Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 21 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Vote ‘yes’ for the environment
Published Thursday, October 23, 2008
Imagine a Fergus Falls area with no Lake Alice to enjoy. No summer walks along the Otter Tail River river walk. No wildlife to enjoy at the Orwell Dam project.
That’s not a world we wish to live in — nor is it a world we wish upon our children, grandchildren, and future generations.
But that could happen if we don’t take the effort to protect our environment.
As Minnesotans we have a unique opportunity to say we care about the future of our lakes, rivers and streams by voting yes to a constitutional amendement on the the Nov. 4 ballot called The Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment that would raise the sales tax by 3/8 of 1 percent.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue has calculated that for the average Minnesotan, the tax comes out to about $60 per year for the average Minnesota family.
Around 80 percent of the proceeds would be spent on clean water, wildlife habitat, parks and trails, while nearly 20 percent would support arts programs and cultural resources. It would generate an estimated $300 million a year in today's dollars, or around $11 billion over the next 25 years.
Three-eighths of one percent — that’s a small price to pay to protect the environment. And as an added bonus, cultural resources such as our own beloved A Center for the Arts would benefit from the revenue generated by the tax, too.
We encourage you to vote “yes” for the Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment on Nov. 4 — and remember — failing to vote either “yes” or “no” counts as a no vote when votes are being tabulated.
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 Callie25 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The issue is the constitutional amendment. Vote no!!
Posted by Clara (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This entire article is nothing but a scare tactic. We can individually protect our environment without having to pay one red cent; just be responsible stewards of the land. Not sure how to vote on the constitutional amendment? Just leave it blank...
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote NO! The environment got along without money since time began.
Posted by wes (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote NO - it is up to the people we send to St. Paul
to fund these government programs. This is not a road we
want to go down, next thing you know there will be other
government programs that want to be funded the same way.
Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not opposed to money for these issues, but I'm voting NO because I don't believe this is the place for a constitutional amendment.
Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If it's passed, the amendment would cost the average family about $60 per year and raise as much as $300 million per year. The increase would go into effect next July and last until 2034.
Opponents question whether bypassing the normal legislative process is a good idea, and some, like the state Republican Party, are opposed to increasing taxes.
Other organizations, including the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, and Minnesota Farm Bureau, also have announced their opposition to the amendment.
"Farm Bureau policy developed and approved by our voting members clearly states that we oppose any increase in the statewide sales tax rate, and we oppose constitutionally dedicating a portion of the statewide sales tax for specific purposes," Kevin Paap, MFB president, said in a press release.
http://www.minnesotaoutdoornews.com/arti......
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd say no simply because a sale tax is a regressive tax that hits the poor more. If something like this should be funded let them do it with income or property taxes with no exemptions for farmers.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't know they were going to take away lake Alice if we don't vote in favor of a tax increase.
I say we vote them out of office instead of handing over redundant taxes for the same issues.
Jamie Cooper
Posted by melindakay (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I sure would miss Lake Alice. That fecal green color is just so beautiful.
I'm all for voting yes, but I don't know that it will help "Lake" Alice...
Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, the lottery was set up to help fund environmental issues in this state. The arts have always been funded by private donations as they should be. Amending the constitution is dangerous and sets a precedent. I believe this is all one and the same vote. By voting yes, you vote yes to making an amendment to the constitution. Please do research on this issue if you do not know what will happen. It is more than a matter of raising taxes.
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
a yes vote on this is the same as saying it's ok to screw around with funds already in place from the lottery.
Posted by konedog4 (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Imagine a Fergus Falls area with no Lake Alice to enjoy. No summer walks along the Otter Tail River river walk. No wildlife to enjoy at the Orwell Dam project.
That’s not a world we wish to live in — nor is it a world we wish upon our children, grandchildren, and future generations."
Of course no one in Fergus Falls would want a world where we did not have Lake Alice or Orwell Dam, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the tax proposal. We are not going to lose Lake Alice or Orwell Dam! The editorial is ill-informed and poorly written, and gives the impression that we will lose our existing natural resources if we don't vote for this measure. Nothing is further from the truth! Shame on the Journal for even suggesting such alarmist writing!
