Anderson & Turpin wrote:
David Greene: So the next question is, "how will you hold RT accountable?"
Mark Anderson again: Real good question David. You're the one who thinks that representative system can give us what we want, so I'd like to get your answer. Rybak is apparently now in favor of public financing of the stadium, and maybe not as opposed to other similar projects as he made it appear in his first campaign. His main competitor actually voted for the stadium financing and has generally made a career of supporting such boondoggles. The dark horses are not acceptable because of other issues (at least that's my understanding, I'd be glad to vote for a dark horse, but my favored candidate has never won in this city). So how do you hold a candidate responsible for broken promises (or at least broken implications), when all the other choices are worse?
There's a choice to be made. What is more important to you, the stadium issue or some other issue on which RT and Peter disagree? If the stadium issue is priority #1 for you, and trumps all other issues, I would suggest that voting RT out would be your choice because he clearly misled voters. Peter at least has been straightforward about the whole thing.
Your comment about other candidates being unacceptable leads me to believe that the stadium issue really isn't as important to you as other issues, so I don't understand your dilemma.
But of course this is your decision. Politics is a complex business. No one ever gets everything one wants. We're founded on a system of compromise.
I've been calling my legislators and asking them to make a deal that if the ballpark is financed, some dedicated funding for public transportation be made available (preferably through a regional sales tax). This is in the self-interest of Pohlad (lots of trains and busses right to his field) and with the vote as close as it is in the House, there ought to be some leverage.
Ron Erhardt has an amendment to the House Transportation Omnibus bill that would get us about halfway there by shifting 1/4 cent of the existing sales tax to public transportation and backfilling the general fund hold by raising the gas tax and shifting some motor vehicle sales tax money from highways back to the general fund. The vote will be close on this one, and it's certainly not veto-proof.
I suggest that we ask our legislators to convince those opposing the amendment (rural DFL and Republicans, mainly) to pass the amendment in exchange for votes on the stadium bill.
How about the rest of you? Are you willing to call your legislators to ask for this? If we all want sales taxes to go to needed services, here's a chance.
Mark Anderson: I agree that I & R are definitely unwieldy. They can only be used for major issues; and only for those issues that can be answered with a yes or no answer (but now that I think about it, a multiple choice referendum might work, even though I've never seen it tried). Public stadium financing is a perfect example of a question suitable for I & R. Initiative should be made
Why is this the perfect issue?
hard enough so that we don't have 50 questions on every ballot, but easy enough so that genuine citizenship objection can have some effect. I think getting 20% of the signatures of registered voters would be a good target, but that's just a guess.
So you would support Pawlenty's and Krinkie's "turbocharged truth in taxation?"
The complexity of issues is a poor reason not to have I & R. Life is
complex, but we still expect everyone to be allowed to make their own
decisions.
Apples and Oranges. We don't set statewide budgets in our everyday experience.
Should people be forced to go into professions determined by the
state, because it is too complex for the average person to make the correct
choice? I assume your answer would be no, because individual freedom is
more important than the possibility of making a mistake? For the same
reason, people have the right to make the policy decisions for their own
government. There is nothing stopping people from voting in a referendum
based on what the experts say who have studied the issues in depth, such as
in your example with public transportation.
Money drives referendums, plain and simple. Suppose public transportation funding was put up for a vote. The MN Chamber would have no problem pouring millions of dollars into a campaign to stop a sales tax increase, all the way misleading people about how they'd lose their jobs if it went through.
There's also the question of timing. We need public transportation funding TODAY. We cannot wait until 2007. Cuts are already planned.
Would you require a referendum for a sales tax dedicated to public transportation?
I don't understand your comment about slipping it in the back door. What are you talking about?
I'm talking about using referendum on a variety of issues rather than just setting down a general policy. Why do local sales taxes go to referendum but not property taxes? Why not state sales taxes? Why should some issues have a referendum and not others? How do we decide what goes to referendum and what doesn't?
As we've seen, a statutory requirement for referendum can be easily bypassed at the legislature. If we really think I&R is a good idea, let's write it into the constitution and answer all these questions definitively.
I think it would be a tremendous mistake to do so.
David Greene The Wedge REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
