Werm, I think you may be confusing the ENRTF and the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Those are two different funds.
ENRTF is lottery funds passed in 1988.
Legacy Amendment is 0.375% tax passed in 2008.
Another description of how the bill reads. They sure like to try to confuse the typical voters.
Werm, I think you may be confusing the ENRTF and the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Those are two different funds.
ENRTF is lottery funds passed in 1988.
Legacy Amendment is 0.375% tax passed in 2008.
You are likely correct, I conflated them bc they are on the same website and information is intermingled on the map as well (Project Map at the very bottom of this link).
I don’t like the committee thing at all, but you gotta remember they only make decisions on that 1.5% grant, not the 40%. This is a small concession and the committee will still be majority MN state citizens vs the tribes (competing tribes at that). I think it’s simple risk management to pay the 1.5% to guarantee the 40% vs risk it all for a later vote. The 40% ends at 2025 and you need to yet the voters back to the polls to amend any constitional votes to restart that funding. It will be tougher in non-federal election years.
I don’t like the committee thing at all, but you gotta remember they only make decisions on that 1.5% grant, not the 40%. This is a small concession and the committee will still be majority MN state citizens vs the tribes (competing tribes at that). I think it’s simple risk management to pay the 1.5% to guarantee the 40% vs risk it all for a later vote. The 40% ends at 2025 and you need to yet the voters back to the polls to amend any constitional votes to restart that funding. It will be tougher in non-federal election years.
Might have been just easier to say voting no is cutting your nose off to spite your face, or vote no and kiss the money good bye.
Might have been just easier to say voting no is cutting your nose off to spite your face, or vote no and kiss the money good bye.
[/quote]
I was just thinking that haha 
Dutchboy sighting?
Yes! Great to have him back!
Follow the $$ – who is behind the ads for voting in favor of the initiative?
This breaks it down in English… DEI Amendment
This breaks it down in English… DEI Amendment
This “Constitutionally dedicated funding is bad policy” should be number one on the list. Changing the constitution for something as simple as where money goes is an open door for other constitutional amendments. The constitution should only be amended for things much bigger and more agreed upon than funding.
And being the wording is intentionally misleading is something that should be addressed rather than ignored. I’m sure 98% of the politicians don’t know exactly what is in this bill the way it written.
If you vote no, and we lose money for the outdoors you lose every right to complain later or try to blame the democrats about funding for the outdoors. You had a chance to continue the funding but got pissed about a committee that has a voice for a very small percentage of it.
After researching this and listening to both sides, this thread has made me decide to vote no. The State Government will get their money either way, heck they put the whole $18 Billion surplus into our regular budget, a 36% increase, man that would be a nice increase for any of us. I agree with the definition of the amendment, simply a way to say….see you voted for this, live with it. I wouldn’t trust our state government any farther than I could spit. Besides lottery’s prey on the wrong people, those who believe it’s their pathway to financial security. I guess people have to have a dream regardless if they can afford it or not. Assure you it gets no moneys from me, I pay enough in the 7 county liquor tax rates….uffda.
American Experiment must be run by my boomer dad. He has a death vendetta against neighborhood squirrels also. Seriously squirrels is a reason to vote no?
This breaks it down in English… DEI Amendment
It is in english, but politically persuasive english in the form of an editorial.
Where are they getting the $25 million annually number for the community grant advisory council? The total amount of 2024 funds available to the LCCMR via the ENRTF is just under $80 million. The 1.5% proposed to be given to the community grant advisory council would only be $1.2 mill. The MN state lottery sales last year were $787.2 million. If the community grant advisory council received 1.5% from that total that still would only be $11.8 million. That $25 mill/year number is so incredibly false propaganda.
Getting so hung up on 1.5% piece of a pie to vote no on environmental related funding, and letting it go into general funding, is completely ridiculous IMO.
I honestly haven’t made up my mind up on this one either. A race biased committee doesn’t sit well with me but either does the wording of the question
I mean who would vote against clean water?
On a side note…breaking news…this is how most of our govt works. It’s never one sided and a get everything you want situation, it’s always a compromise. Every single bill has things that makes it bitter sweet.
If you vote no, and we lose money for the outdoors you lose every right to complain later or try to blame the democrats about funding for the outdoors. You had a chance to continue the funding but got pissed about a committee that has a voice for a very small percentage of it.
The democrats have every chance to simply extend what is working now. But no, they seem to think it’s alright to put their radical agenda into every single piece of our life. Not everything has to be surrounded by Diversity Equity and Inclusion. This state was running 1000x better before DEI being forced into everything.
The article I attached, is very clear on the 8 reasons to vote no. So far the only reason I hear to vote yes is, because I want clean water and free money for the “outdoors”… that I will lose otherwise ?
American Experiment is not run by Alida Messinger…. Squirrels ??? Your dad sounds wise.
I have no problem with the “race” of the board, it’s the fact 4 members have to be sovereign citizens of other nations ! Why don’t they require 2 illegal foreign gang members too !!!
Don’t know why your questioning the squirrels, they are one of the 8 well thought out reasons that the article gives. Another includes “government funding from gambling is wrong”. I enjoy quantitative examples like lottery proceeds will fund the Get Out More project that includes creating 40 more public water access sites. And there is no way to extend the amendment that was there previously. It was made to expire so that we could reflect and decide if it worked. If there is no ideas to make it work better that can realistically be passed by our legislature feel free to let that money go to the general fund to be used for Metro transportaion, or Metro sewage treatment, or Metro arts and sciences programs, or tribal rediscovery programs, or tribal health programs, or tribal transportation programs. See a trend here?
