Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
BY Devin Henry
PUBLISHED: 07/16/2008
A landmark presidential race, a contested Senate seat and numerous local and state races will be on election ballots on Nov. 4, but some Minnesota activists hope voters don't overlook the proposed amendment to Minnesota's Constitution that will be up for vote as well.
If approved, the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment , would provide the state about $276 million a year for 25 years to fund the environment and the arts in Minnesota.
Clean Air, Water … and Art
The amendment would create an added 3/8 of 1 percent onto Minnesota's sales tax, creating more than $300 million per year in revenue for the state to divvy among environmental and arts causes.
An exact breakdown of where funding would go includes:
-33 percent for water quality
-33 percent for wildlife
-19.75 percent for arts funding
-14.25 percent for parks
"This bill is about protecting the quality of life you love," said Charlie Poster , spokesman for Vote Yes Minnesota , a group advocating the amendment.
Sara Shaylie , an art history senior and member of the Minnesota Citizens for Arts , a group that lobbied at the state Capitol for the amendment, said the partnership between the environment and the arts appealed to her.
"They came up with the idea that we should all work together and try and consider the environment as a whole in Minnesota, as not just the natural environment, but as the natural, artistic and cultural environment," she said.
Amending Minnesota's Constitution
The amendment, more than 10 years in the making, Poster said, was added to November's ballot by the state House and Senate in February .
"It's slowly made the political journey," he said.
In Minnesota, a constitutional amendment must pass through the Legislature, and then requires a "yes" vote on more than half of all ballots passed to succeed - a blank ballot is a "no" vote.
No action by the governor is required to put an amendment up for vote.
"Our challenge is to make people know it's on the ballot," he said.
Influencing the original crafting of the amendment was a similar one from Missouri in the 1970s.
Poster said amendment designers learned from Missouri's - that amendment was a permanent 1/8 of 1 percent tax increase, leading to never-ending revenue growth, Poster said.
Minnesota's amendment would be a 25-year project .
So, yea or nay?
Many within the environment and arts communities are pleased with the amendment.
"I think it represents a wide demographic of Minnesotans," Shaylie said. "It's something that benefits everybody in the state."
The discrepancy between arts and environment funding doesn't bother Zachary Crockett , a music graduate student.
"I trust that the people who forged the bill did some research to figure out a good balance," he said. "There's no, 'Aw, we want more.' "
Some, however, like the Taxpayers League of Minnesota , contend the tax increase is "bad fiscal policy."
"The hundreds of millions raised through the tax increase will no doubt be used for any number of pet projects and wasteful spending initiatives," according to the group's Web site.
A spokesman from the Taxpayer's League did not return calls for comment.
Crockett said he was willing to accept what he called a "tiny, tiny tax."
"I support, in general, environment causes and arts causes," he said. "These are things close to my heart."
27 Comments
To flag an inappropriate comment please login.
tiny tiny tax
Yeah, tiny tiny! Add that to the big sales tax, stadium tax, state income tax, ever increasing school induced fat school tax, alcohol tax, various sin taxes and you have Minnesota. We just can't elect enough liberal dip switches or DFL light republicans that love their hands in our pockets! It was dirty when I was a kid and even dirtier now.
Now I'm voting YES
I've been researching the proposed amendment to decide if I was going to vote for it or not. The article didn't sway me either way, but the author of the previous comment sure did. Enough with the arrogance and belligerency of you and your fellow neocons. I'm voting YES on the amendment. Thanks for convincing me.
Constitutional amendment for arts
Not sure i will be voting for this. I am a strong ars supporter and environmentalist, but I do not like regressive taxes, and sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately. Why did the article not mention this? If this bill were 10 years in the making, did the authors consider other tax structures? I would be much more in favor of an addition to income tax, or a voluntary check box, like the ones we have for supporting political campaigns and the DNR now. that way it is voluntary, but highly visible on the yearly tax form.
You've hit the key issue!
There is nothing wrong with helping out the environment. Anyone with a brain should be supporting this idea. But saddling the people who can least afford it with the bill for it while the biggest polluters go on creating the mess is not right. I will NOT be voting for this just because of that fact.
Can anyone explain why they
Can anyone explain why they need to amend the constitution to accomplish this? Don't our taxes get raised all the time without amending our state constitution?
I was wondering the same
I was wondering the same thing myself - like all Minnesotans I support funding the environment and the arts, but I asked myself why this should be a constitutional amendment and not simply a legislative act. Then I looked a bit more at the state constitution: it's a real mess, and has been since the very beginning 150 years ago (the first amendment granted the railroads $5m - this clearly should have been a legislative act, not a constitutional amendment). Since this seems to be the "way that it's done" I'll vote in favour of the amendment and hope that at some point there's a renewed attempt to "clean up" the amendments to the state constitution in a way far more comprehensive than was attempted in 1974.
Double Dipping?
Can anyone please explain why we have to amend the Constitution when the Minnesota Lottery is supposed to be doing the the majority of what is being requested? If this constitutional amendment is passed will it be added to the lottery support? Will the lottery income be used other ways? Will Reva ever get back with Josh? I'm so confused....
Especially seeing as that
Especially seeing as that Minnesota Lottery recently reported record sales! What about the special license plates (Loons, etc..) in which there is a mandatory fee/donation that is supposed to go to this stuff as well? Where is all that money going!
I am first of all opposed to any more taxes in a state that is already taxed to death. But what I am most opposed to is the amending of the constitution for things like this. The constitution is not a toy. They need to quit screwing with it, and quit screwing us!
Constitution is the wrong place for this
I fully support funding to protect our natural resources and the arts. I'd definitely consider supporting a tax if it were proposed as a change by the legislature to the state's tax code. But I will definitely vote No on this amendment.
The state's constitution is the exact *wrong* place to do this sort of thing. The constitution is to define and describe the high level lofty ideals to which our state subscribes. It is not the place to implement detailed tax policy. And there is no part of our constitution that should have an expiration date as this amendment does.
The fact that this is being brought to the voters indicates a failure of the legislative process.
I this a joke?
I can't agree with the previous guy more strongly. The Constitution is NOT the place to be making tax code, and an Expiration Date??? What a joke. A failure in the legislative process is an understatement!!! We elect and send all these fools to the capitol to represent us and govern our state, but they're too concerned about re-election to actually vote on anything. Heaven forbid any of our elected officals go on record taking a stand on an issue. So what happens, they pass the buck - to us this time. Our Minnesota Constitution shouldn't be used as a piece of legislative scrap paper. They say this issue is ten years in the making? They spent 10 YEARS coming up with a tax hike that expires in 25 years??!! Why are we paying these fools??! Any high school government class could have come up with something much better in one class period! I'm all for better funding for our environment (despite the fact that the majority of any money allocated usually goes to some pork-barrel pet project) but if they want to fund it using constitutional amendments, my vote is NO. As a matter of fact, since leaving it blank will be counted as a "NO" vote, I'm going to do just that, since the question of whether or not to ammend the constitution for a temporary tax hike is not worth my time to bother answering.
arts & environment tax
I thought also that the lottery proceeds were to help the environment. Where is the money for education for our kids in all this? Is the "arts" more important than funding our schools with the materials etc they need to give our students the opportunity to become productive adults? Seems like our legislature has their priorites mixed up.
You're kidding, right??
A message to those that are voting YES just because they didn't like the post from an alleged neocon, or because "that's the way they do thing".. you've got to be kidding, right? Maybe we need to reenroll you back into grade school. If that's the extent of your critical thought, I truly am scred for our future. Morons.
I will be voting NO for this
I will be voting NO for this amendment. I am an avid fisherman and hunt deer and grouse whenever I can. Like others have said, the state lottery is supposed to help fund this cause. We pay enough in taxes already and when we have some responsible decisions made we have a history of billions of dollars in surplus. By the way, where did all that cash go ???(I know about 50% in tax refunds and reductions) So clearly a 6.5% sales tax should be enough to provide an allotment for the environment. Also, a $6.6 billion tax increase, the largest tax increase in MN history, was just passed last year. We have fishing license tax, trout stamp tax, duck stamp tax, small game tax, deer tag tax, boat license tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, Elk tag tax and so on. Not to mention outdoors group funding such as Ducks Unlimited or Minnesota Deer Hunters Assosiation. I feel we are being taxed to the max!
