[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Vote NO on Proposal 1?

I say vote no on Prop 1 and also Props 2,3,4,& 5.  As a general rule amending the Constitution on the whim of the current political climate is a bad idea.  Our state Constitution was drafted by men and women who used the time-honored skill of negotiation and diplomacy, a skill that is sorely lacking in today's politics.
The lawmakers at the constitutional convention tooks months of work to craft the document we have been using since 1963.  It makes little sense to change or amend it with just a few minutes of decision-making in the voting booth.
None of thes proposals are worthy of Constitution amendments or changes in current law.
Pat Hartig 
----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Wiese
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: E-M:/ Vote NO on Proposal 1?

I have a couple questions about proposal 1.  By spelling out so definitively what the money can be used for, are we limiting funding down the road for any new programs? 


I have a couple examples?

Snowmobiles?  One of the things the money for snowmobiles goes to is ?Grants to state colleges and universities to implement programs funded by the snowmobile account.?  My question about this item is what is this?  What kind of snowmobile research are we doing?  If it is environmental impact studies, I?m all for it but this item doesn?t say that.  It could be research on how to promote snowmobiling more effectively?  Each and every segment of the proposal has this clause in it.  And yes I understand that being stated as a proposed use doesn?t necessarily mean that funds will be used for this purpose, but then I wonder about the purpose of it?s inclusion.


Waterways?  ?The enforcement of laws related to the operation of watercraft and education related to the operation of watercraft.  Not less than forty-nine percent of revenues from watercraft registration fees received by the waterways account shall be used for the purposes of this subdivision.?  I know it?s important to enforce our laws.  But I have yet to see a discussion on if this is prudent use of funds or not.  I don?t personally know any different on this issue either.


One thing I already caught, and I?m no fisherman, but the proposal limits how much the Michigan game and fish protection trust fund can spend.  It?s capped at 6 million a year.  Is there a reason for this and is this prudent?


I have a complaint too? this proposal seems to be mostly about securing funds for recreation and not whole heartedly about conservation.

Upgrade Your Email - Click here!

GIF image