Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

[SteveXC500]

Why does the GOP not support transit? Because the majority of the GOP is outside the metro and their constituents do not support paying more in something (tax, tab fees, etc) for a mode they may rarely, if ever, use. I don't see an issue with that. So the GOP was "stonewalling" to support what they were sent to St. Paul to do...support their constituents. I mention the blame on "both sides" because it seems a vast majority of politicians (St. Paul or Washington) are spending too much time, or maybe it is wasting too much time, trying to insert what they want. Sometimes it is what their voters want, but so often it is not. Politics is changing because our politicians are not looking out for Minnesota anymore. Rant over.

[EOst]

Reports are that Daudt and friends planned the late bonding bill and early adjournment weeks ago. The whole thing was political theater.

QED

[acs]

Long term though, I'm not terribly worried as long as Amy and Al can work some more magic and keep federal funding for SWLRT open. Come November the trump effect is going to hit the state GOP hard and by this time next year we'll have passed the senates original transportation plan.

[Didier]

Reports are that Daudt and friends planned the late bonding bill and early adjournment weeks ago. The whole thing was political theater.

QED

QED, according to www.mathopenref.com/qed.html, means:

QED is an abbreviation of the Latin words "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" which loosely translated means "that which was to be demonstrated". It is usually placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate that the proof is complete.

[David Greene]

Why does the GOP not support transit? Because the majority of the GOP is outside the metro and their constituents do not support paying more in something (tax, tab fees, etc) for a mode they may rarely, if ever, use. I don't see an issue with that. So the GOP was "stonewalling" to support what they were sent to St. Paul to do...support their constituents.

There is a distinct difference between representing your constituents and blocking progress due to ideology. The majority of the GOP's constituents wouldn't even be paying for transit as the taxes were restricted to the metro.

Our system requires compromise. The DFL made big concessions. The only major "concessions" the GOP made were disingenuous. Further reports indicate Daudt had verbally agreed to the transit amendment on the bonding bill but when he and Peppin heard the Senate was going to pass it, they quickly adjourned _sine_die_. Apparently they thought the Senate wasn't going to have time to do it (due to their earlier-planned delay tactics).

[twincitizen]

No one has mentioned what the Senate's late amendment to the bonding bill actually was. The Senate was (likely) going to pass the House bonding bill with a tiny amendment allowing Hennepin County to pay for the state's 10% of SWLRT. The amendment would state that Hennepin County was allowed to cover 20% of the costs, instead of the 10% they've already committed. AFAIK, it did not commit any state dollars to the project. According to many sources, Daudt actually agreed to this...and then at the last minute, it failed to materialize. Bakk maintains that Daudt agreed to it, hence the "20, not 10" chatter you may have seen on Twitter, screenshot of a text message from Bakk to Daudt, etc. If this is true, Daudt is even worse than we already think he is. Slimy AF to agree to that privately and then leave it out of the bill, knowing full well the Senate would amend it back in, then quickly adjourn sine die 3 minutes early at 11:57 before the bill can come back from the Senate. Reports are that the amended bill would have made it back to the House in time, had they not adjourned.

[David Greene]

Is there some law that says Hennepin county *can't* pay more into SWLRT? I thought the percentages shared among entities was a general agreement kind of thing, not actually law.

In any case, I'm pretty sure Met Council will cover SWLRT for now. They'll have to raid some other programs though. They'll get the money back when the DFL takes over.

[Qhaberl]

Quick question,

Why can't Hennepin County, the city of Minneapolis, increase their own taxes for transit?

For example, why can't Hennepin County increase sales taxes that would benefit only bus routes that serve 90% of their route in the county. Why do we always have to wait for things to happen at the state level?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Greene]

Quick question,

Why can't Hennepin County, the city of Minneapolis, increase their own taxes for transit?

For example, why can't Hennepin County increase sales taxes that would benefit only bus routes that serve 90% of their route in the county. Why do we always have to wait for things to happen at the state level?

Because cities and counties are creatures of the state.

More specifically, when LGA was created, cities gave up their sales taxes to the state in exchange for receiving state aid. The idea was to spread tax revenue more equally. It's a fine idea assuming that everyone buys into the program but that is most definitely not the case now.

That said, could the city or county increase their own property taxes to help pay for transit? I'm not sure what the law says regarding that.

[twincitizen]

Is there some law that says Hennepin county *can't* pay more into SWLRT? I thought the percentages shared among entities was a general agreement kind of thing, not actually law.

This is a good question, and one I was wondering immediately upon hearing about this negotiation. I would guess it's written into the CTIB enabling laws or something. If Hennepin County already had this ability, then I doubt the legislative leaders would have bothered making such a big deal out of it.

[Qhaberl]

I have been following transportation funding new stories on the West Coast. Are we able to get any transportation funding by the ballot box? You see states like Washington and California, in particular Seattle and Los Angeles, making these massive investments in transportation. Is there some law that prohibits this from happening in Minnesota?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Greene]

I have been following transportation funding new stories on the West Coast. Are we able to get any transportation funding by the ballot box? You see states like Washington and California, in particular Seattle and Los Angeles, making these massive investments in transportation. Is there some law that prohibits this from happening in Minnesota?

The legislature has to approve any referendum on sales taxes. I don't know about other kinds of taxes. Could Minneapolis pass a charter amendment? Maybe. But that would be a death knell for regionalism. The legislature and CTIB would be itching to cut all kinds of funding to the city. I don't think city leaders are willing to go there.

