illinois safe roads amendment? - Page 1

Hometown » Illinois

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - illinois safe roads amendment?

Posted: 11/3/2016 3:23:58 PM EDT

Is this a good way to keep our money used for what it is intended for or cronyism?

Posted: 11/3/2016 6:47:07 PM EDT

[#1]

I understood it as using money from the tolls etc for what it is intended for...roads. I would be interested to hear what others think though.

Posted: 11/3/2016 10:19:56 PM EDT

[#2]

The amendment is intended to stop Mike Madigan and his cronies from raiding road funds to further line their fat, corrupt, pockets.

Posted: 11/3/2016 10:56:33 PM EDT

[#3]

It might be a good idea but of course this is Illinois. So any dollar spend on anything will be spent with the friend of someone in Springfield or Chicago. You can be sure it will benefit them a lot more than it will benefit the taxpayers.

Posted: 11/3/2016 11:18:27 PM EDT

[#4]

We voted against it...We don't like the idea of an amendment to do something that should have been done by legislation.
A very serious concern to the DNR is that they currently get $2 from each vehicle license fee. These funds are used to support state parks. This amendment does not not exactly preclude them from getting those funds but, it doesn't specify they would continue get them either.
It is just a cumbersome way to solve a problem that shouldn't exist that could have untended consequences!

Posted: 11/3/2016 11:49:39 PM EDT

[#5]

I'm torn... I believe a Constitution should do at least these two things: Support individual rights and restrict government rights. However, when there is so much agreement on both sides of the aisle for restricting what government can do, I smell a rat. I've seen many arguments against it that it's almost the same as setting up a special fund for politicians' construction buddies.

So, if there is so much support for it, why haven't the House and Senate worked to get a law passed to do precisely this? Are they trying to put the blame on the people, so they have a ready excuse for raising taxes because X dollars of the budget can't be touched?

The more I read, the more jaded I become.

Posted: 11/4/2016 12:28:07 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
We voted against it...We don't like the idea of an amendment to do something that should have been done by legislation.
A very serious concern to the DNR is that they currently get $2 from each vehicle license fee. These funds are used to support state parks. This amendment does not not exactly preclude them from getting those funds but, it doesn't specify they would continue get them either.
It is just a cumbersome way to solve a problem that shouldn't exist that could have untended consequences!

View Quote

Thanks for bringing that up, I'm a DNR employee and we're already in sad shape when it comes to equipment.

In a related note we have park roads in our site that provide sole access to multiple private residences and receive no fuel tax revenue to maintain those roads, and as you can imagine they're in rough shape.

Posted: 11/4/2016 12:44:25 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm torn... I believe a Constitution should do at least these two things: Support individual rights and restrict government rights. However, when there is so much agreement on both sides of the aisle for restricting what government can do, I smell a rat. I've seen many arguments against it that it's almost the same as setting up a special fund for politicians' construction buddies.

So, if there is so much support for it, why haven't the House and Senate worked to get a law passed to do precisely this? Are they trying to put the blame on the people, so they have a ready excuse for raising taxes because X dollars of the budget can't be touched?

The more I read, the more jaded I become.

View Quote

There is definitely something fishy about this amendment. Rauner says he has a view but isn't going to comment which strikes me as extremely odd. My bet would be because he'd be going against the grain and saying vote no. I think I'm rolling with no on this one unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Posted: 11/4/2016 11:58:38 AM EDT

[#8]

I don`t know enough about it to even comment or vote on it, however any money collected for a specific thing like roads should go in that direction.

Posted: 11/4/2016 12:36:06 PM EDT

[#9]

Why do we need an IL Constitutional Amendment for what really should be a common sense thing, or at most, a law?

Found this interesting article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-constitutional-amendment-road-funding-illinois-edit-0906-pw-20160906-story.html

Posted: 11/4/2016 4:20:08 PM EDT

[#10]

We voted no because we felt it might hurt the DNR. They can pass a law to do the same thing and state specifically that the DNR will still get their money, then I would support them. Common sense should tell them the money should only go to the roads.

Posted: 11/4/2016 6:45:59 PM EDT

[#11]

It is my understanding that the money from registration fees designated for DNR, ISP and MSF would not be affected by the amendment. What the amendment would do is stop politicians from raiding the road fund to finance pork barrel projects and allowing the roads in Illinois to get in even worse shape.

Posted: 11/4/2016 9:37:19 PM EDT

[#12]

It is my understanding that the money from registration fees designated for DNR, ISP and MSF would not be affected by the amendment.

View Quote

I've heard this too...but, the lobbyist for the DNR isn't supporting it on the basis that it isn't spelled out and an amendment isn't the way to fix the problem. We know this guy and trust his judgement.

Posted: 11/5/2016 1:03:17 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
The amendment is intended to stop Mike Madigan and his cronies from raiding road funds to further line their fat, corrupt, pockets.

