Legislature must sign off on Legacy funding

  • Article by: Phyllis Kahn
  • Updated: February 21, 2013 - 3:24 PM

The council’s advice is just that — advice. This is what’s demanded by the Constitution.

  • 11
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
odinmanFeb. 21, 13 5:58 AM

As a sportsman and conservationist, I truely regret voting in favor of the Legacy Ammendment. I voted for this ammendment because our legislature (that's you Phyllis)was critically underfunding that which makes this state a great place to live. I naively believed that by voting for this ammendment, our legislature would be literally forced to spend a dedicated amount of money to support our woods,lakes,rivers and prairies and all of the flora and fauna within. Now it seems the legislature can raid these dedicated funds for their own pet projects in the city. Thanks a lot Phyllis. Can I have my vote back?

twspt7Feb. 21, 13 7:11 AM

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Legacy funds should be used throughout all of the state, of which the metropolitan area is a part, by the way, not just to enhance deer habitat in northern Minnesota. Everyone has a "pet project" they would like to see funded. However, allocating 5-6% of the Legacy funding to metro projects is not favoring the metro over the rest of the state. Funny how claims of partisan politics tend to fade when exposed to facts.

tacotonyFeb. 21, 13 7:39 AM

I don't normally agree with Phyllis but she is correct. The Legacy Amendment was average joe telling the state we like things nice we don't mind paying if we see results. Considering the ratio of what they pay into the fund versus what they see in return in their immediate communities I believe outstate Minnesotans our getting a heck of a good return.

mark44Feb. 21, 13 8:38 AM

I voted against this amendment for the very reason you are witnessing. Far too much money ($300M annually & growing) with far too much ambiguity in how it is spent. How many six-figure positions have been created (paid for by that organizations cut of the money) just to lobby for their cause? I think if we were smart we would repeal the amnedment and have the legislature come up with specific projects with specific spending for each.

mike2636Feb. 21, 1310:45 AM

I voted no on this amendment becasue I knew full well that people like Kahn would eventaully try and get their grubby paws on the dough and spend it on anything and everything it was never originally intended for. Only a foolish Minnesotans would vote for an amendment to levy additional taxes on themselves and then trust their leaders to actually do what they say.....ya sure.

luzhishenFeb. 21, 1311:07 AM

This legacy amendment has been great, and the combination of recommendation and oversight is what makes it work. As for metro area habitat, I do hope those commuting up from the south will note the numerous habitats they cross.

wileyrulesFeb. 21, 1311:27 AM

Interesting to see how many people comment that they voted for the amendment without knowing what it would do.

oldsterFeb. 21, 1311:28 AM

About time somehow took on Dennis Anderson's nonsense.It is the job of the legislature to oversee all spending, including Legacy money. And, last time I looked, the cities are still part of the state of Minnesota--whether Dennis Anderson likes it or not.

bernice3Feb. 21, 1311:31 AM

Phyllis Kahn has one of the finest minds in the legislature. When she analyzes an issue, her meaning is clear and easily understood, no matter how complicated the issue. As this one is. And yet it seems that doing the people's will by allocating funds for the arts and our historical/cultural heritage and protecting that portion of wildlife habitat that is within the metro area is somehow not what "the people" want. "The people" in their case seem to want all the money to support hunting and fishing.

Willy53Feb. 21, 13 8:10 PM

Thank you Representative Kahn for clarifying the facts surrounding the Legacy funding and expenditure. I'm so tired of Dennis Anderson's creation of needless animosity between two groups of conservationists, sportsmen and environmentalists. They both essentially want the same thing: increased habitat preservation and the protection of Minnesota's natural environment. Obviously when they vote as a block, free of ideological badgering from the likes of Anderson, much can be accomplished to the benefit of Minnesota.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters