Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Vote YES! Minnesota!

Vote Yes for Better Roads and Transit.

Why shouldn't one vote Yes?

It is unfortunate, but this imposes rules on the Minnesota budget by adding it to the state constitution. Other states like New Jersey have done this to such an extent, that their legislature has no say over the state budget. Minnesota should not go down that road, though this bill is only the first to do so.

Why SHOULD you vote YES ?

Republicans in Minnesota and in the Federal Government have shown contempt for fiscal sanity. They play around with budgets using transit and other such projects as wedge issues. By voting YES you ensure that transit has stable funding - something that has never occurred in Minnesota History! It would mean a decent transit system would be built, and Minnesotans wouldn't have to depend on foreign oil forever.

Pawlenty has also decided that loans are a better way to fund our highways than consistent funding. Of course, he's a Republican and not a fiscal Conservative, therefore he has no qualms doing this - or supporting this constitutional ammendment. It makes him and his party look like the "good guys" though they did nothing to shift MVST funding to roads and transit. They wanted Democrats to do the heavy lifting and get this bill passed.

Want to know where to vote?

Don't support transit?

If all current bus riders immediately began using single-occupant vehicles, an additional two lanes would be needed on the busiest corridors to accommodate the new traffic at current congestion levels. Of transit riders, 81% report using transit to get to work and 75% ride during rush hour.


Mason6883 said...

I voted NO.

This was a horrible amendment. The state budget should not be locked into the state Constitution.

I am sad to see that it passed. I knew if it failed it would be on the ballot again next year, but without the 40% phrase.

And yes, I support tranist.

Also, you should remove the moderation of comments.

Kevin Chavis said...

Bipartisan supporters of transit have tried for stable funding for decades - and anti-transit obstructionists stop them. The income from using cars ( MVST, tabs, etc) do not pay enough currently for roads.

What percent should go to transit is what I ask? Next year transit will get $24M from MVST, and once phased in get $120M. Currently the state spends $180M on transit. So that is $36 a year per citizen to ensure transit exists in our state.

Is $36 a resident that expensive? Obviously how residents use transit/roads in the future will determine funding. But the current MVST language gives transit minimum funding that anti-transit politician cannot cut.

Do you have a better theory for stable transit funding? Our state's is already the most efficient in America, with rider's footing 1/3 the bill immediately upon use.

Mason6883 said...

I have no problem with the amendment, it just should have said some to the effect of "roads amd mass transit" instead of its infamous "no less than 40% for mass transit" line that will be boon to lawmakers in years to come, and will become immpossible to fix now that it is locked in the Constitution.

Had it failed this year, it would have been on next year, but in better form. Also, I suspect that this whole thing was just a dirty, cheap trick to garuntee funding for mass transit, one that will increase out taxes as result (just ask the teachers union if they are ok with taking a smaller portion of taxes already collected).

40% may be a good number this year, but will it be for the next 300 years?