Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1465
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby talindsay » May 23rd, 2016, 4:22 pm

Good luck with that.

helsinki
Landmark Center
Posts: 294
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 2:01 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby helsinki » May 23rd, 2016, 4:46 pm

mplsjaromir wrote:Many Western states followed the California state constitution template and its low bar for getting a ballot initiative.
This is a very dangerous route, in my opinion. Reducing complex issues to binary choices and submitting these false choices to a distracted electorate is an abdication of responsibility. It makes for bad, contradictory policy. Yes, it is hard and messy to forge compromises, but a legislature needs to figure out how to work within the established framework. A referendum is the failure of an elected government. CA state government is a basket case, not a model of anything. Perhaps the most telling example of the insidious nature of referenda is that the 1949 Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (the constitution of West Germany) explicitly banned referenda, citing the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the abuse of referenda by the Nazis helping to bring about that collapse.

Scott Wood
Metrodome
Posts: 62
Joined: June 25th, 2012, 11:26 pm

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Scott Wood » May 23rd, 2016, 8:29 pm

The California model where laws passed by initiative can't be amended without another referendum is clearly flawed, but there could be value in an initiative process that does not bind the legislature's hands, as a way to bypass gridlock and/or apathy in the legislature. If a law passed by initiative gets details wrong, the legislature could then fix them once the question of "are we going to do this at all?" is settled (maybe require that the new law not take effect until the legislature has had reasonable time to do so) -- or they could repeal it entirely, likely at a higher political cost than simply ignoring the issue (or endlessly butting heads) under the current system. Maybe encourage legislative involvement by allowing a bill referred to the public via one house of the legislature to pass with a simple majority, while setting a somewhat higher bar for pure initiatives.

Does the desire for such a mechanism speak poorly of the elected government? To a certain extent, yes, but so does their failure to get things done -- and even when the legislature is functioning better, the ability of the public to control them is currently very coarse-grained, often leaving issues behind that don't align with typical party splits (even more so when serious primary challenges to incumbents are rare).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5736
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby twincitizen » May 24th, 2016, 7:16 am

Ballot initiatives would be tremendously useful for passing things like Sunday liquor sales and legalizing marijuana. Transit sales taxes have fared well in some states and failed in others, usually depending on how the bar is set (simple majority vs. 60% or 67%).

All states should at least allow ballot initiatives, but set a high threshold for passage (i.e. 60% at minimum). The high threshold for passage would cut down the bad/silly ones from making it through.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3610
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby seanrichardryan » May 24th, 2016, 9:13 am

David Greene wrote:Reports are that Daudt and friends planned the late bonding bill and early adjournment weeks ago. The whole thing was political theater. ...
I heard the same thing from some Capitol folks. Obstruction was the plan all along.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5022
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby MNdible » May 24th, 2016, 9:51 am

Imagine what we could have done with a focused governor who was involved with negotiations and drove the public conversation with coherent, consistent statements on this issue.

EOst
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1956
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby EOst » May 24th, 2016, 10:06 am

I can imagine it now: a governor who spent all of his credibility on squabbling with the legislature, then still got nothing out of it because Daudt wasn't acting in good faith.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5022
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby MNdible » May 24th, 2016, 10:22 am

Credibility? Nope, Dayton burned all of that by feinting to call about seven special sessions over the last year.

Even were that not the case, at least they could then have gored Daudt on the transportation issue -- as it is now, the GOP somehow seems to have come out of this debacle with better messaging than the DFL, primarily because Dayton has been so scattershot, impulsive, and inconsistent in his rhetoric.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » May 24th, 2016, 11:50 am

Dayton certainly deserves criticism for not working more closely with the legislature (particularly the Senate) and for not driving the public conversation. Pawlenty was a genius at both. Of course, it's always easier to block progress than to make progress.

Further conversations have revealed that Daudt actually verbally agreed to the Senate's amendment language before going back on his word. Bakk has some texts he sent to Daudt talking about the amendment.

If Dayton calls a special session, SWLRT funding must be a requirement. Call him!

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1465
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby talindsay » May 24th, 2016, 12:15 pm

Pawlenty was the most transit-friendly "anti-transit" governor ever - Central LRT and Northstar were both approved by him. The CTIB was created over his veto, so it's not like he was a transit advocate, but so far he's authorized more transit spending than Dayton.

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1354
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby acs » May 26th, 2016, 9:55 am

This might not be a surprise to some here, but a long-term deal was all but agreed to by the two transportation chairs (Tim Kelly and Dibble), and it included more transit funding.

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... egislature

In short, Kelly's actually a reasonable guy but Daudt is an ass and killed any deal. Sad to see Kelly go, we need more people like him in politics, not less.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1226
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby HiawathaGuy » May 26th, 2016, 3:47 pm

acs wrote:This might not be a surprise to some here, but a long-term deal was all but agreed to by the two transportation chairs (Tim Kelly and Dibble), and it included more transit funding.

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... egislature

In short, Kelly's actually a reasonable guy but Daudt is an ass and killed any deal. Sad to see Kelly go, we need more people like him in politics, not less.
That was a really good article. I want to believe that this can still happen. We'll see if Daudt has a change of heart (daudtful), or if any of the GOP "on the fence" start revolting and siding with Kelly and try to make this happen. I do think the GOP will be held accountable in Fall if a package doesn't happen. Bonding and one-time infusions won't solve the problems!

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 2810
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: 9Marq

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Silophant » May 26th, 2016, 4:16 pm

I hope so. Maybe I'm underestimating the anti-train ideological fervor of outstate Minnesotans, but I don't believe that many of them would actually be opposed to a metro-only sales tax to fund metro-only trains, especially to the point of sacrificing a deal to fix their roads (with metro-area money, whether they believe that's true or not) to prevent it.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4416
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby David Greene » May 26th, 2016, 10:41 pm

That's pretty much my thinking too which is why it all comes down to the narrative. Supporters of transportation investment can't let Daudt get away with setting the narrative to a false story. SWLRT didn't kill transportation. Daudt did and he needs to be held accountable.

SteveXC500
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 132
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 11:43 am
Location: Waconia

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby SteveXC500 » May 28th, 2016, 10:03 am

What is the actual timeline of events on the last night of the session. I have heard so many "reports," but what is true and factual?

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » May 28th, 2016, 4:19 pm

Thihs may be an ignorant question, i really dont understand how transportation funding happens in our state.

I know that any sales tax increase must come from the 7 county metro. Is there anything proventing Minneapolis from rasing income tax in order to fund transit projects in the city limits.

I am trying to think of other options insted of having to wait on the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1465
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby talindsay » May 29th, 2016, 11:22 pm

In MN, sub-state-level government units can't impose a tax without the state's approval.

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » May 30th, 2016, 4:32 pm

That really sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2817
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Anondson » May 30th, 2016, 4:45 pm

It's the kind of big government elected Republicans get behind enthusiastically?

Qhaberl
Union Depot
Posts: 387
Joined: February 25th, 2016, 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

Postby Qhaberl » May 30th, 2016, 6:21 pm

I thought Republicans were opposed to big government.

I say that our system sucks because it seems unfair that a representative, representing Redwing, first city that came to mind, should have any say in how taxation in Minneapolis or St. Paul works.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests