Minnesotans face a transportation problem that grows more dismal with each passing year.
A strong coalition of governmental units, environmental groups, transit advocates and businesses are urging passage on Nov. 7 of the proposed constitutional amendment to dedicate transportation funding in order to meet our critical transportation needs.
With Thursday's Supreme Court decision keeping the amendment question on the ballot, Minnesota voters now face a decision.
The amendment's goal of additional transportation funding is a worthy and needed goal. However, this amendment represents poor policy.
First, this matter should not be a constitutional amendment. Motor vehicle taxes and a transportation formula are a legislative responsibility. The Legislature should meet this responsibility.
ADVERTISEMENT
Second, the amendment language is poor. It suggests "up to 60 percent" could fund highways, but guarantees "zero" percent for roads. However, it guarantees at least 40 percent of the transit funding. There is serious risk here of a lack of rural highway funding.
Third, the $300 million amount that would be removed from the general fund under the amendment has to be replaced somehow -- by cuts or new revenues.
Our transportations needs are critical. However, this amendment is poorly written. Certainly, we wouldn't accept poorly constructed roads or bridges. We shouldn't put poorly constructed amendments in our state constitution either.
Vote no on the state transportation amendment.
