|
many of the projects this amendment would fund are longer than political careers. i'm not trying to call you out personally, just respond to the general viewpoint you posted.
land and water restoration projects shouldn't come and go based on the current political climate, which is how things are now. this results in huge sums of wasted money because, for example, lake restoration projects can take a decade or more to succeed after 50 or 60 years of previous degredation. if you interrupt the process, most of that money is usually wasted and the project fails to do any good.
i agree that amending the constitution should be saved for important issues. clean water and a healthy environment are (or should be)important issues to everyone. in my opinion, these rank at the top and should not be left up to politicians or have to fight the tax evaders league for support.
Here's the amendment info:
Wording of the Resolution:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales tax and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"
Basic summary:
* A VOTE YES would amend the Constitution
* A VOTE YES would add 3/8% to the existing sales tax of 6.5% (an increase of less than 38 cents per $100), and last until 2034.
* The 0.375% sales tax is expected to raise about $300 million/year for dedicated spending as follows: 33% of proceeds would go to an Outdoor Heritage Fund (to be spent only to restore, protect and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests and habitat for game, fish and wildlife). Funds will be distributed by a "citizen led" council that will have 8 members. 4 appointed by the governor, and 4 appointed by state legislators. 33% will go for Clean Lakes, Rivers and Streams to be spent only to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater and at least 5 percent spent to protect drinking water sources. 14.25% will go to Parks and Trails Fund -- to be spent only to support parks and trails of regional and statewide significance. 19.75% will go for Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund to be spent only for the arts, arts education, arts access and to preserve Minnesota's history and cultural heritage.
* The amendment has strong bi-partisan support in the Legislature and the backing of most of the major conservation and sportsmen's organizations, but the vote on Nov. 4 is expected to be close. The amendment only needs a majority (51%), but failure to vote on the amendment counts as a no vote. A recent poll showed 59% in favor but 40% didn't know anything about it, and few were well-informed. We hope that the amendment will pass or fail based on the informed vote of voters, and not based on a large number of blank ballots.
* Current funding is inadequate for implementing the recommendations in major statewide conservation plans (plans developed with citizen and stakeholder input over the past 10 years). The Outdoor Heritage Fund will provide ~$99 M a year for habitat related efforts. The money will be distributed in grants to local communities.
* The state's 1.5 million sportsmen and women raise $48.8 million a year through stamp and license sales. The dedicated funding amendment would raise more in one year than 25 years of stamp sales have produced. Protecting clean water, habitat, and legacy benefits everyone, and should be paid for by everyone, not just sportsmen.
* Other states have used a conservation sales-tax successfully: Under Missouri's system, one-eighth of every cent spent in the state goes toward the outdoors and conservation. Missouri is recognized for making great strides in conservation and resource protection.
Defining the Threat:
* Minnesota has lost more than 99% of its native, unbroken prairie. Wildlife habitat has declined and continues to decline in the state.
* Many forest lands are coming up for sale, and being subdivided and sold to small private holdings. The majority of public lands were acquired by the state decades ago, and in recent years, the state has probably sold off more lands than it has acquired.
* CRP lands and other wildlife lands are threatened on a large scale by the expansion of corn acreage in response to the ethanol boom and increasing demand for corn.
* In some areas of the state (south and west) we have lost more than 90 percent of our wetlands. Despite the passage of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act in 1991, a Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources report indicates that 1,367 acres of wetlands were lost in Minnesota between 2001 and 2003 due to regulatory gaps. The losses go beyond lost acres, as many wetlands have been fragmented or degraded leaving small, disconnected islands of habitat that cannot support diverse plant and wildlife species. According to MCEA Legal Director Janette Brimmer, despite 15 years of experience with the law, we still see significant loss of our state's wetlands. Wetlands continue to be damaged, degraded, filled, drained, plowed, polluted or invaded with non-native species. Waterfowl populations continue to decline as habitat losses continue. Vote Yes funding would be used to achieve additional protection of shallow lakes, wetlands, and waterfowl habitat.
* The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has determined that 40 percent of Minnesota's lakes, rivers and streams are currently polluted. 1/3 of the funds go to clean up and protect our waters.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