[David Greene]

No one has mentioned what the Senate's late amendment to the bonding bill actually was. The Senate was (likely) going to pass the House bonding bill with a tiny amendment allowing Hennepin County to pay for the state's 10% of SWLRT. The amendment would state that Hennepin County was allowed to cover 20% of the costs, instead of the 10% they've already committed. AFAIK, it did not commit any state dollars to the project.

Did it authorize a sales tax to do so? That could be why a change in statute was needed.

[talindsay]

Is there some law that says Hennepin county *can't* pay more into SWLRT? I thought the percentages shared among entities was a general agreement kind of thing, not actually law.

This is a good question, and one I was wondering immediately upon hearing about this negotiation. I would guess it's written into the CTIB enabling laws or something. If Hennepin County already had this ability, then I doubt the legislative leaders would have bothered making such a big deal out of it.

No, there's no law preventing Hennepin County, the CTIB, or anybody else, covering the "state" share. Our whole 10% state, 30% CTIB, 10% local is just a convention established after the formation of the CTIB. It is an established convention in the CTIB's process, the exact text of which I posted last week (in either this thread or the SW thread, I think it was the SW thread), but provides plenty of leeway for the CTIB to ignore if they want to; and of course Hennepin County isn't bound by what the CTIB says it will do with its own funding anyway so they could also cover the "state" share. The federal requirement is that 50% has to be covered by somebody that isn't the federal government, and projects are ranked based on (among other things) how strong the commitment appears to be. A nice thing about our 10/30/10 approach is that it shows broad commitment by all layers of government; but certainly most other regions don't do that, and there's no requirement for it anywhere, at any level.

The "big deal" is about politics: the Twin Cities as a region wants to keep the state on the hook for transit, for obvious reasons. Legislators could have framed what they were doing as "allowing" Hennepin Co to pay for the state share, which would have put Hennepin Co in a bad place politically, because the reality is that they already can but if they did it would mean they have to spend the money they're already getting on it, rather than having state money.

[UrsusUrbanicus]

Why does the GOP not support transit? Because the majority of the GOP is outside the metro and their constituents do not support paying more in something (tax, tab fees, etc) for a mode they may rarely, if ever, use. I don't see an issue with that. So the GOP was "stonewalling" to support what they were sent to St. Paul to do...support their constituents.

As a Minneapolitan, I rarely, if ever, use Highway 19. But I have no issue with a portion of my tax dollars going to support its maintenance. The ability of farmers in Henderson to get back and forth between their fields and the implement store is crucial to the prosperity of their operations, and thus to our state's economy (and tax collections!) as a whole. Same goes for state-level assistance with educational funding: the kid who grows up to cure cancer could just as easily be from Faribault or Roseau or the east side of St. Paul as from Minneapolis. Other people's taxes go toward the CSAH routes I use in the course of my second job (pizza delivery), the proceeds of which enable me to purchase goods and services... maybe from a company they work for, even if they live elsewhere in the state.

Urban transit gets people efficiently to jobs, providing the same indirect-benefit-to-all of general economic health. What's more, from an equity standpoint it will open up new economic opportunities for often-carless urban poor -- which, in turn, will reduce public costs associated with secondary impacts of poverty (chronic health issues; acute health issues that won't worsen when early intervention is more feasible; some individuals who turn to crime out of economic desperation; etc.) And let's not forget that outstaters coming in for a Vikings game may well find it more time- and cost-effective to P&R than to drive directly into a congested downtown -- maybe even freeing them up for dinner and drinks, further enriching their experience and the economy as a whole.

In short, we each do better when we all do better. Attempts to reduce the public fisc to a calculation of direct ROI for each individual taxpayer miss the fundamental point of what it is to be a citizen of a republic -- a form of government rooted in the fundamental value of every human being. A commonwealth is something more than a mere aggregate of individual shareholders.

[David Greene]

Eloquent.

[mplsjaromir]

Many Western states followed the California state constitution template and its low bar for getting a ballot initiative.

[David Greene]

That would be a horrible mistake to follow.

[kirby96]

^yep. I can't remember exactly what the issue was, but when I lived Oregon, there was an election with two 180 degree opposite voter sponsored initiatives on the ballot (something like, say, "fund transit with higher gas tax" and "reduce gas tax"), and they both passed. Legislature had its hands tied (couldn't legally do both, couldn't legally do either, couldn't legally do neither). Nine guys on the state Supreme Court made the law.

[mattaudio]

I think people vastly overestimate the "public good" effect of transportation spending of any kind - including urban transit. People have preferences - and these are consumer trends in aggregate - relating to how/where they live, where they work, how they procure goods and services, etc. Granted, some have more choice than others. But we do a huge disservice to our entire state - especially those with the fewest choices - when we pretend that mobility is a public good that should be paid by everyone regardless of how much they consume. Of course we need roads in Henderson, and we need roads to get pizzas to my door. But farmers and pizza parlors pay for their transportation, that transportation costs includes gas tax and other user fees, and those fees should go towards that infrastructure. Then we can all have a much more efficient supply chain, since people will be making choices based on actual costs rather than on subsidized costs. It may make grain from Le Sueur County more likely to have local uses in a local supply chain, rather than shipped around the world heavily subsidized. It may make neighborhood pizza shops more sustainable than the ones that can schlep pizza halfway across the city. Who knows. But it's not progressive or sustainable to cut off the feedback loop that allows people and companies to determine when they've had their fill - based on price.