Legislature puts outdoors/arts amendment on ballot
By MARK BRUNSWICK, Star Tribune
Last update: February 14, 2008 - 3:47 PM
A bill to let voters decide whether to increase the state's sales tax for the outdoors, the arts and the environment is headed for the November ballot after it sailed through the Minnesota House this morning and the Senate this afternoon.
It passed by 85-46 in the House and by 46-17 in the Senate.
The measure will ask voters whether the state Constitution should be amended to raise the sales tax by 3/8ths of 1 percent and dedicate the money, estimated at $276 million a year.
If approved, the increase would go into effect July 1, 2009, and end 25 years later.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan votes, debate against the measure focused on the problematic nature of dedicating funding through the Constitution and concern that voters would be too burdened to raise the sales tax.
"It's making sure we have a long-term 25-year plan to make sure we have the resources in place, not just for our quality of life but for our kids and grandkids," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, the author of the bill.
Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, an early supporter of one of the first versions of the measure, said he opposed the amendment now because it had morphed into something that hunters, anglers and trappers would not support.
"This conglomeration of other groups that claim they have to be on this bill to get it passed. That's a bunch of baloney," Hackbarth said. He predicted the measure would fail, setting back efforts to protect the outdoors.
If voters approve the amendment, it would dedicate $54.5 million a year to the arts, $91.1 million a year to the outdoors, $39.3 million to parks and trails, $91.1 million to a clean water fund, and $4.5 million to sustainable drinking water programs.
Sen Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, raised objections about the regressive nature of adding to the sales tax, which he said unfairly targets low-income groups.
"It's not good tax policy, it's not good budgeting policy," he said.
Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636
----------------
Details of the bill
Last update: February 14, 2008 - 1:27 PM
• The bill approved by the Legislature today would put this question to voters in November:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"
• The bill does not need the governor's signature, because it involves a proposed amendment to the state Constitution.
• For the amendment to be approved, it must get "yes" votes from a 2/3 majority of all people who vote in the November general election. Leaving the ballot question blank would count as a "no" vote.
• The money would be divided as follows: 33 percent dedicated for the outdoors; 33 percent for a clean water fund; 14.25 percent for parks and trails; and 19.25 percent for the arts.
• It's estimated that this would provide $91.1 million a year for the outdoors; $91.1 million for a clean water fund (including at least $4.5 million for drinking water programs); $39.3 million for parks and trails; and $54.5 million a year to the arts.
------------------------
Niskanen: Tired of seeing our outdoors die? I am
CHRIS NISKANEN, St Paul Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 02/15/2008 07:38:33 AM CST
Growing up in northern Minnesota, I had a skewed view that every boy in America had a few ruffed grouse, a large black bear and a weasel trap line in his back yard. Those wonders of nature were, indeed, just outside my screen door.
There was also a duck pond, a gin-clear swimming lake and a river with a well-worn rope swing.
Those mysterious and magnificent outdoors experiences are why I'm sitting here now imploring you to vote in November to raise our state sales tax and dedicate $300 million of your hard-earned money for clean water, parks, natural resources and arts programs.
I know, I know - tax increases suck. I've voted against them. I'm a tightwad - just ask my wife. Our economy is suffering; gas prices are soaring, and people are losing their jobs. But I can tell you that the $56 annually the average Minnesota family will pay by raising our sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent (adding just less than 4 cents to every $10 purchase) will pay dividends in your and your children's future.
Most of you weren't raised in Itasca County in a town of 804 people, but if you've been to places like that, you know what I'm talking about. Maybe you grew up swimming behind your family cabin up north, canoeing lazy rivers, hunting grouse in public forests or camping on the North Shore.
If so, those experiences shaped who you are.
They did me. When I was 11, my parents divorced and moved far apart. I landed in that small town and found an incredible world in the forest behind our house that helped me sort things out. I spent countless hours alone, hunting grouse with my little shotgun, examining bear tracks in the mud, climbing trees, fishing for sunfish and hanging around a marsh, watching ducks and shorebirds land and take off.
I sat for hours in the woods just thinking. I formed lifelong friendships with other kids who hunted and fished, who made up a sizable population of Deer River High School.
Sometime later, a school guidance counselor gave me one of those tests to determine your future occupation.
"It says here you'd be a good welder or a good writer,'' she said.
I loved our school welding program, but all the professional welders I knew had burn holes in their boots.
"I'm not sure about welding," I said.
So I've spent that last 20 years (14 of them at the Pioneer Press) writing about nature. Lately, writing about Minnesota's woods, lakes and rivers has grown harder.
I've written about how 40 percent of our waters are classified as polluted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I've reported on vast tracts of northern forests that are being divided and sold for private development, including the same woods I grew up in. The lakes where I shot my first teal no longer get huge flocks of northern waterfowl descending upon them in the fall. The places along the Mississippi River where I caught fish now have homes and "no trespassing" signs. The spot where I shot my first deer is a housing development.
Here in St. Paul, I have stacks of "long-range" reports on my desk that spell out how to improve Minnesota's duck and pheasant populations. Those plans have no future unless we vote to pass the dedicated funding package.
Says the state's long-range pheasant plan, written three years ago: "Although the price tag for this vision seems daunting, it is achievable with an increased emphasis on conservation within future farms program, plus a significant source of conservation funding (e.g., a dedicated sales tax)."
Minnesota's outdoors and environmental community have worked for a decade to pass this legislation. Some very smart Minnesotans looked at our current natural-resources decline and realized there was only one way to fix it: Ask the voters to raise their taxes and fund better clean water and natural resources programs.
On Thursday, the Legislature agreed.
In November, you get to decide.
Chris Niskanen can be reached at [email protected] press.com or 651-228-5524.
