NationStates Jolt Archive

Gov. Tim Pawlenty's had vowed to veto a gas tax, sales tax, and license tab fee increase but was overriden in both the Minnesota House and Senate today.

As you may expect I am not pleased with this development. I understand that the state is coming up short this year on funds but the reason for that is the DFL majority burdening the state budget with a mountain of lard in the form of pet projects. Now, as they sit in guilded halls, they come to us, the tired and poor and ask "please, sirs, may I have some more".

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S358079.shtml?cat=1
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5872064&version=19&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
http://wcco.com/politics/house.override.veto.2.662337.html
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/15942557.html
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_8359938?nclick_check=1

It's funny, you know, how it's always the rich who claim to be the voice of the poor, who can afford these taxes, demand that we share their burden. And that the few who tried to defend us are supposed to be in the pocket of big business and cater to the wealthiest. Oh irony of ironies.

Aw, T-Paw was just gaming for veep - gotta keep that Republican cred no matter what. Maybe you like collapsing bridges and clogged roads? I know the Democrats at least like the latter - it's not politically correct to fund roads until people die.

Aw, T-Paw was just gaming for veep - gotta keep that Republican cred no matter what. Maybe you like collapsing bridges and clogged roads? I know the Democrats at least like the latter - it's not politically correct to fund roads until people die.
The Hiawatha line cost over $700 million and more pet projects like it are in the budget. The problem isn't a lack of funds, it's that the DFL majority is piling on the lard and expecting everyone else to foot the bill. $7M could have gone a long way to fixing the 35W bridge before it collapsed and the worst of those that are still standing but the DFL on this state decided to piss it away on a decorative train that nobody rides.

I'm not Tim's biggest fan but I have to admit that he at least makes an effort every once in a great while to look like he's fighting the good fight against the tax & spend DFLers.

As if threads on NS could get any more esoteric: Minnesota Politics. All you guys have are 10,000 lakes and Garison Keilor's soothing voice. Boring!

The Hiawatha line cost over $700 million and more pet projects like it are in the budget. The problem isn't a lack of funds, it's that the DFL majority is piling on the lard and expecting everyone else to foot the bill. $7M could have gone a long way to fixing the 35W bridge before it collapsed and the worst of those that are still standing but the DFL on this state decided to piss it away on a decorative train that nobody rides.Decorative train that nobody rides? I'll admit that they went overboard on the bells and whistles, but the fact is that the Twin Cities direly needs adequate public transportation infrastructure. The train is in fact very well-ridden - so well-ridden that they're talking about capacity issues, and will be even more well-ridden as the rest of the public transportation infrastructure is further developed, and will likely pay for itself in the long run when taking into account the rising economic costs of road maintenance, gas prices, car prices and maintenance, pollution, livability issues, and time wasted in traffic. You should be thankful that they're at least jumping through the hoops and taking the time to get federal funding for these lines.

I'm not saying there isn't some serious pork going on. Like I don't know who paid for that freaking cable-stayed-or-whatever bike bridge over Hiawatha, but I bet state funds found their way into that.

Meh, good roads and non-murdering bridges are for noobs. Down with taxes I say!

Decorative train that nobody rides? I'll admit that they went overboard on the bells and whistles, but the fact is that the Twin Cities direly needs adequate public transportation infrastructure. The train is in fact very well-ridden - so well-ridden that they're talking about capacity issues,
Operating Cost: Annual budgeted operating cost is $19.85 million in 2006 dollars. This cost is offset in part by annual fare revenue estimated at $7.2 million.
It does not cover current operating costs and train ridership has declined since oepration began. It will never pay for itself and it was a waste of public money. Our money.

and will be even more well-ridden as the rest of the public transportation infrastructure is further developed, and will likely pay for itself in the long run when taking into account the rising economic costs of road maintenance, gas prices, car prices and maintenance, pollution, livability issues, and time wasted in traffic.
The rest of the public transit infrastructure? You mean the more flexible and cheaper to operate busses which use regular city streets instead of a specialized rail line?