View Quote

My honest opinion is that road construction and highway repair WAS Mike Madigan's area of graft. If that is true, he will legislate his power base with a amendment, he locks the Governor out of the process completely.

Just my observations of course. All my political science degree taught me was that people work in their self interest.

I believed Todd Stroger's family stole from the county hospital. His father use to champion for no bid pharm contracts to save money...how does that work. Todd tried to raise the sales tax and to push it for the county health care system.

Emo Jones was clearly in Commed pocket. Emo passed a lot of crappy laws before he retired to ensure his "legacy" after he left office.

Danny Solis and the HDO pushed the public funds for private charters schools, then UNO purchased every school it could find and funneled all that public money into their pockets. Danny use to be the director of UNO and clearly has ties to it.

Remember in 2009 with 31 billion stimulus package that was nearly all "infrastructure" and roads. Remember Walsh's 500 million road project that has 200 million in change orders. The governors have changed but the Speaker hasn't. Some of our biggest contracts are for Roads.

I smell Madigan using the machine to pass this bill. It would take democracy out of the process and Madigan's "Will" would be written into the law, long after he retires.

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I need to change the tin foil in my hat, but I don't know why we need a amendment in the first place. I smell a tap...

Posted: 11/5/2016 7:17:30 PM EDT

[#14]

Madigan is in favor of this amendment.
Read into that what you will.

I'll vote no.

Posted: 11/5/2016 7:22:18 PM EDT

[#15]

I have the utmost respect for you guys and all of the great things you do; however, we all know common sense does not exist in politics, otherwise we wouldn't have had to fight so hard, just to get concealed carry; something that is ALSO common sense, AND part of our constitutional rights!

That being said, I strongly urge you all to consider the consequences of voting no, based on common sense, or your feelings about DNR. I work in the construction industry, and yes, you could say that I have a special interest, and I suppose I do, but I also attend the "closed door meetings" that most of you aren't even aware of, regarding the future of our roads, and the maintenance and rebuilding of the same. It IS an amendment that shouldn't be needed, IF common sense did, in fact, exist in politics, however, it does not, and this amendment is simply a way to guarantee that Madigan & Co. cannot take funds from where they were intended, to fund his special interest bullshit, and is DEFINITELY not funding any cronyism!!

Thanks for reading, TLDR, I know!

Posted: 11/5/2016 9:13:09 PM EDT

[#16]

I just realized the trap:

1) Vote yes, and we give them a ready-made excuse to bitch and moan about the lack of money for other things and the necessity to raise taxes.
2) Vote no, and we give them carte blanche to raid the road funds.

Posted: 11/6/2016 9:49:05 AM EDT

[#17]

DNR is broken and near worthless either way. Take a trip fishing or hunting in WI if you want to see what a state that operates the DNR for the public (as opposed to cronyism) can do.

At least if they operate the road tax funds in a crooked way for roads I see some benefit from it. Everywhere I drive in this state (other than weathy suburbs with a bunch of pull) the infrastructure is terrible. Yeah it is going to line their buddy's pockets. It already does. If it lines their buddy's pockets and some trickles into infrastructure at least I get something out of it.

Posted: 11/6/2016 11:18:14 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Madigan is in favor of this amendment.
Read into that what you will.

I'll vote no.

View Quote

That was another point I considered. If the evil one himself is in favor, something is wrong with it.

Posted: 11/6/2016 2:59:29 PM EDT

[#19]

I'm leaning towards voting yes...

They are scavenging every fund in Illinois and not using funds for what they are meant for...example: I have a professional license and the fee I pay every two years is supposed to also cover them sending me a license to display which is required by law...of course now they aren't even sending the damn licenses anymore so you are responsible to print your own...which is a convoluted pain in the ass to do.

Posted: 11/6/2016 6:32:55 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
Madigan is in favor of this amendment.
Read into that what you will.

I'll vote no.

View Quote

Source? I am unable to find anything that quotes Madigan as supporting the amendment.

Posted: 11/6/2016 8:01:35 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

Source? I am unable to find anything that quotes Madigan as supporting the amendment.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Madigan is in favor of this amendment.
Read into that what you will.

I'll vote no.

Source? I am unable to find anything that quotes Madigan as supporting the amendment.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/the-money-behind-the-safe-roads-amendment/

The campaign to pass the so-called “Safe Roads Amendment” is grounded in a rare, tacit truce between Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democratic Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, — a stark contrast to the battles the two are waging on other political fronts.

Madigan’s support was key in getting the amendment question on the November ballot. Rauner is staying out of the public push to get it passed but, significantly, is raising no objections to the measure.

Posted: 11/6/2016 10:10:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Thank you SleepingBirdDog. I still don't see a downside to the amendment. Politicians have been raiding road funds for years and it needs to stop.

If they are no longer able to steal from the road funds, more construction work will begin on Illinois' crumbling roadways and bridges. Construction workers and suppliers will go back to work.

The articles I have been able to locate indicate that over 80% of downstate voters support the amendment. It may be difficult to defeat.