By MARK BRUNSWICK, Star Tribune
Last update: February 14, 2008 - 3:47 PM
A bill to let voters decide whether to increase the state's sales tax for the outdoors, the arts and the environment is headed for the November ballot after it sailed through the Minnesota House this morning and the Senate this afternoon.
It passed by 85-46 in the House and by 46-17 in the Senate.
The measure will ask voters whether the state Constitution should be amended to raise the sales tax by 3/8ths of 1 percent and dedicate the money, estimated at $276 million a year.
If approved, the increase would go into effect July 1, 2009, and end 25 years later.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan votes, debate against the measure focused on the problematic nature of dedicating funding through the Constitution and concern that voters would be too burdened to raise the sales tax.
"It's making sure we have a long-term 25-year plan to make sure we have the resources in place, not just for our quality of life but for our kids and grandkids," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, the author of the bill.
Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, an early supporter of one of the first versions of the measure, said he opposed the amendment now because it had morphed into something that hunters, anglers and trappers would not support.
"This conglomeration of other groups that claim they have to be on this bill to get it passed. That's a bunch of baloney," Hackbarth said. He predicted the measure would fail, setting back efforts to protect the outdoors.
If voters approve the amendment, it would dedicate $54.5 million a year to the arts, $91.1 million a year to the outdoors, $39.3 million to parks and trails, $91.1 million to a clean water fund, and $4.5 million to sustainable drinking water programs.
Sen Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, raised objections about the regressive nature of adding to the sales tax, which he said unfairly targets low-income groups.
"It's not good tax policy, it's not good budgeting policy," he said.
Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636
----------------
Details of the bill
Last update: February 14, 2008 - 1:27 PM
• The bill approved by the Legislature today would put this question to voters in November:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"
• The bill does not need the governor's signature, because it involves a proposed amendment to the state Constitution.
• For the amendment to be approved, it must get "yes" votes from a 2/3 majority of all people who vote in the November general election. Leaving the ballot question blank would count as a "no" vote.
• The money would be divided as follows: 33 percent dedicated for the outdoors; 33 percent for a clean water fund; 14.25 percent for parks and trails; and 19.25 percent for the arts.
• It's estimated that this would provide $91.1 million a year for the outdoors; $91.1 million for a clean water fund (including at least $4.5 million for drinking water programs); $39.3 million for parks and trails; and $54.5 million a year to the arts.
------------------------
Niskanen: Tired of seeing our outdoors die? I am
CHRIS NISKANEN, St Paul Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 02/15/2008 07:38:33 AM CST
Growing up in northern Minnesota, I had a skewed view that every boy in America had a few ruffed grouse, a large black bear and a weasel trap line in his back yard. Those wonders of nature were, indeed, just outside my screen door.
There was also a duck pond, a gin-clear swimming lake and a river with a well-worn rope swing.
Those mysterious and magnificent outdoors experiences are why I'm sitting here now imploring you to vote in November to raise our state sales tax and dedicate $300 million of your hard-earned money for clean water, parks, natural resources and arts programs.
I know, I know - tax increases suck. I've voted against them. I'm a tightwad - just ask my wife. Our economy is suffering; gas prices are soaring, and people are losing their jobs. But I can tell you that the $56 annually the average Minnesota family will pay by raising our sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent (adding just less than 4 cents to every $10 purchase) will pay dividends in your and your children's future.
Most of you weren't raised in Itasca County in a town of 804 people, but if you've been to places like that, you know what I'm talking about. Maybe you grew up swimming behind your family cabin up north, canoeing lazy rivers, hunting grouse in public forests or camping on the North Shore.
If so, those experiences shaped who you are.
They did me. When I was 11, my parents divorced and moved far apart. I landed in that small town and found an incredible world in the forest behind our house that helped me sort things out. I spent countless hours alone, hunting grouse with my little shotgun, examining bear tracks in the mud, climbing trees, fishing for sunfish and hanging around a marsh, watching ducks and shorebirds land and take off.
I sat for hours in the woods just thinking. I formed lifelong friendships with other kids who hunted and fished, who made up a sizable population of Deer River High School.
Sometime later, a school guidance counselor gave me one of those tests to determine your future occupation.
"It says here you'd be a good welder or a good writer,'' she said.
I loved our school welding program, but all the professional welders I knew had burn holes in their boots.
"I'm not sure about welding," I said.
So I've spent that last 20 years (14 of them at the Pioneer Press) writing about nature. Lately, writing about Minnesota's woods, lakes and rivers has grown harder.
I've written about how 40 percent of our waters are classified as polluted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I've reported on vast tracts of northern forests that are being divided and sold for private development, including the same woods I grew up in. The lakes where I shot my first teal no longer get huge flocks of northern waterfowl descending upon them in the fall. The places along the Mississippi River where I caught fish now have homes and "no trespassing" signs. The spot where I shot my first deer is a housing development.
Here in St. Paul, I have stacks of "long-range" reports on my desk that spell out how to improve Minnesota's duck and pheasant populations. Those plans have no future unless we vote to pass the dedicated funding package.
Says the state's long-range pheasant plan, written three years ago: "Although the price tag for this vision seems daunting, it is achievable with an increased emphasis on conservation within future farms program, plus a significant source of conservation funding (e.g., a dedicated sales tax)."
Minnesota's outdoors and environmental community have worked for a decade to pass this legislation. Some very smart Minnesotans looked at our current natural-resources decline and realized there was only one way to fix it: Ask the voters to raise their taxes and fund better clean water and natural resources programs.
On Thursday, the Legislature agreed.
In November, you get to decide.
Chris Niskanen can be reached at [email protected] press.com or 651-228-5524.