And why should the state get to decide what people can and can't afford? Gas prices are high enough and a tax of gas will impact the poor hardest. It's a regressive tax brought to you by the supposedly progressive DFL. Though from their behavior, both recent and over the years, methinks the only thing they're progressive about is progressively bleeding the people of this state dry to fill their coffers.

You should be thankful that they're at least jumping through the hoops and taking the time to get federal funding for these lines.
The MN LRT shouldn't exist. Along with Oberstar's Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail and a load of other pet projects that the legislature pushes through every session.

I'm not saying there isn't some serious pork going on. Like I don't know who paid for that freaking cable-stayed-or-whatever bike bridge over Hiawatha, but I bet state funds found their way into that.
Oberstar had obtained more than $12 million for his home state in a recently passed House transportation and housing bill. Commuter rail was the big winner, getting $10 million. The Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail got $250,000, and the KidsPeace Mesabi Academy in Buhl got $150,000. Only $2 million went to the roads that the money was intended for and absolutely none went to bridge repair. Oberstar was one of the first and loudest voices calling for this gas tax hike in the wake of the 35W disaster, attempting to exploit tragedy for personal gain.

It is disgusting what the MN legislature is doing and what is worse is that they're getting away with it. It's class warfare being waged against the poor of this state by the rich, white, Jetta driving lefties.

Edit:
My 666th post. I am officially turning evil.

It does not cover current operating costs and train ridership has declined since oepration began. It will never pay for itself and it was a waste of public money. Our money.I didn't mean turn a profit. I meant pay for itself in comparison to the cost of not having it. How much would it have cost to turn Hiawatha into a freeway and maintain that instead? What are the comparative economic costs to the neighborhood and city? How much does it cost for the riders to own, operate, maintain, and fuel motor vehicles? What is the comparative cost in pollution? How much value has it added to the city in terms of a travel destination by connecting the Mall of America with the airport with the downtown?

The rest of the public transit infrastructure? You mean the more flexible and cheaper to operate busses which use regular city streets instead of a specialized rail line?You mean the slower mode that uses the clogged city streets and has less reliable schedules because the Pawlenty-appointed Met Council keeps fucking with the schedules? Busses are suitable for getting everybody on the grid, but you need fixed infrastructure for a backbone, or needed high density development has no sure thing to grow up around except freeways.

And why should the state get to decide what people can and can't afford? Gas prices are high enough and a tax of gas will impact the poor hardest. It's a regressive tax brought to you by the supposedly progressive DFL. Though from their behavior, both recent and over the years, methinks the only thing they're progressive about is progressively bleeding the people of this state dry to fill their coffers.It may be a regressive tax, but there's a certain logic because it's like a user fee. If you don't want to pay for decent roads, then don't use them and you won't have to pay for them. Think of it as a fare. Poor and rich people alike ought to be able to use an excellent public transportation, although if the Republicans had their way, they would be relegated to a crappy public transportation system.

It's class warfare being waged against the poor of this state by the rich, white, Jetta driving lefties.Yeah, because I'm sure all those poor, non-white non-Jetta driving folks are all voting Republican.

Now, if only some of Dubya's vetos could be overriden...

As a Minnesota resident, I am glad that the gas tax got through (The only thing on that list that I actually care about). Most economists agree that a tax on gas is the best possible way to promote research into alternative fuel sources.

Plus, the fact that we pay far less than the rest of the world on gas means I can little for peoples complaints of "Oh, its so expensive." ...And the fact that I go to college in Chicago and use free public transportation. But, I'll be paying for gas this summer again, so it all evens out.

I didn't mean turn a profit. I meant pay for itself in comparison to the cost of not having it.
My invention won't ever turn a profit, in fact it will bleed money throughout its operational life and never even cover the cost of its operation but it will somehow pay for itself. It will cost 7y to build, 2y to operate for 1z and only generate 1y per 1z but it will somehow pay for itself. That makes so much sense. I cannot see how a statement like that would cofuse someone.