Posted: 11/6/2016 10:18:47 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
Thank you SleepingBirdDog. I still don't see a downside to the amendment. Politicians have been raiding road funds for years and it needs to stop.

If they are no longer able to steal from the road funds, more construction work will begin on Illinois' crumbling roadways and bridges. Construction workers and suppliers will go back to work.

The articles I have been able to locate indicate that over 80% of downstate voters support the amendment. It may be difficult to defeat.

View Quote

Ask yourself this: Why haven't the House, Senate and Governor agreed on legislation to do this? If everyone is in so much agreement on it, they should be able to pass a law limiting their own powers without cluttering up the Constitution, right?

Posted: 11/7/2016 6:00:13 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

Ask yourself this: Why haven't the House, Senate and Governor agreed on legislation to do this? If everyone is in so much agreement on it, they should be able to pass a law limiting their own powers without cluttering up the Constitution, right?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Thank you SleepingBirdDog. I still don't see a downside to the amendment. Politicians have been raiding road funds for years and it needs to stop.

If they are no longer able to steal from the road funds, more construction work will begin on Illinois' crumbling roadways and bridges. Construction workers and suppliers will go back to work.

The articles I have been able to locate indicate that over 80% of downstate voters support the amendment. It may be difficult to defeat.

Ask yourself this: Why haven't the House, Senate and Governor agreed on legislation to do this? If everyone is in so much agreement on it, they should be able to pass a law limiting their own powers without cluttering up the Constitution, right?

Correct. It hasn't happened in over 40 years and it won't happen. The House and Senate won't agree on a balanced budget. According to some media sources the amendment to restrict road funds to roads has an 80% approval rating among voters. Any politician without Madigan's clout who is concerned about the next election won't openly oppose or support it.

The voters won't elect a new group of people to political office to prevent money mismanagement. We are living in trying times and something needs to be done. Unfortunately, the voters have allowed things to come to this point.

There are some sound arguments both for and against the amendment. People should educate themselves about the amendment and vote their conscience.

Posted: 11/8/2016 11:39:33 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
Madigan is in favor of this amendment.
Read into that what you will.

I'll vote no.

View Quote

Voted no as well.

Posted: 11/9/2016 5:32:32 PM EDT

[#26]

I voted 'yes.' I think putting constraints on the gov is usually a good idea.

Posted: 11/9/2016 5:52:32 PM EDT

[#27]

Voted no. There's no reason for a Constitutional Amendment where a law will suffice.

Posted: 11/9/2016 6:14:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Voted no. There's no reason for a Constitutional Amendment where a law will suffice.

View Quote

This. OK with concept, but General Assembly needs to do their job!

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 11/9/2016 11:17:08 PM EDT

[#29]

Well, it passed without my help. I'm curious to see how this works out. I hope it does, then good for all of us.

Posted: 11/10/2016 4:35:26 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
Voted no. There's no reason for a Constitutional Amendment where a law will suffice.

View Quote

How do you think that would go when the people writing the laws are the very people raiding the road fund?

Like another poster said, it hasn't happened in 40 years and it wouldn't ever happen.

I voted yes and happy it passed.

Posted: 11/10/2016 6:18:26 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

How do you think that would go when the people writing the laws are the very people raiding the road fund?

Like another poster said, it hasn't happened in 40 years and it wouldn't ever happen.

I voted yes and happy it passed.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Voted no. There's no reason for a Constitutional Amendment where a law will suffice.

How do you think that would go when the people writing the laws are the very people raiding the road fund?

Like another poster said, it hasn't happened in 40 years and it wouldn't ever happen.

I voted yes and happy it passed.

You are assuming they won't do it anyway. When was the last time they followed their own laws? Maybe they should have put a balanced budget amendment on the ballot?

Posted: 11/11/2016 1:01:51 AM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
I voted 'yes.' I think putting constraints on the gov is usually a good idea.

View Quote

I agree. Once the legislature starts showing some sign of fiscal responsibility, the taxpayers can vote to repeal the amendment. Without restrictions the thieving jackals will continue to use road funds for other purposes.

Posted: 11/12/2016 10:23:35 AM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:

You are assuming they won't do it anyway. When was the last time they followed their own laws? Maybe they should have put a balanced budget amendment on the ballot?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Voted no. There's no reason for a Constitutional Amendment where a law will suffice.

How do you think that would go when the people writing the laws are the very people raiding the road fund?

Like another poster said, it hasn't happened in 40 years and it wouldn't ever happen.

I voted yes and happy it passed.

You are assuming they won't do it anyway. When was the last time they followed their own laws? Maybe they should have put a balanced budget amendment on the ballot?

If they violate the state constitution there is a remedy in the courts.

Posted: 11/16/2016 11:25:06 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

If they violate the state constitution there is a remedy in the courts.

View Quote

That is why I thank god there is a constitution law requiring a legitamate balanced budget in IL. Just imagine the litigation that would come down like a hammer if IL didnt pass a balanced budget!