StarTribune.com | User comments

Council best to direct Legacy funds

Article by: Michael A. Kilgore, Darby Nelson and Robert A. Schroeder
Updated: February 25, 2013 - 9:36 PM

The law setting up the amendment created Lessard-Sams so that priorities would be balanced, and they have been.

3
Comments

Newest first
Oldest first

1 - 3 of 3

wornrolfFeb. 26, 13 9:31 AM

"only 9 percent of those polled supported investing more where the most people live." "3.5 percent of the state’s land mass in the seven-county metro region has received 9.7 percent of the total funding, with an additional 10 percent scheduled under the council’s current recommendations." Aren't the above statements a bit contradictory?

trlandsFeb. 27, 13 7:46 AM

I have attended numerous sessions of the Lessard Sams council since its inception. I have continually been impressed by both the quality of all the proposals and the diligence and care with which council members make their deliberations and decisions.

imkirokFeb. 27, 13 9:15 AM

If there are good habitat projects, they should be funded, regardless of whether they are in the metro area or not. But time after time, many in the hunting/fishing crowd say that none of the Lessard-Sams money should be spent in the metro area - that it should only go outstate. I don't think that's what the people voted for, but several of the citizen members of the Council, and even legislators, are saying it is "their" money, and they will do whatever it takes to keep habitat money from going into the metro. That attitude needs to change, since there is a lot of wildlife and fish habitat in the region.

1 - 3 of 3

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
Sign up for the Opinion newsletter