I will also be voting no for
I will also be voting no for this amendment. Tax provisions do not belong nor should they be added as amendments to the State Constitiution. When have you ever heard of a tax increase being recinded? Never, once the increase has been put into place - they keep it there forever. Even if the original purpose has been resolved or completely funded - the train of thought is - well they are already used to paying it so why don't we use the money for something else.
Many comments have pointed out that we already have the state lottery which is supposed to provide for these needs. The most recent comment makes a fantastic point that we are taxed or quired to pay for a license for every outdoor activity we have. The final point I would like to make is there is an additional source for funding if people choose. The State Tax form M1 - line 24 provides an option for all tax payers to pay into a fund to help NonGame Wildlife. If you want to provide the state with more funding - then choose to use this option and reduce your tax refund or pay more.
I've had enough - we pay enough. Every household in the country is having to tighten their budgets due to the economy it's time the State did the same!!
Interesting Comments
I have lived in several states in the last 7 years. After doing some extensive research on places to live in the US we decided on Minnesota. After living here for 3 years I am always amazed that we have the best of wildlife and community living side by side here in this state. Other states only have deer, fox, geese, squirrels, porcupine etc after traveling several hours outside of town and we have them here in our backyard. It worries me that it is projected that there will be over 10,000 million more people move into the metro area in the next ten years. This is such a beautiful state how will we choose to keep our wildlife in our backyards? It is easy to say yes I support the arts and the environment yet do we really if it is inconvenient or takes money out of our pockets?
Sad
I used to work at the Daily. How far it has sunk.
This is not an article or news story. This is a one-sided endorsement. Where is the opposing view point? This is lazy reporting.
The current funding for the DNR and arts in MN are amongst the highest in the nation. Add to that the record numbers of revenue from the MN State Lottery proceeds, and you have wasteful spending and misuse of taxpayer dollars.
I don't think most of you realize how large 3/8 of 1 percent is... it's enormous.
The figures used are not correct. By their numbers the average person in MN spends $18,000. Yeah... right! It's a lot closer to $41,000.
This is an enormous tax proposal. It'd probably be the largest in the history of the state... and very few would benefit from it.
Where your Lottery Dollars go!
If you want to see what the Lottery already contributes - then check out the link below:
http://www.lottery.state.mn.us/etf.html
Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment
I'm voting yes, even though I know it is a bit regressive and should be handled in a different manner. But, nothing substantial is happening to clean up the environment and what I give directly to the Nature Conservancy won't do it. A cleaner environment is the legacy we should be leaving not some barren waste land, which it where it seems we are headed.
For the Constitutional Amendment
I think we have sometimes forgotten we have to pay for a certain "quality of life." I have been many places in this world, and it is pretty hard to beat the quality of life we have in Minnesota. Somehow the word "taxes" has become a dirty word. Taxes actually help pay for our high quality of life: our education which benefits our businesses, the medical community, our environment and lakes, our infrastructure, and our cultural activities. We need to invest in those things that give the most reward and benefit to the majority. We have been so short-sighted these last few years that we have ended up paying much more later for projects that would have been more cost effective early on. Two examples: For at least the last eight years, we have debated the building of sports stadiums and making necessary repairs to our roads. When we had budget surpluses, we opted to give rebates after hearing the battle cry, "Give me the money. It is MY money." This "me" oriented thinking has become a sickness that is permeating our society, and may in fact, be leading us down the road of "Each man out for himself." Maybe, it is time for thinking of the common good. For 3/8 of a cent, future generations will thank us for our vision in taking care of the environment and promoting the arts which is really the heart of every society.
What do you mean by "cultural
What do you mean by "cultural activities" or "medical community?" I opt out for funding these things. I think you'll find most people think like me.
