Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 18 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Amendment would benefit outdoors
Published Thursday, August 28, 2008
On Nov. 4 Minnesota voters will decide whether to raise the state sales tax to benefit the outdoors and arts. Amending the Minnesota constitution to include a dedicated funding provision would provide funds to protect hunting and fishing habitats, water sources, parks and trails and the state's arts and cultural heritage.
“The sales tax increase of three eighths of one percent would generate nearly $300 million a year,” said amendment proponent Satveer Chaudhary, a state senator from Fridley who spoke on behalf of the amendment Wednesday evening during the Ducks Unlimited banquet in Fergus Falls. “The fractional increase in the sales tax would add only four cents to a $10 purchase.” Chaudhary’s support for the amendment was echoed by State Rep. Bud Nornes and State Sen. Dan Skogen who also attended the DU banquet. All three noted the amendment has the support of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
“Groups representing hunters, anglers, environmentalists and various arts advocates are campaigning to win voter support for this constitutional amendment,” Chaudhary said.
Also supporting the amendment are U.S. Senators Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar as well as Congressman Collin Peterson.
If the amendment is approved by state voters in November, about 81 percent of the funds will go to the outdoors and 19 percent to the arts.
“Minnesota sportsmen will have a direct say in how habitat money is spent — through a citizen’s council — and hundreds of sportsmen’s clubs such as Fergus Falls Ducks Unlimited will have their banquet dollars matched by this funding,” Chaudhary said.
He said that in November Minnesotans will have the choice to invest in the things they need — clean water, wildlife habitat, lakes and rivers, parks and the arts.
“The passage of dedicated funding is vital to the successful implementation of this plan,” Chaudhary said. “Passage of the amendment will guarantee a stable and long-term funding source.”
His proposal follows the same model as existing constitutionally dedicated funds such as the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board and taconite tax, the state lottery and Transportation Advisory Board with the gas tax and motor vehicles excise tax going for road improvements.
Also attending the DU banquet Wednesday evening, and also in support of the amendment, was Garry Leaf of Bloomington, executive director for Sportsmen for Change Outdoor action.
Both Chaudhary and Leaf emphasized that the citizen’s council, after passage of the amendment, would not be tied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The citizen’s council, they said, would make its own funding decisions. Most panel members would be sportsmen, other private citizens and a few legislators.
Chaudhary said the biggest challenge, in addition to getting out the word for people to vote for the amendment, is to emphasize that not voting will in fact be taken as a no vote.
“Passage would be a wonderful gift during this, our state’s 150th anniversary celebration,” he said.
The state House passed the amendment measure 85-46. The vote was 46-17 in the Senate.
In 1996, when he was elected State Representative, Chaudhary became the first Asian-American member of the Minnesota Legislature. He is Minnesota-born and is a lifelong resident of Fridley where he resides with his wife, Dee, and their four children.
He is a University of Minnesota Law School graduate. In addition to serving as state senator, Chaudhary is an attorney and businessman. He also is host of a hunting and fishing show.
Tom Hintgen/Daily Journal
State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary of Fridley, a leader in a proposed natural resources amendment, attended Wednesday evening’s Ducks Unlimited banquet in Fergus Falls.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by mnthea (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was under the understanding that funds from the Lottery Sales in MN went to wildlife management, as well as the arts. Where are the funds going for the sale of lottery tickets, etc? So now we are suppose to pay more taxes on top of what we are already paying. I enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone, as does my entire family, but I guess I'd like to know what the State is doing with all the funds that were suppose to be alocated from the lottery sales.
Posted by cascade (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Satveer Chaudhary is the guy that proposed a complete lead shot ban within the state- some sportsman's friend... whatever way they can get more tax dollars I guess.
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by cascade (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whats Christ got to do with it?
Posted by doctipster (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:49 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by doctipster (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
we are taxed enough. if they want more money do what everyone else has to do. Submit for funding through the budget. If they don't think we need it, then do some fundraising. I don't want to pay for it... im sure others don't either... and we are taxed enough.
Posted by prowler (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And we are supposed to trust the DNR to wisely use these funds the same way they use the rest of their funding? How many illegal "training" conventions will this buy?
Posted by mmhh (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a reason that this amendment took so long to make it through the Legislature - it's a terrible idea.
If the Governor and Legislature want to make funding for conservation a priority, they have the tools at their disposal to make that happen. Why don't they?
It is an ill-advised misuse of the constitutional amendment process to enshrine a very specific tax policy in the constitution.
Vote no.
Posted by ajohnsonx (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One good example of wasting money is the fergus falls prarie wetlands learning center......lets keep putting up buildings on an already scarce plot of land, and teach kids about grass and birds.....I know that may sound a bit ignorant, but that is about as big a waste of money as space exploration..??
Posted by cascade (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think ignorant sums it up.
Posted by meliflower30 (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This ammendment is only asking a 3/8ths of one percent increase over the next 25 years. The increase will be so minute yet it will increase the amount to fund the effort in cleaning up Minnesotas lakes, streams, and rivers which tests have recently come back showing that over 40% of all lakes, streams and rivers in Minnesota are in fact polluted. I love the wildlife/outdoors and the ability to fish on our most beautiful lakes in the country! We have a duty here and a great opportunity to ensure that our children and the future generations can continue to enjoy the land and culture here in Minnesota. I urge each of you before making uneducated choices to read up on this ammendment. This could give us the potential to not only preserve and restore our state but our region here in Fergus. Please check out the website at www.yesformn.org remember that a non vote counts as a no vote! Please read before you vote.
Posted by tajps (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Prairie Wetlands Center is an AWESOME place and does so much more than teach kids about grass birds - the only thing correct about your statement is that you "sound a bit ignorant"
Posted by ajohnsonx (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tajps....
Please elaborate on your statement, such as......
Posted by AnoMNous (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To 3:55. Anyone who can describe the $300 million/yr this tax hike is expected to raise as "only"must be doing pretty well. The total amount raised, not the rate, is what is important. I am for funding conservation efforts, and even increasing the funding for such efforts. However, it needs to be done out of the general budget where priorities can be set and less needed projects can be passed on. Money is fungible. The trend of having seperate funds with seperate sources for special uses is just a gimmick to make it easier to raise taxes. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and say no to a tax increase for "schools" or the "environment," but those same people would say no to a general tax increase. That is illogical. Again, money is fungible.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I checked this website www.yesformn.org, and all I was able to find was propaganda in favor of this amendment.
I would need to see the actual document that is being submitted for our approval to make an informed decision.
I'm really tired of only being given someone else opinion of an issue.
Jamie Cooper
Posted by Thomas (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
very little lottery money goes to the outdoors....new amendment is needed.....
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on August 28, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We learned from the lotto. Hunting & fishing & everything associated with them, is this states largest industry. And what do they put back into saving this gold mine? Very little. 300 million a year isn't even going to keep up with the damage being done by lake shore development alone. With out laws for drastic change in how our land is used, this is another waste of money. Oh and what art and who's culture are we trying to save? I've seen where my money gos there. no thanks. Also, this was polled with voters already & I believe 90% said no. This shouldn't even be an issue wasting our time and money.
Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on August 29, 2008 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe you will find the primary reason this action is needed, and I am VERY reluctant to establish a funding measure in this manner, is that money outdoors people THOUGHT was going to fish and game programs is being regularly raked off into other projects. It was one of the first things I discovered about the state when I returned. Take the time. Read the statutes and watch the budget-you'll see what I mean. Outdoors people in MN are routinely being screwed by their politicians and that is why THIS method of funding is before us.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)