|
|
Posts: 20235
Location: oswego, il | On it't surface this seems like a slam dunk, the money collected for roads goes to the roads. If this passes the portion that used to go to the DNR will be lost. Not a good thing. Now if we could vote to have 100% of our license fees go to the dnr and not into the general fund this would not be an issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 270
Location: SE WISCONSIN | Illinois Dnr is already under funded. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5193
| This is something musky fisherman should all vote no on this election no matter if support Democrat or Republican candidates.
Edited by 0723 11/3/2016 9:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
| There is a proposed amendment to the Illinois Constitution called the Safe Roads Amendment.
It would require all transportation-related revenue such as gas tax, license plate fees, registration fees and other duties to be used solely for roads, bridges, highways and mass transit. Seems like a good idea, right?
At face value it looks good, but it's what is inside the Trojan horse legislation that impacts outdoors folks. Senate Bill 1566 increased registration costs from $99 per year to $101 with $2 earmarked for the IDNR. That is $30 million per year that goes to fund state parks and fisheries. With this amendment, that is gone, basically shutting down state parks and hatcheries.
You may be one who says you don't fish or use these parks, but can you afford more taxes to replace it?
Special license plates that fund the IDNR such as the Environmental, Ducks Unlimited and Sporting Series to the tune of an additional $27 to $29 per plate also would be adversely impacted.
No question Illinois is in a fiscal mess and has a budget crisis. Waving a hand over the low-hanging fruit and a magic fix is not the best way to manage or repair this situation. Cutting the pork, excess frivolous spending and legislative perks such as guaranteed salaries and benefits packages for life is.
When you see this amendment on your ballot Nov. 8, know that voting yes may mean increased fees for entering parks, increased fees for fishing and hunting licenses and closures of fish hatcheries that maintain our lakes and streams.
Conservation and outdoors related initiatives may go south. This is not an amendment to the Constitution issue, but rather a legislative one and remember many of the reasons fees, etc., got the blessing to be raised was others needing funding in the first place. What new fees will go up as a result?
As outdoors folks we need to pay to play, but changing the horse in the middle of the stream should be managed and handled differently. A constitutional amendment is not the proper avenue for this to happen. Our roads need funds, no question, but doing it again on the backs of the IDNR just moves the pothole.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
| Thank you for sharing this. I personally didn't look at it deep enough, shame on me. My opinion has changed.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 298
| Great post! This was just discusssed yesterday at our Midwest Musky Club meeting and many were not aware of what it really meant, including myself.
Thanks for posting.
Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Todd, I don't know what you're talking about--look at all the money going to the schools from the lottery. Everything is just fine. Thx for posting this - Todd |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
|
UPDATE:
The Safe Roads Amendment passed in Illinois, receiving approval from nearly 80 percent of voters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20235
Location: oswego, il | The way it was worded, who would not vote for it? A win for the lobbyists! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8801
| I read it twice. Had I not know what that meant for the DNR, I'd have thought "sure, why not?" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 107
Location: central illinois | I voted no due to this thread. It was confusing. It made no mention of the DNR losing money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I voted no as well, but it didn't help. It was very confusing. Everyone I have talked to said they voted yes, because it sounded so good on paper and the commercials. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20235
Location: oswego, il | Ken you mean making something look sweet by nott presenting a the facts? Who does that?
Edited by ToddM 11/11/2016 5:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
| I voted yes on this because I don't like government taking money from one fund to finance their pet projects for the betterment of all, they always say. Its like the federal government always taking money from social security for other things that money was paid for by working people out of their pay for their entire working life and should be there when they retire. Politicians see all that money sitting there and just cant seem to keep their greedy little hands off of it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20235
Location: oswego, il | sjb42 - 11/13/2016 11:47 AM
I voted yes on this because I don't like government taking money from one fund to finance their pet projects for the betterment of all, they always say. Its like the federal government always taking money from social security for other things that money was paid for by working people out of their pay for their entire working life and should be there when they retire. Politicians see all that money sitting there and just cant seem to keep their greedy little hands off of it.
This amendment was pushed lobbyists. Unfortunately 100% of fishing/hunting license fees go into the general fund. With the stalemate in illinois government, our musky and salmon stocking programs could be in jeopardy. |
|
| |