How much would it have cost to turn Hiawatha into a freeway and maintain that instead? What are the comparative economic costs to the neighborhood and city? How much does it cost for the riders to own, operate, maintain, and fuel motor vehicles? What is the comparative cost in pollution? How much value has it added to the city in terms of a travel destination by connecting the Mall of America with the airport with the downtown?
I don't have an analysis of the cost of constructing a highway along that route. Not going to go looking for it at 2:20 AM. I will tell you this, that train is a net loss. A very pretty, well-executed net loss but at the end of the day my wallet is still empty.

You mean the slower mode that uses the clogged city streets and has less reliable schedules because the Pawlenty-appointed Met Council keeps fucking with the schedules?
Slower means more stops. They can use regular streets and there are more of them so the service is more accessible and goes more places at more times, not just to a few stations that may be but probably aren't that close to where it is that you're trying to go. As far as the council goes, I'm not a fan and I think that the public transit needs better management before it gets more money.

Busses are suitable for getting everybody on the grid, but you need fixed infrastructure for a backbone, or needed high density development has no sure thing to grow up around except freeways.
You assume that high density development is an ideal thing. We have room in this state. Lots of it. All there is in Minneapolis is poor city planning, an idiot mayor, a retarded Met Council, high crime rates, poverty, pollution, and now people that want to raise chickens in the city.

It may be a regressive tax, but there's a certain logic because it's like a user fee. If you don't want to pay for decent roads, then don't use them and you won't have to pay for them.
Great idea! I'll quit my job and starve to death. To sruvive I need to go to the store, the bank, and work. To do that I need a car because I don't have a bus or train that will stop at my house on demand.

Think of it as a fare. Poor and rich people alike ought to be able to use an excellent public transportation, although if the Republicans had their way, they would be relegated to a crappy public transportation system.
The rich will be able to afford this gas tax, the poor won't. And why the fuck should government get to tell the poor that they have to use mass transit? Should there be a tax on voting? Some sort of poll tax to keep the poor from participating in government? It'd help cover the cost of the election and you could think of it as a fare.

Yeah, because I'm sure all those poor, non-white non-Jetta driving folks are all voting Republican.
Well I fall into the poor category and I sure as hell do not vote DFL. I don't always vote for the Republicans either. And I can't say that I'd vote for Libertarian if one ran in my district, I might if I agreed with all of his/her positions and liked the candidate but I can't say.

My invention won't ever turn a profit, in fact it will bleed money throughout its operational life and never even cover the cost of its operation but it will somehow pay for itself. It will cost 7y to build, 2y to operate for 1z and only generate 1y per 1z but it will somehow pay for itself. That makes so much sense. I cannot see how a statement like that would cofuse someone.I didn't mean turn a profit. I meant pay for itself in comparison to the cost of not having it.
As in building fixed public transport infrastructure where it is useful ultimately costs less than the other options, which are:
1) Do nothing, resulting in gridlock that is both literal and economic, in which people lose hours of their lives burning ever-more expensive fuel sitting in traffic, and the economy is strangled such that it cannot grow beyond its present strength

or

2) Massively expanding a costly-to-build, costly-to-maintain freeway network that drives down property values and livability, makes property less economically desirable, fuels the cycle of sprawl, and locks people into driving farther and farther and paying more and more for gas, which ultimately hurts the economy.

I don't have an analysis of the cost of constructing a highway along that route. Not going to go looking for it at 2:20 AM. I will tell you this, that train is a net loss. A very pretty, well-executed net loss but at the end of the day my wallet is still empty.Of course a train is a "net loss" in terms of immediate revenue; so is EVERYTHING the government does - roads, schools, etc, or else private companies would be jumping all over themselves to do it.

Slower means more stops. They can use regular streets and there are more of them so the service is more accessible and goes more places at more times, not just to a few stations that may be but probably aren't that close to where it is that you're trying to go. As far as the council goes, I'm not a fan and I think that the public transit needs better management before it gets more money.That's a valid point, which is why I think the bus system is still vital, and that trains should be used solely as a backbone network to connect strategic, densely-developed areas and crucial transfer points.

