In announcing his plan Wednesday to borrow $2.5 billion over 10 years to kick-start overdue highway projects -- including Minnesota 60 from Worthington to the Iowa border -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty simultaneously made the push for a constitutional amendment dedicating all motor vehicle sales taxes (MVST) revenues toward highway and transit projects. While speaking in Worthington, the governor said he cannot envision the amendment not passing.
Ironically, even before he made that statement, leading voices in the DFL party criticized Pawlenty for a number of perceived missteps on transportation issues. Among other things, they chided the Republican governor for borrowing against the future and passing the bill to the next generation.
Constitutional amendments are never easy. And this one is by no means a slam-dunk. To get it to pass, supporters will need to loudly proclaim its benefits, and the message may easily be lost as major state offices are also up for grabs.
Pawlenty came to Worthington armed with maps showing where 21 major highway projects will be accelerated under his plan. Minnesota 60 is, of course, a primary motivation for southwest Minnesotans, and the governor hopes our frustration with continued delays will get us to react favorably to the amendment message.
Well, we certainly do want to get to work on 60. But we, and others throughout the state, have been frustrated many times with on-again, off-again transportation schemes -- with rival bills, none of which seem to stretch far enough or satisfactorily address long-term economic needs -- with politicians kicking the can down the road, playing shell games, and unnecessarily pitting metro needs against rural needs.
ADVERTISEMENT
It is because of this history that the amendment option, or any other option, will attract controversy. An amendment may indeed be right at this point. But those who wish to portray it as just another shell game will find willing ears.
