Minnesota Politics: Transportation amendment

.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, August 14, 2006

Yes, the language does suck. Hopefully, the voters of the state will understand it. Is that too much to ask? We'll see.

At 3:34 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous said...: Less than 25 mpg at its lowest rating includes most cars... even 4 cyl. Brilliant idea.
At 1:48 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous said...: Brilliant indeed... The reason that all of the funds cannot be allocated in the first year is that the other areas where they are now need to find other sources of funding or have time to adjust. I still think that it is a productive step for Minnesota and voting NO would be a giant step back for the improvement of our roads and improving our public transit system