You assume that high density development is an ideal thing. We have room in this state. Lots of it. All there is in Minneapolis is poor city planning, an idiot mayor, a retarded Met Council, high crime rates, poverty, pollution, and now people that want to raise chickens in the city.Less high crime than many other major cities (I never felt unsafe, but then again I'm 6'4" and I didn't have occasion to visit the north side), and less polluted than nearly all. Don't forget a fuckload of jobs and money. Like it or not, Minneapolis is the both the economic and cultural engine of Minnesota. As for room, there's "plenty of room" in the state sprawl if you're okay with a huge per capita ecological footprint, ponying up billions in tax money to support the extra freeway miles, and not being able to afford to live close enough to anywhere you might want or need to get to without driving for an hour or more.

Great idea! I'll quit my job and starve to death. To sruvive I need to go to the store, the bank, and work. To do that I need a car because I don't have a bus or train that will stop at my house on demand.Hey, us Democrats are the ones trying to make it so you don't have to depend on your car to do all those things, and thanks to white fear of minorities, there are still lots places in the Twin Cities that are affordable to live where you don't need a car to get to the store, bank, or work. The apartment where I lived for a bit more than a year was affordable, had a grocery store and a bank nearby, and frequent and quick transit access to both downtowns, and was crime-free as near as I could tell. Lots of families with children as well.

The rich will be able to afford this gas tax, the poor won't. And why the fuck should government get to tell the poor that they have to use mass transit? Should there be a tax on voting? Some sort of poll tax to keep the poor from participating in government? It'd help cover the cost of the election and you could think of it as a fare.Voting is a right. Driving a vehicle without having to pay for the wear and tear to roads and pollution it causes isn't. If you don't like it, either get a job or join me to start the communist revolution.

As in building fixed public transport infrastructure where it is useful ultimately costs less than the other options, which are:
1) Do nothing, resulting in gridlock that is both literal and economic, in which people lose hours of their lives burning ever-more expensive fuel sitting in traffic, and the economy is strangled such that it cannot grow beyond its present strength
Yes, doing nothing is not helpful, but neither is building a train that is currently not being used except when there's a Twins game. And fuel wouldn't be more expensive if there were more of it and fewer fees attached to it. How do you do that? Well there is always good ol' fashioned coal which can be turned into liquid fuels. And then there's the untapped oil deposits to the north.

If the price of fuels were lower then I probably wouldn't be so damned pissed about this regressive tax hike but the DFL seems more concerned with taxing people into submission than solving their problems.

2) Massively expanding a costly-to-build, costly-to-maintain freeway network that drives down property values and livability, makes property less economically desirable, fuels the cycle of sprawl, and locks people into driving farther and farther and paying more and more for gas, which ultimately hurts the economy.
Roads are cheaper to pave and maintain than light rail track is to lay. Roads don't drive down property values that much and because it makes property mo9re accessible the property will become more economically desireable. And you still haven't shown why sprawl is a bad thing. I can give you several reasons why high population density is a bad thing starting with the fact that when humans are placed in close quaters for extended periods they wil become territorial, irritable, and violent. High density is also a great way to spread disease. Finally, cities aren't exactly known for their sustainability.

Of course a train is a "net loss" in terms of immediate revenue; so is EVERYTHING the government does - roads, schools, etc, or else private companies would be jumping all over themselves to do it.
Some private companies do get involved in public transit, schools, etc. And road and bridge construction is contracted out. There are even some trains that are run at a profit by the private sector, they just usually haul more cargo than passengers over long distances. That makes sense, trains are for hauling large loads over long-distances, including passengers. Trains are not for moving people around within a city unless you have such a huge population that if even 1-2% of them are riding it, it'll still be packed. Maybe if you stuck the entire population of Minnesota into the city of Minneapolis that'd be the case but it isn't.

That's a valid point, which is why I think the bus system is still vital, and that trains should be used solely as a backbone network to connect strategic, densely-developed areas and crucial transfer points.
You forgot long distances. Strategic, densely-developed areas and crucial transfer points which are seperated by long distances which would be impractical to cross using alternative methods of transportation.