I will vote NO
As a Democrat I will be voting no on this. I am not for amending the constitution of our state in any way. Same reason I am against a constitutional ban on gay marriage, our constitution is sacred and shouldn't be adjusted just to fill some political agenda like this amendment or the gay marriage ban. I always am not pleased on how the committe supporting this has been deceiving voters. I just received a handout while walking in the IDS downtown Minneapolis. The handout goes on to say how it will help our environment,parks and etc, but in no place does it say anything about the ARTS which will get about 20 % of this funding. They want voters to believe that all of the money is going to the environment so they arent including the arts part in this handout or in the commercials on tv, and thats just plain sleazy,deceptful and wrong. Plus in the handout and on TV they say it will cost the average tax payer about 5$. They make this seem that it will be five dollars total when it reality it is five dollars a month for sixty dollars total. Another problem with this is, isnt the Minnesota State lottery giving tons of money to the environment? I've seen the commercials, why with all that money do they feel the need to tax us and get more money? And my final problem with this is, I am worried that if this passes they will come back at us in a couple years in the midterm election and push another sales tax, because this one just "wasn't enough" and I have no faith that our money will be spent wisely as government usually doesnt spend tax payer money wisely, why would they here? For all these reasons I will be voting no. I think we need to improve veterans services before we talk about the environment and the arts, our vets are more important than a bunch of tree hugging hippies.
money would flow outstate
if you haven't found a good enough reason to vote no on the clean water amendment, i have a few you might not have heard yet. for starters, the sales tax is a regressive tax, burdening most those who make least. and most of the funds, like usual, would pour into rural districts - specifically into a.t.v trails, campgrounds, and resort lakes. in other words, the $56 average urbanites would spend each year for this would be for the benefit of outstaters and suburbanites able to afford four-wheelers, boats, cabins, and theatergoing.
Neocon tears
They taste so good.
Neocons, neocons, neocons...
Do you even know what that word means? Neoconservatives founded the Set America Free Foundation. It's an organization focused on ending our dependence on foreign oil. That doesn't mean neocons are pro-environment. Just that they put national security concerns above domestic issues.
Opposing this amendment has NOTHING to do with national security. Opposing this amendment has NOTHING to do with necons.
You confirm my worst suspicions of the people who voted to pass this amendment. You vote based on stupid, superficial labels that you don't even understand. Thanks.
Ineffective Amendment
Minnesota is now poised to have a committee of the uninformed give money to carious organizations, so they can improve and maintain an ecological system they don't understand. Hows very Minnesotan. I suspect we wills on be treated to a commissioned modern dance in three parts allegorically depicting the demise of both the aboriginal people and the environment. This will help us all realize just how dumb this amendment really is. I hope one of the groups will propose distributing birth control since limiting out population is the only real way to stave off ecological disaster.
58% to 54%
More voted for this amendment than Obama. I find it puzzling and it baffles my spirit.
Despite an organized effort
Despite an organized effort to defeat it - really the only publicity I saw about this amendment - it passed EASILY.
This is the Minnesota way. This has ALWAYS been the Minnesota way. We value our wildlife, we believe in and support the Arts, and cheapskates who value neither have always been in the minority here. They just shout louder.
We're not a red state. We don't believe in the Republican way of doing things. Remember, on this ballot, anyone who chose neither 'yes' nor 'no' was counted as a "No" vote, so it can't even be claimed that voters didn't know what they were doing. They liked the amendment, liked the idea of supporting those causes, and said YES, please DO raise my taxes for this.
You can disagree with what the majority of voters decided, but that's democracy at work Opponents were out-voted. Republican 'values' were out-voted. We're willing to pay for the quality of life we enjoy here. We LIKE interpretive dance. Clean water. Thriving wildlife.
Most of us live in Minnesota because we love the benefits of living in a blue state, and think it's worth the cost. If you check out the electoral map in the recent election, you'll find some red states that might be more to your liking if you don't like our way of doing things. Of course, you're welcome to stay here, too, but you'll have to pitch in with the rest of us. You can continue to try to bully your way to change, but don't expect it to work. We like it here the way it is.
Post new comment