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

Monday, August 14, 2006

Transportation amendment

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

3 Comments:

At 9:28 PM, September 05, 2006, Blogger mavrv said...

I would vote NO to the amendment because we are voting to something now to be implemented 5 years from now. We know that now is the time to act. I would support 60% for Mass transit and 40% to roads, and an added tax for Gas Guzzlers meaning any car or SUV with less than 25mpg rating at its lowest rating.

 
At 3:34 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous 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 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

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home