urbanMSP

Meh, I'd be happy to give up SWLRT in exchange for giving up all the other sprawl subsidies that are on today's draft omnibus bonding bill. YIKES it's bad.

Yeah because all those requests will just go away forever if they aren't taken care of in the 2016 bonding bill /s

Also, there's a whole lot more to the bonding bill than just the transportation section.

Meh, I'd be happy to give up SWLRT in exchange for giving up all the other sprawl subsidies that are on today's draft omnibus bonding bill. YIKES it's bad.

Yeah because all those requests will just go away forever if they aren't taken care of in the 2016 bonding bill /s

Also, there's a whole lot more to the bonding bill than just the transportation section.

Agreed! Plus there's the whole needing to balance projects that will allow for a super majority from both the House & Senate. So my advice for you mattaudio; don't run for state government, as it takes compromise, for the overall better good of the state. Urban, suburban and metro.

Amazing where single-issue absolutism gets you in the end.

I'm fine seeing bonding bills and transportation bills go down in flames as long as it takes to starve the subsidized-driving beast.

I'm fine seeing bonding bills and transportation bills go down in flames as long as it takes to starve the subsidized-driving beast.

But it won't... that's the problem. Until there's a very real reason for people's behaviors to change, they won't. So withholding support for a bonding bill, or letting the SWLRT "die" doesn't help anyone, if anything, it makes the short term worse - until that very real reason happens, and the inevitable costs tenfold.

I'm fine seeing bonding bills and transportation bills go down in flames as long as it takes to starve the subsidized-driving beast.

But are you fine seeing opportunity and equity ripped away from poor families? From families of color?

Subsidized driving harms equity far more than SWLRT will ever help it. On net, the status quo fails poor people and families of color. We need the status quo to end as soon as possible.

Easy to say when you're not the one desperately looking for work.

I'm also the one who is able to pick the geography of my employment in this job market, despite also being the one who has the ability to afford ridiculous amounts of driving in a ridiculously luxurious car if I so chose.

Personally, I'd like to see SWLRT built. But that's not the point.

Personally, I'd like to see SWLRT built. But that's not the point.

That may not be the point that you want to make, but it is in fact the point.

I'm fine seeing bonding bills and transportation bills go down in flames as long as it takes to starve the subsidized-driving beast.

#StrongTowns

Since this is where we were talking about it: Bonding bill falls short by one vote in the Senate.

Note that all seven senators who said they wouldn't vote for a bonding bill that didn't fund SWLRT did in fact do so.

Just shows you how little a politician's word is really worth.

It's been a rough week for ultimatum enthusiasts everywhere

Note that all seven senators who said they wouldn't vote for a bonding bill that didn't fund SWLRT did in fact do so.

Holy cowards.

I am so dam sick of politicians. I am sick of people not getting how critical it is to invest in infrastructure and economic generators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So now it's basically a big hella grand bargain endgame? I mean it always is but usually there are actual bills with stuff that gets horse-traded.

How much do you trust Bakk? Because at this point, he's the one that's going to make this happen or not.

I trust that Bakk wants bonding. I don't trust that he cares about the metro one bit. And he certainly doesn't give a crap about transit.

Hope the Met Council and/or CTIB have some emergency funds...

But Bakk does care about preventing a caucus mutiny, especially after last year. He knows that it's a priority for metro legislators.