Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sound Off' started by sureshotscott, Oct 6, 2020.
OK, not judging. It's your vote. Don't waste it on what another person thinks is all I meant.
MAY spend this much nothing saying they MUST spend this much ! You have way to much trust in the GOVERNMENT !
Which is EXACTLY THE SAME as it is currently.
And then there is this from the what a YES vote means.
"(a) making projects to renovate recreational facilities eligible for grants and (b) allowing the parks endowment fund to be spent on park operations and maintenance"
Are the grants going to come from the park endowment fund?
Are people against it because they fear it is going to funnel a lot of cash to renovate the run down dilapidated Bell Isle and buying more park land along the Detroit river?
I could see that as a concern.
The gas and oil revenue filled the coffers of the MNRTF until it hit $500M. Since no more money can be put into the MNRTF, the gas and oil revenue now goes to the State Park Endowment Fund.
This proposal keeps giving the gas and oil revenues to the SPEF until it reaches $800M. It is estimated to take 30 years to grow the current $273M to $800M. Then the gas and oil revenues will then be placed into MNRTF. The proposal also requires the SPEF to allocate 20% of its annual spending to state park improvements. The proposal also requires the MNRTF to spend 25% of its annual spending to park and public rec areas and 25% toward land conservation.
To simplify the proposal:
If voted down, the SPEF gets all the gas and oil revenues. The MNRTF spends more money on land acquisition than development.
If passed, SPEF gets all the gas and oil revenues plus, more than likely, a large portion of the MNTRF annual spending budget is spent on development and very few dollars will be spent on acquisition.
I'm voting no.
That’s my take as well. This legislation free’s the bureaucrats to steal the acquisition fund for heated toilets.
More public land is good,
wasting the fund on public parks that their own communities don’t want to take care of, is bad.
I’m sure a naysayer will quickly pop in here, but this sounds to me like somebody who says hey thank you for giving me a free house that I can’t afford, will you please now give me the money to take care of it.
I have done some minimal looking into this and am an outside observer but I would vote Yes.
Seems to be a good explanation of the proposal:
Sitting at home with a power outage so I started diving into this to understand it. I have flipped and flopped a few times. Everytime I think i got it I read something that makes me dive deeper.....
One thing I realized while reading articles. Our legislators voted unanimously to let the people decide on this topic and not put their own necks on the line. If this is so great why didnt they all vote for it and make a constitutional amendment on their own? When i think about it this kinda pisses me off that I have to dissect this and make an educated vote. I elected them to do this for me. The fact that neither side wants to have this on their voting record makes me want to vote no.
Ah, your assessment is incorrect. I don't get how you came up with it. But, if you read the legislation. You'll see what the amendment actually means. It's been posted as well as the analysis.
The amendment will have no negative impact on land acquisition. I'm not really sure where that rumor came from. But it's gaining legs and confusing sportsmen.
Steve, we are talking about an amendment to the States Constitution. It has to be voted on by the people.
§ 1 Amendment by legislative proposal and vote of electors.
Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate or house of representatives. Proposed amendments agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house on a vote with the names and vote of those voting entered in the respective journals shall be submitted, not less than 60 days thereafter, to the electors at the next general election or special election as the legislature shall direct. If a majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment approve the same, it shall become part of the constitution and shall abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the end of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was approved.
History: Const. 1963, Art. XII, § 1, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. XVII, § 1.
So, you can vote yes with confidence and we'll all be better for it.
I read the constitution change with the strike thru and new verbage briefly. It seems like before the change money went to NRTF until it reached 500 million. Then the excess went to SPEF until it reached 800 million. The NRTF hit its cap but never hit its 800 million cap and has like 265 million.
The changes want to reverse the flow of money until SPEF hits its cap then give NRTF money and remove their cap making the fund grow unlimitted....but only after coffers are full in SPEF. It also creates requirements for both to spend money on land acquisition and both to spend money on development.
The way i see it currently no money is ever going to the general frund from gas and oil because the SPEF never hit their cap.....am I wrong in this thinking?
Gotcha. My mistake. I thought legislature could amend with super majority but I See they cant.
I am still not convinced yes is right.
How is my understanding wrong? MNRTF hit their $500M cap in 2011. SPEF gets all of the revenue until it hits $800M. SPEF won't hit $800M until 2050.
This proposal is not about what to do with the gas and oil revenues in 30 years once the SPEF hits its cap. It is to change how the MNRTF is spent.
Not far wrong.
The MNRTF reached 500 million some time ago. The revenues then went into the SPEF. The proposal would allow this to continue until there is 800 million. The excess would then go into the MNRTF. According to their annual report. The MNRTF had 623 million in 2019.
I don't see how the MNRTF is going to be harmed by this proposal. Accepting that the oil and gas will eventually either be exhausted or no longer salable. I also suspect you and I will both be in the ground before that happens. I think this is the best plan. The only thing tnat surprises me is that our Legislature came up with it.
There will be changes to how money is spent. But, there is no negative impact to the MNRTF. I should say also no negative impact to land acquisition. (sorry)
I read things like you. I am not seeing where the money from gas and oil is going anywhere but SPEF right now.....unless someone can prove this wrong.
It seems the constitution amendment is working exactly as the authors envisioned. The natural resources fund hit its cap of 500 million and is now spending its yearly interest earnings on land acquisition just as intended. The oil and gas money is now diverted to state parks endowment and they are about 1/4 of the way to their cap and they are unhappy with their available money.
I cant get behind forcing the natural resources fund to spend money on maintenance. It isnt the intention of that fund.