At 02:53 PM 2/21/2013, Mitchell Nussbaum wrote:
What does the TEXT of the amendment say? SEE:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/ajr2
If the current administration stops funding transit and bikes from
the transportation fund, that's a bad thing. If the amendment bars
future administrations from reversing their policy, that's a
considerably worse thing.
I've been following AJR2, too. If the fund is raided (as Jim
Doyle did to the tune of $1.3 billion to pay for other programs that
better appealed to his supporter base) available dollars for
bicycling (& transit) are reduced accordingly. I think it is a
no-brainer this will be approved by the voters. Would GPR funding be
better? At this point, who knows? No matter what happens one
legislature cannot force the next to follow the same policy -- unless
it is mandated constitutionally. That's the purpose of AJR2. But how
it affects us as bicyclists is yet unclear .
My understanding is that the amendment doesn't define
"transportation" as highways alone, but I got my info from the
newspapers, so who knows?
----------
From: "Robbie Webber" <[email protected]>
To: "Matt Logan" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Bikies" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:27:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] So what is the Gov going to do to state
bicycle funding?
By the way... note that transit is now being proposed to be funded
via the General Fund instead of the Transportation Fund. That means
it won't be protected by the amendment.
I do fear that bicycling and walking may end up with the same fate.
I would feel better about the amendment if it was a two-way wall: No
raiding the Transportation Fund to supplement deficits in the
General Fund AND no raiding the General Fund to pay for things in
the Transportation budget.
As an FYI, a number of states have a constitutional amendment saying
the Transportation Fund can ONLY be used for roadways. This is a
huge problem for states trying to have a more balanced
transportation system. At my job, we have been working with a number
of states that are up against this restriction. I am concerned that
this amendment may be but a stepping stone to that restriction.
Robbie Webber
Transportation Policy Analyst
State Smart Transportation Initiative
<http://www.ssti.us/>www.ssti.us
608-263-9984 (o)
[email protected]
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM,
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
By the way, I see the Bike Fed supports the Constitutional Amendment
protecting a fund that our Republican leaders clearly intend to be spent
exclusively on facilities for motorists. Any chance you could back off
on that support until the state includes bicycling facilities in the
projects receiving money from that fund?
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
