The Chainlink

I haven't seen this brought up for discussion, but I think it could have significant effect on bicycles, it could prohibit spending gasoline tax money on infrastructures to improve bicyclist.  This is the only constitutional amendment that will appear on the ballot in the November election.

Read about the amendment:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HJRCA&...

The Tribune has taken a stand AGAINST the amendment:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-constituti...

From the state page about the amendment, one of the things it says is "Provides that any additional modes of transportation proposed for State funding shall have dedicated sources of funding."  I'm no lawyer but it sounds to me like that's saying additional funding would need to be provided for alternate (bicycle) forms of transportation.

We take positions on everything else - this may be an issue we need to take a position on.  Opposition should be brought up by the Active Transportation Alliance, and maybe the Mayor's Bicycle Advocacy Council should take a stand against this proposal.

Views: 2651

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The "Learn More" button returns a 'page not found' error.

Good start.

I got; for questions and info send an email to:

Info@walkbikego.org.
Thanks Tom!

In reading the amendment material sent out by Jesse White, I reached the same conclusion to not support the amendment.  The word "bicycle" doesn't appear, a lot is left to interpretation, money talks means automobiles may dominate, and it imposes regulations, administration, and a bunch of other things on a legislature that should have the discipline and foresight to make decisions that benefit constituents. 

The Sun-Times has also come out against this amendment:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/editorial-reject-transportation...

Editorial: Reject transportation ‘lock box’ amendment

Hi everyone,

The intention of the amendment is to prevent the legislature from sweeping transportation funds into general revenue for other uses. This has been a problem in the recent past.

 

Ride Illinois, the statewide bicycle advocacy org, learned about this amendment very late in the process, too late to affect the wording that got through the legislature. Bikes were not the only transportation-related use not specifically listed, to the dismay of others in the transportation field. We have since investigated with IDOT, with our key legislator ally, and with the organization that developed the wording. Each assures us that bicycling falls into the "other transportation" categories in the language.

 

Obviously, we would have liked bicycling specifically mentioned, but the overall impact of the bill could/should help bicycling by preserving transportation dollars rather then allowing them to be used for other purposes. Overall we're supportive of the amendment. Feel free to contact us directly with any questions at info@rideillinois.org.

 

And if you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn that does transportation too.

I'm a member of Ride Illinois.  I'll watch the newsletter, the website, and the snail mail.  If Ride Illinois endorses this I won'[t renew my membership when it expires.

If I had a car, I wouldn't get a bicycle license plate either.

I was a member under their previous name, but stopped supporting them after they produced the stupidest license plate I've ever seen. The fact that they support this amendment is, sadly, no surprise. 

On principle, budget mandates do not belong in a constitution.  Legislators need to do what they are elected to do- make a budget that serves the general good.

I agree.  That is the biggest objection, not the lack of bicycle language in the amendment.

Budget mandates and limitations do no belong in the constitution.  The Illinois constitution is already too long, to complicated and too tedious to read.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm

Great to see all this dialogue about the proposal. We've posted a blog on our website explaining our position.

We support the amendment because it would lead to a larger pot of money for transportation investment, including biking, walking and public transit. It doesn’t affect how the funds would be distributed so we’d need to continue to argue for our fair share. It also doesn’t prohibit spending non-transportation revenue (e.g. sales taxes) on transportation, which is important as users only account for about half of transportation spending.

For further questions about our position, contact Government Relations Director Kyle Whitehead at kyle@activetrans.org. 

I respectfully disagree.

Budget mandate and restrictions don't belong in the state constitution. Income and allotment should be determined by the legislators doing their job. There's a promise of serving all transportation, but no language to that effect.

An example of a mandate that doesn't belong in the constitution is the language that guarantees pension restrictions. This should be mandated by law and changed as needed. But it can't, without amending the constitution. That's one reason there is such a serious budget issue in both the city and the state.

State house members are re-elected every two years. Things change. Once put in the constitution they can't be changed. That why the automobile industry wants this in the constitution - to benefit cars, cars, and more cars. Build more roads. Widen the roads. Build more bridges. All for cars.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service