| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Safe Roads Amendment https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=103243 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | SpiralStairs [ Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Safe Roads Amendment |
Passed by a wide margin. We fucked ourselves and didn't even bother lubing up. |
|
| Author: | America [ Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Well any hope you had for Illinois is pretty much over. One of America's greatest states is pretty much dead, hopefully we get bailed outby the feds. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Can you give those of us not in Illinois a summary of what you guys are talking about? |
|
| Author: | SpiralStairs [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
RFDC wrote: Can you give those of us not in Illinois a summary of what you guys are talking about? Essentially any tax money collected for infrastructure cannot be used for any other purposes, even in cases of emergency. That money is designated for the roads...and all the contractors that build them... |
|
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
This is awesome it passed . |
|
| Author: | newper [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
So someone got mad because the Illinois people kept taking money out of road improvement to fund other areas of the economy. For several years. Someone said, how about we put in a lockbox where money paid from license plate stickers and toll money and whatever else, can only be used for repairing roads? This sounds like a good idea and they made a commercial with some bumper stickers and kids pointing to a sign. And there were no anti-commercials. Sun-Times and Tribune recommended voting against this saying that the legislature can choose whether to take from this fund or not, and they just need to be more disciplined. It passed by a ton because there were no commercials against it and there was a pretty good song during the commercial as compared to some other ones (Leslie Munger's high school band song was her death knell.) |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
I voted for it. Infrastructure is important. |
|
| Author: | hnd [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Any other state this is probably stupid. But illinois is the alcoholic you have to lock the booze up for. Get a freaking budget. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
So what is the downside of money set aside for roads actually going for roads? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? |
|
| Author: | SpiralStairs [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
hnd wrote: Any other state this is probably stupid. But illinois is the alcoholic you have to lock the booze up for. Get a freaking budget. I might be taking my kids to a shit school but man the ride there sure is smooth! |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
It's a fucking travesty - not to mention yet another example of not just how stupid people are but, in fact, actively want to be, because there was nothing preventing only using road $ for only roads except for the fucking legislators themselves ... so those 'brave' legislators needed this amendment to provide themselves cover from having to make a serious decision at some point(s) in the future and/or to make sure their pals in the construction business are guaranteed to get x number of dollars every year like clockwork. |
|
| Author: | SpiralStairs [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
RFDC wrote: So what is the downside of money set aside for roads actually going for roads? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Because there's a shit ton of other stuff more important than roads that need funding. Oh, and the paving and construction companies that are buddy buddy with the politicians that drafted the amendment get a ticket to ride the gravy train for life. Need money for pensions or schools of emergency services? There's a surplus of funds in infrastructure? Too bad, Joe's Cement company has got to get paid. |
|
| Author: | newper [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
RFDC wrote: So what is the downside of money set aside for roads actually going for roads? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Don Tiny is pretty much on the money here. The issue is that the legislature keeps "stealing" road money for other projects. This is a way to make it illegal for them to keep borrowing money from that pool in order to cover other things. The downside is that if you have some real issue like a Chicago earthquake where we have massive disasters, we can only use that money to repair the roads that were damaged in the earthquake, and not help out with shelter, food, etc. I think ideally you would be able to count on the legislature to only borrow from road money when it was absolutely needed, but the past record proves this is not true. Unfortunately, this can become a bit of a slippery slope because if they can't steal from the roads, they'll look for something else to steal from. And then we put a lockbox in place for that... rinse, repeat. Edit: And spiralstairs point that folks in the industry are locked into the money. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Thanks for the explanation guys. |
|
| Author: | Kirkwood [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Passed easily with getting ~80% approval by voters. We've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for years now. With this new amendment things are going to get messy. So dumb that our elected officials can't be adults. Instead we need to chisel rules in stone to prevent them from foolishly pissing away money. Sheesh |
|
| Author: | JORR [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
I think a lot of people simply didn't understand it. The way it was written, it made sense to vote for it. And I actually think it's a good policy. Or would be if the State of Illinois wasn't in its current financial predicament. |
|
| Author: | shakes [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I think a lot of people simply didn't understand it. The way it was written, it made sense to vote for it. And I actually think it's a good policy. Or would be if the State of Illinois wasn't in its current financial predicament. Agreed, I read it a couple times and was like, ok, what's the downside? |
|
| Author: | Kirkwood [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I think a lot of people simply didn't understand it. The way it was written, it made sense to vote for it. And I actually think it's a good policy. Or would be if the State of Illinois wasn't in its current financial predicament. Agreed, in theory it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, our reality is FAR different. |
|
| Author: | billypootons [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
shakes wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I think a lot of people simply didn't understand it. The way it was written, it made sense to vote for it. And I actually think it's a good policy. Or would be if the State of Illinois wasn't in its current financial predicament. Agreed, I read it a couple times and was like, ok, what's the downside? No clue read what the idiots at the bga wrote in trying to persuade a no vote... |
|
| Author: | Seacrest [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
shakes wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I think a lot of people simply didn't understand it. The way it was written, it made sense to vote for it. And I actually think it's a good policy. Or would be if the State of Illinois wasn't in its current financial predicament. Agreed, I read it a couple times and was like, ok, what's the downside? An increase in other taxes that are not tied to road projects. A virtual lock box of funding for the Road Builders Association which creates a virtual lock box of cash for organized crime. |
|
| Author: | KDdidit [ Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
I don't think roads would be in my top 5 for things in Illinois to lockbox. Top 10, maybe. |
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
SpiralStairs wrote: RFDC wrote: So what is the downside of money set aside for roads actually going for roads? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Because there's a shit ton of other stuff more important than roads that need funding. Oh, and the paving and construction companies that are buddy buddy with the politicians that drafted the amendment get a ticket to ride the gravy train for life. Need money for pensions or schools of emergency services? There's a surplus of funds in infrastructure? Too bad, Joe's Cement company has got to get paid. This. Follow the money. Lobbyists push "their" congressman to fund their industry in perpetuity. Just come up with a clever name and misleading commercial and let the sheep do the rest. |
|
| Author: | doug - evergreen park [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
our bridges are falling apart and the majority of road projects are for expansion and widening, not just repaving. bids have to be sealed and the lowest responsible bidder will get the job. we already had our silver shovel... |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Doug is correct. There are MANY bridges and interchanges that need work. Does anyone know if Railroad bridges over roads fall under this amendment? I get nervous everytime I drive under the viadocks at Pershing & Western. |
|
| Author: | Seacrest [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Doug is correct. There are MANY bridges and interchanges that need work. Does anyone know if Railroad bridges over roads fall under this amendment? I get nervous everytime I drive under the viadocks at Pershing & Western. Railroad bridges belong to the railroads. |
|
| Author: | Big Chicagoan [ Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Safe Roads Amendment |
Seacrest wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Doug is correct. There are MANY bridges and interchanges that need work. Does anyone know if Railroad bridges over roads fall under this amendment? I get nervous everytime I drive under the viadocks at Pershing & Western. Railroad bridges belong to the railroads. Not necessarily true. Railroads don't build the bridges usually. It's the roadway owners that build them usually and ultimately maintain them. They need to ensure they are safe because they cannot halt trains. Railroads are like the Gods of the real estate world. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|