 |
MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sir_zman wrote: |
| I think if they had proposed this without the "arts" and other parts of this amendment, it would have gotten the money without having to have gone to us..and if it did go to us, I may have considered voting yes. |
The "arts" was the big turnoff for me as well (I voted no). While I don't agree with the method for getting the money, and have concerns about how exactly it will be spent, my reason for voting no was entirely due to the arts being tacked on. IMHO public dollars can be spent much wiser than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmnrec
Geocacher
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 478
Location: Duluth
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sir_zman wrote: |
| I think if they had proposed this without the "arts" and other parts of this amendment, it would have gotten the money without having to have gone to us..and if it did go to us, I may have considered voting yes. |
I wasn't happy with the arts portion of it....Duluth does a similar type thing in which a percentage of money spent on a public project has to include an arts portion. I did vote yes on it, not that I was happy in the way it is to be done....but because it seems that it is becoming more difficult to elect officials who actually listen to their constituents and budget for essential, quality of life aspects that tax paying residents expect. It seems that elected officials consider parks a "fluff" service that should be the first item cut....not that I'm biased or anything  .
_________________
Effective parks and recreation facilities do not just happen on their own. They require professional care and financial support to keep them clean, safe and suitable for the community they serve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spinowner
Geocacher
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 559
Location: Plymouth, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was 90% sure how I was going to vote last Saturday. Then I did a bit of soul-searching (that's an overly dramatic way to put it, I guess) and I decided that I needed to change to the other side. I prefer not to say how I voted and I'm still not sure whether I voted the better way, but at this point what's done is done, and I hope for the sake of the state that everything turns out as well as possible.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MN_Cavepeople
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 369
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is time to start promoting Geocaching as an "Art".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGilby4
Geocacher
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 714
Location: Southwest Metro
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sir_zman wrote: |
| I think if they had proposed this without the "arts" and other parts of this amendment, it would have gotten the money without having to have gone to us..and if it did go to us, I may have considered voting yes. |
I couldn't disagree more. The arts are a huge reason this did pass. We geocachers see this from a biased outdoorsmen view, but there are a lot of artsy fartsy people out there that loved the arts provision.
More so, people have been trying time and time again for years on legislation for the cleaning and restoration of the wetlands, and it just never got done. As an avid hunter, I have been to a couple rallies over the past years where politicians claimed they were on board. Then when the time came to put their money where their mouth was, they balked! Without the arts, this never would have even made it to the ballot.
I voted no, because I believe this sets a horrible precedent, and that our elected officials should be the ones making these difficult economic decisions not uniformed Joe Schmos. However, even with voting no, I am still excited that funds will now be available for projects that have been needing the funds for a long long time!
_________________
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods..." - Lord Byron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3652
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dachebo wrote: |
| because I’ve been watching our lakes dying |
No amount of money in the world is going to "refill" our lakes and ponds. Cyclical rain patterns need to shift back our direction.
As for wet lands that are "dying" because of other reasons, according to Blue Water Science, it just ain't happening (at least in MN). There's still a lot of work to be done, but our watersheds are cleaner than ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3652
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am an outdoors enthusiast.. geocache, hunt, canoe, hike, bike.. as much as possible. I am not the artsy fartsy guy at all but understand the importance. I voted NO because of the precedence that has now been set. I feel strongly that we should hold our political representatives accountable. Besides the all of the obvious accountability issues, this amendment does nothing more than allow them to THINK UP new ways to spend money rather than address the existing problems. I am confident, that in 4 to 6 years, I'll be able to say, "I told you so". I hope to God I am wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sir_zman
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 1725
Location: Twin Cities
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheGilby4 wrote: |
| I couldn't disagree more. The arts are a huge reason this did pass. We geocachers see this from a biased outdoorsmen view, but there are a lot of artsy fartsy people out there that loved the arts provision. |
Which is why I voted no, just because people like something, doesn't mean the state should fund it. I believe that it is a lie to say that our water was becoming tainted and that we need this to save the water, but in all their ads, they never spoke about the arts portion of the amendment, they only talked about the lakes, streams and river protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNMizzou
Geocacher
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 635
Location: Maple Grove, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| minnesotabrad wrote: |
| MNMizzou wrote: |
| minnesotabrad wrote: |
| I would much rather walk into a State Park office and hand them $60.00 (and would) than to vote for an amendment like this. |
Cool, come on over to my place, I'll put a sign above the door that says State Park Office so you'll feel right at home opening your wallet and leaving a generous donation behind! |
Believe me they got a lot more than $60.00 from me doing the history challenge as I am sure they did from you and anyone else who did all or much of the challenge. |
I'm not sure the state parks got much of my money, they got the 25 bucks for the auto pass, but beyond that we didn't spend much at the parks themselves. Now the good folks of SuperAmerica, BP, they flat out stole my wallet this summer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission. |
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