Where are they getting the $25 million annually number for the community grant advisory council? The total amount of 2024 funds available to the LCCMR via the ENRTF is just under $80 million. The 1.5% proposed to be given to the community grant advisory council would only be $1.2 mill.
It’s 1.5% of the funds current value. If the LCCMR gets $80 million, and that is 5.5% of the value, then Community Grants would get about $22 million at 1.5% of the funds value.
American Experiment must be run by my boomer dad. He has a death vendetta against neighborhood squirrels also. Seriously squirrels is a reason to vote no?
Spending $186,000 to figure out where the Northern and Southern flying squirrels are living seems like a good use of resources… no ?
(guessing no way that gets funded out of the general fund)
If you vote no, and we lose money for the outdoors you lose every right to complain later or try to blame the democrats about funding for the outdoors. You had a chance to continue the funding but got pissed about a committee that has a voice for a very small percentage of it.
Yeah, no that’s not how it works. Everyone’s first amendment rights stay regardless of how they vote on this or anything (obviously). And if you vote accordingly to the negatives outweighing the positives (or vice versa) after a thorough review, or don’t vote at all, a person is still allowed to be critical. This binary, if you do/don’t do this one thing you’re the problem, is the actual problem. If there were an IDO Preposterous Statement tourney, this would get my nomination.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mojocandy101 wrote:</div>
If you vote no, and we lose money for the outdoors you lose every right to complain later or try to blame the democrats about funding for the outdoors. You had a chance to continue the funding but got pissed about a committee that has a voice for a very small percentage of it.Yeah, no that’s not how it works. Everyone’s first amendment rights stay regardless of how they vote on this or anything (obviously). And if you vote accordingly to the negatives outweighing the positives (or vice versa) after a thorough review, or don’t vote at all, a person is still allowed to be critical. This binary, if you do/don’t do this one thing you’re the problem, is the actual problem. If there were an IDO Preposterous Statement tourney, this would get my nomination.
Kinda like some people voting for a politician solely because they are a specific gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. Weigh your positives and negatives and cast your vote.
This thread got me thinking I should briefly check in and watch Kamala Harris Town Hall on CNN tonight.
It’s actually painfully awkward to watch her respond to some very straightforward questions. I believe it’s one of the first unscripted interviews she’s done and she is totally failing.
Carry on.
This thread got me thinking I should briefly check in and watch Kamala Harris Town Hall on CNN tonight.
It’s actually painfully awkward to watch her respond to some very straightforward questions. I believe it’s one of the first unscripted interviews she’s done and she is totally failing.
Carry on.
Worse than all her others? Ouch…!
Guys, please keep on topic. This is a good post with a lot of good, thought out replies.
I really don’t want to lock or delete this post!
Thank you!
-J.
American Experiment must be run by my boomer dad. He has a death vendetta against neighborhood squirrels also. Seriously squirrels is a reason to vote no?
What now 
One thing I don’t think people are considering is the “bang for the buck” you get out of the ENRTF. The amount of money put in from the lottery each year is about $40,000,000. The trust fund structure with restricted spending has allowed the ENRTF to grow to where they are able to use around $80,000,000 a year now and the faster the fund grows the faster this number gets bigger.
If that 40 million goes to the general fund do you think it’s going to get invested and the legislature only spend 5.5% of it each year? I think they’ll spend all of it, 40 million per year.
Maybe we won’t get more squirrel research (and maybe we will, the legislature approves ENRTF funding so they already did once) but it’s also only half as much money overall in the first place and it’s going to stay relatively fixed over time.
That article says “Instead, excess lottery funds will simply flow to the general fund, making them available for other purposes — dare we say a tax cut?”
There are about 3.7 million tax payers in Minnesota. 40 million dollars is about $11/person. Instead of giving me back $11, from people who willingly threw it away on entertainment, we doubled the spending power to fund things like this in 2024 appropriations:
– 5,425,000 to acquire high-priority inholdings from willing sellers within boundaries of state parks, recreation areas, and trails
– 727,000 acquire land for Wannigan Regional Park
– 1,919,000 for SNA habitat development
– 3,802,000 for local parks, trail connections, and natural and scenic areas
– 4,952,000 for rehabilitating and enhancing existing state trails and replacing or repairing existing state trail bridges
– 2,689,000 to construct a segment of the Gateway State Trail between the city of Scandia and William O’Brien State Park
There’s a lot more, go down to Article 2 here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/60/
Jon Jordon. thank you for weighing in. I just don’t know what people on this site don’t understand about you saying, don’t make post that are political.
Blank, thanks for making a post that is full of COMMON SENSE!
Vote yes, I did.
Ummmmm… No. Reef, are you saying the 1.5% paid for all that you listed ? Very misleading.
Ummmmm… No. Reef, are you saying the 1.5% paid for all that you listed ? Very misleading.
No, I said 5.5% of the ENRTF funds value paid for that and more. Your own article says “The trust fund balance is currently around $1.9 billion.” 1.9 billion * 5.5% is about $104,000,000. I’m not sure what the actual value is, they only used about $80 million for 2024.
Edit: $40 milliion for lottery contributions might be a little low but I believe is closer to the average, this says 51.9 million went to the ENRTF for 2024: https://www.mnlottery.com/blog/fiscal-year-2023-wrap-up
2023 was an unusually high year: “Lottery sales reached $787.2 million, the second highest total in the lottery’s 33-year history, with scratch games taking the lead at $545.7 million. Four record-setting jackpot runs fueled Minnesota’s highest lotto game sales to date. A record $233 million in lotto tickets were sold, a forty percent increase from the previous fiscal year. “
The topic ‘Vote Minnesota Lottery proceeds for the outdoors’ is closed to new replies.
