Proposal 1 - Affects ORV funds
I rec'd a mailing from my Representative today which explains Proposal 1 as:
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES . . .
People voting YES on this amendment argue that:
These funds are typically comprised of licenses or other fees paid by those hunting, fishing, and utilizing our outdoor resources. In the past, these funds have been raided and used for purposes other than those intended by the people paying these fees. This money must be protected constitutionally so it is not redirected for other purposes as the state budget gets tighter.
People voting NO on this amendment argue that:
The outdoor resources of this state are owned by all people and all people benefit from the state buget. This proposal ties the hands of our governor and Legislature to respond to bugetary troubles by further restricting how the money can be used. Uses of these funds in the past may have helped to stave off buget cuts that might have otherwise decimated state programs or resulted in broad-based tax or fee increases.
Based upon this enterpretation, I am COMPLETELY FOR the adoption of Proposal 1.
I can easily imagine Grants and RTP funding completely disappearing if this fails to pass.
I believe our government would see it as a 'GREEN LIGHT' to "raid" these funds dry.
Last edited by Trail_Fanatic; October 11th, 2006 at 11:10 PM.