Less high crime than many other major cities (I never felt unsafe, but then again I'm 6'4" and I didn't have occasion to visit the north side), and less polluted than nearly all. Don't forget a fuckload of jobs and money. Like it or not, Minneapolis is the both the economic and cultural engine of Minnesota. As for room, there's "plenty of room" in the state sprawl if you're okay with a huge per capita ecological footprint, ponying up billions in tax money to support the extra freeway miles, and not being able to afford to live close enough to anywhere you might want or need to get to without driving for an hour or more.
Less crime than other major cities but still more than just about anywhere in Minnesota. The job market in the metro area could be better.

As for sprawl, think of it this way: if you try to tip-toe through 3 feet of snow you'll sink in pretty deep but if you wear snow shoes that spread your weight you won't sink as deep and distrub the snow as much. That's how sprawl works, you spread your impact to lessen the effects of it in any one spot.

Hey, us Democrats are the ones trying to make it so you don't have to depend on your car to do all those things
So I'm getting my own personal train and a private track that will go wherever I need it? Does it come in fluorescent pink?

You Democrats are trying to drive everyone out of their cars and onto mass transit so that it'll stop looking like the mismanaged colossal waste of money it currently is.

Voting is a right.
So is living. To do that I need to do certain things and I don't think those things should be taxed. Food and water, shelter, and energy are needed to live. Currently you don't have to worry about taxes on what sustains your biological functions but you do on the other stuff.

If you're going to argue for regressive taxes on the necessities of life then you cannot argue against a tax on voting, speech, firearms, or to keep soldiers out of your home. A little consistency would really help.

Driving a vehicle without having to pay for the wear and tear to roads and pollution it causes isn't. If you don't like it, either get a job or join me to start the communist revolution.
I'm not saying that you should be able to destroy state property without paying for it, I'm just saying that hiking taxes isn't a real solution to the problems being faced in my homestate. The difference between me and most DFLers is that I think most problems that make it to the political stage can be solved through sound engineering and good management where the DFLers think that the solution to most problems is to manipulate people into a certain way of life by taking all of their money.

Edit:
My 666th post. I am officially turning evil.Ah, a swing and a miss.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
Funny how you used "officially" in there :p

As if threads on NS could get any more esoteric: Minnesota Politics. All you guys have are 10,000 lakes and Garison Keilor's soothing voice. Boring!

Isn't there some kind of cheese bleedover from the neighbours?

Ah, a swing and a miss.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
Funny how you used "officially" in there :p
I knew about 616 but 666 is more prevalent in popular culture. Another potential candidate is 665 and it is all pointless as the devil doesn't really exist. I'm an atheist libertarian that hates children and stands up for Wal Mart so I must be evil.

I knew about 616 but 666 is more prevalent in popular culture. Another potential candidate is 665 and it is all pointless as the devil doesn't really exist.As a side, sorta ... 665? Interesting.
I'm an atheist libertarian that hates children and stands up for Wal Mart so I must be evil.
Oh, it's the WalMart thing that really cinches the "official" part. Gotcha.

Yes, doing nothing is not helpful, but neither is building a train that is currently not being used except when there's a Twins game.Maybe things have changed since last year, but when I was in the Twin Cities it was packed during rush hours, and still used pretty decently during other hours.

Roads are cheaper to pave and maintain than light rail track is to lay.I've heard different stories on this. My guess is that when you compare them capacity-wise, rail becomes cheaper, and definitely when you account for the fact that every driving on the road has to buy a car and fuel it.

Roads don't drive down property values that much and because it makes property mo9re accessible the property will become more economically desireable.
There is a point at which you actually lower accessibility by expanding road capacity, and increase it by adding rail. A small example is how eliminating left turns at intersections increases capacity, but decreases accessibility. A larger example is knocking out intersections to build an expressway, and freeways everywhere are an even bigger example. It's a real pain in the ass to have have to make a million turns and sit at a bunch of lights and frontage roads for 5 minutes to get some strip mall you can easily see from the freeway.

At the point at which expanding capacity makes a piece of property less accessible, that's when you see property values go down for commercial property. As far as residential is concerned, they head down even earlier. There's an important and oft-noted correlation between urban freeways and the decline of the inner city.

Even though the industrial-oriented Hiawatha corridor isn't that conducive to transit-oriented development, you're still seeing a lot of it as a consequence of the LRT that you wouldn't be seeing had road capacity been expanded.