The point the Journal staff is missing is that the State already taxes us for environmental conservation. This is the purpose of the DNR - to manage our natural resources. License fees and additional tax revenue fund the DNR. The stated purpose of the Lottery was to give additional resources to environmental causes. They have a large sum of money already and need to use what they have wisely. Who is going to allocate this 11 billion dollars? Who decides what projects are funded and which ones are not? How can the Journal definitively state that the Center for the Arts will benefit from this tax increase, when not a dime has been promised to it?
Finally, does the government need to fund public art projects? The Center for the Arts was largely funded through private donations, not government monies. Dr. Richard Baker, MD, played a large role in securing funds for the renovation of the Center for the Arts. I don't recall if government monies were involved, but I believe the vast majority of the monies used came from donations from small and large businesses in Fergus Falls and from private donations. The government should play no role in funding art projects in a time of national monetary crisis. If the arts cannot stand on their own, why should the government subsidize it? To me it is more pork-barrel spending and we have too much of that already.
Once again, the Daily Journal Editorial staff comes out for public tax support for projects with little justification or sound reasoning to back their opinion. This is a poorly thought out opinion as it does not take into consideration all the monies that the environmental fund already has.
J. Koenig
Posted by FergusFamily (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Lottery and current funds aren't nearly enough to do the job. That's ridiculous to suggest we handle the environment the same way we have since "the beginning of time." Wake up. WE are screwing up our environment with progress, luxuries and modernization. At what expense? Our natural resources. Time to pay the price. If we don't protect and prevent, we’ll be just like China – unable to go outside without a facemask.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just buy some carbon credits from AlGore. Just kidding!
When my daughter was in school a bunch of years ago, she said they were told that they would be wearing face masks in the future because of air polution, Didn't happen, in fact the air is cleaner now than then. True. Don't believe all the doom and gloom sayers.
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on October 23, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's rather obvious that FergusFamily bought heavily into all the doom and gloom. Please take a good look at how the state govt handles their money.. Not only that but a constitutional amendment is dangerous. VOTE NO!!
Posted by BeaverFan (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice comment Konedog4. Who wrote that article...its terrible. Ammending the constitution because our elected officials can't manage money is dangerous. It's funny how this issue is all of a sudden an emergency. Vote Yes or Orwell Dam will turn into a municipal dump.....Lake Alice will burn and be filled with goose sh*t....wait...that already happened.
Like I said before...if this issue is so important, it's time we demand accountability from those who we trust our tax dollars to. I'm all for the environment...but not for the constitutional ammendment or a tax increase.
Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeez, I'm so sick of reading all of this doom & gloom and bitching and moaning!
Most of you bitch about our schools, our school board, our school buildings, Fergus Falls, our city council, our government, our environment and MN in general.
WE are the ones building huge lake homes, tearing up the environment, chopping down trees, etc., etc., etc. We have to do something to protect this environment for my kids, your kids, my grandchildren and YOUR grandchildren.
As stated above, the tax increase would be approx. $60 a YEAR. If your employer offered you a $60/year wage increase, you'd be pissed because you'd never see it. Well you're not going to notice $60/year in extra taxes either.
7% of the lottery proceeds go to the Environmental Trust Fund... that's not a lot. http://www.mnlottery.com/moneygo.html
People are GREAT about coming in here and slamming anything and everything to do with Fergus Falls, and MN in general... but no one wants to step up and do anything about it. Here's your chance to make a small difference. Good Grief...
Posted by Granny (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvmyboys I love my boys also, and I also live by the water, I also pay four thousand dollars a year in taxes. I have a plain old home.
Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, and you chose to live by the water. I hope you are able to enjoy it for many years to come. That is a huge benefit of living in MN.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 24, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live by water and I'm not draining or filling or anything else to the water. Without the tax I suppose it will all be gone in a flash. HA ha not!
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can anybody out there tell me how giving more money to the state is going to help the environment in anyway? I want to here what you supporters think they are going to fix with that money.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)