballot. That honor goes to a question, not a candidate. The solar question, because it’s not what it pretends to be. Instead of expanding and simplifying the use of solar panels, this constitutional amendment will make the current cumbersome and restrictive monopoly system part of the status quo and keep Florida as one of five states that currently bans the sale of solar energy directly to consumers. It will be more difficult, if not impossible, for pro-solar groups to get their initiatives passed.

This ballot initiative is being pushed and financed (to the tune of $21 million) by big utilities and, yes, big bad FP&L. When they realized that the pro-solar initiative, Floridians for Solar Choice, did not gather the sufficient amount of signatures to get their progressive measure expanding solar options for consumers on the ballot, these utility interests decided to get their own referendum on the ballot disguised as the pro-solar initiative. “Choice,” my butt.

Justice Barbara Pariente‘s dissenting opinion on the ruling allowing the measure to go forward has been requoted multiple times because it is so apropos. She called the language “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and said the question was “masquerading as a pro-solar energy initiative.”

An insider on the campaign called it  “political jiu-jitsu” and a savvy move, according to a Miami Herald story. It is really quite brilliant, if evil, political strategy. The question is worded in such a way that it could lead voters to think we’re improving our solar choices. They aim to fool us. Don’t be fooled. Vote no.

Amendment 2: Medical pot for debilitating diseases. Vote YES.

It’s inhumane to keep medical marijuana from the people who need it. There is no reason to think that this would harm anyone. Are you going to tell Ladra that alcohol is less harmful? Or Celebrex for that matter? Have you heard the disclaimers on TV? Why risk difficulty breathing, slurred speech and vomiting blood “and something that looks like coffee grinds” to treat debilitating arthritis when a little pot will do? Ladra is pretty certain the pharmaceutical industry is the one financing any campaign against this. They stand to lose millions. If you ask me, this amendment doesn’t go far enough. And it’s inevitable.

Read related story: Doctors and nurses say vote yes on medical marijuana

Amendment 3: Tax exemption for first responders. Vote YES

This almost goes without saying. They are the police and firefighters who we rely on. We owe them everything. There is nothing left to say. Oh, maybe, three little numbers: 9, 1, 1.

Amendment 4: Tax exemption for seniors. Vote YES

Surely, we can find revenues elsewhere and allow our growing senior population to age at home. Especially since we waste so many millions on pet projects given to people with palanca, i.e. the electeds’ friends and family members and campaign contributors. Why can’t we see a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform statewide?

Miami-Dade charter amendment: Taxing districts. Vote YES

This would allow cities to create and manage special taxing districts where property owners pay additional taxes for additional lighting or services such as security or grounds keeping. And, well, there are arguments that they could do it more efficiently and inexpensively. They certainly can’t do worse than the county, which was found last year to be over-billing some property owners to make up for others who were not paying their fair share. The mayor admitted the mismanagement went on for years. So you might think that cities can better manage this.

Read related story: County moves special taxing districts’ funds to cities control

We have to be careful, of course. And make sure there are safety nets. Because for every Coral Gables and Miami Lakes — where Councilman Manny Cid is pushing for this — you have cities like Opa-Locka and Hialeah, where this might become a brand new cottage industry for political insiders to abuse.  You can see the consultants and lobbyists now, salivating at this potential new stream of revenue at the expense of taxpayers who are going to be sold a bill of goods on services or amenities they don’t really need.

But the bottom line is that cities should be in control of any additional services or amenities that property voters have to vote to approve anyway. That’s why residents incorporate: So they have more control. Yes means more control.

Miami-Dade charter amendment: Public Records. Vote YES

Wait a minute: Don’t we have that right already under Florida Sunshine laws? Sorta. Because while the state law can be enforced, it is more difficult to do so locally and some requests could be legally denied. This gives the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust the teeth to enforce the public records laws. We already have a hard enough time getting public records. We should do anything we can to make obtaining public funds easier. Vote yes.