And you still haven't shown why sprawl is a bad thing.I believe I have. It's bad for the natural environment, it's wasteful of time and money, it's ultimately bad for the economy and vulnerable to rising energy prices, and there are other reasons I think I'll get to later in this post. Also, many object to the aesthetics (or lack thereof) of suburbia, but I don't consider that to be a strong argument.

I can give you several reasons why high population density is a bad thing starting with the fact that when humans are placed in close quaters for extended periods they wil become territorial, irritable, and violent. High density is also a great way to spread disease.I'll grant you all of these points, but I don't believe suburbia is immune to them, and in some cases dangerously avoids them rather than addresses them. Let's address territorialism first. I believe suburbia is largely a territorial game on a larger, more comfortable scale for its economically-enabled players. It can be argued that the existence of suburbia is motivated by racial and class fears. It can be more strongly argued that this continuing segregation enables racist and classist (territorial?) attitudes in society. For example, the people who live in the city don't think that all Muslims are going to blow themselves up because they see them not blowing themselves up on a daily basis. As for violence, New York doesn't seem to have too much trouble keeping crime down. If you want to avoid territorialism, you're going to have to get people a lot farther apart then the extra stones throw afforded by surburbia.

Finally, cities aren't exactly known for their sustainability.I think I read somewhere that on a per capita basis, New York is the place with the smallest ecological footprint in America.

Some private companies do get involved in public transit, schools, etc. And road and bridge construction is contracted out. There are even some trains that are run at a profit by the private sector, they just usually haul more cargo than passengers over long distances. That makes sense, trains are for hauling large loads over long-distances, including passengers. Trains are not for moving people around within a city unless you have such a huge population that if even 1-2% of them are riding it, it'll still be packed. Maybe if you stuck the entire population of Minnesota into the city of Minneapolis that'd be the case but it isn't.You have a point, although I think you're exaggerating the scale of it, but keep in mind that the city isn't planning for current populations and densities, but for the future. As the Twin Cities gets more populous, fuel prices go up, and the Minneapolis marketing wizards pimp out their condos, you're going to see densities increase.

As for sprawl, think of it this way: if you try to tip-toe through 3 feet of snow you'll sink in pretty deep but if you wear snow shoes that spread your weight you won't sink as deep and distrub the snow as much. That's how sprawl works, you spread your impact to lessen the effects of it in any one spot.I think that it works the opposite way with the environment, (at least when comparing stages of development - at the hunter-gatherer level you're probably right) When units are stacked, and the economy of scale is used to its full advantage in an area of minimal space, direct ecological impact will only occur to that small space. However, if you have hundreds of houses with large, mowed yards, then you're talking about just a few people who have displaced an entire prairie and contributing to watersheds-worth of runoff full of fertilizer and various car fluids.

So I'm getting my own personal train and a private track that will go wherever I need it? Does it come in fluorescent pink?No, but IMO you should get a bus with frequent service within walking distance, or at the very least the opportunity to move to such a place should you choose.

You Democrats are trying to drive everyone out of their cars and onto mass transit so that it'll stop looking like the mismanaged colossal waste of money it currently is.No, that's not the reason Democrats are trying to drive everyone out of their cars. They're trying to do it because they think cars are bad. I don't really agree with that sentiment.

If you're going to argue for regressive taxes on the necessities of life then you cannot argue against a tax on voting, speech, firearms, or to keep soldiers out of your home. A little consistency would really help.Cheap gas isn't a necessity of life, and if it is, that needs to be changed.

I'm not saying that you should be able to destroy state property without paying for it, I'm just saying that hiking taxes isn't a real solution to the problems being faced in my homestate. The difference between me and most DFLers is that I think most problems that make it to the political stage can be solved through sound engineering and good management where the DFLers think that the solution to most problems is to manipulate people into a certain way of life by taking all of their money.
Actually, I agree. Living in a place where Democrats were in the majority made me feel kinda dirty when the government arguably got a little too restrictive. (smoking bans, etc.) I got a "property tax rebate" for being a poor renter though, so that was a nice handout.