Missouri Bicycle News

An STL Post-Dispatch article discusses the pros & cons of proposed Constitutional Amendment 3, which, if approved, will take about $160 million per year out of Missouri's general fund and earmark that money specifically for roads:

Pat Martin, spokeswoman for a committee called "No on Amendment 3," said the proposal would create a "super-department."

Amendment 3 would take general revenue funds at a time when money to meet basic needs is in short supply, and vital programs have had their budgets cut in recent years, Martin said.

If the amendment passes, the Department of Revenue also is expected to lose out on about $41 million - or half of its budget - in the first year, she said.

But [Jewell] Patek [a political consultant running the campaign in favor of Amendment 3] says the ballot measure won't hurt education and other government programs. Money would be shifted away from the general revenue, but it would be replaced by annual natural growth in state tax revenues, he said. . . .

If passed, Amendment 3 would be used to finance more than $1 billion in maintenance and new road projects over the next four years, Patek said.

Read the Missouri Bicycle Federation's take on Amendment 3 here.

Related:

News: California dedicates 1/3 of safety money to Safe Routes to Schools

News: Springfield News-Leader supports Amendment 3

permanent link to article: "MO Amendment 3 pros & cons"
posted by Brent Hugh at 10/06/2004 08:38:45 PM |comment on this article