Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 22 in favor, 12 opposed and 3 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 242 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Cherry, Gleason, Cropsey and Basham asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cherry’s first statement is as follows:

This is a pretty big amendment in this budget. I do have to say before I get started that there probably wouldn’t be all of these amendments if we would have taken these bills up more comprehensively in committee. But when they’re brought on the floor with very little notice, it would be irresponsible on our part not to review them and understand all of the impacts of the budget cuts and to also make changes if we believe it’s necessary.

So this is an amendment which restores the $11.5 million cut to the public transportation portion of the comprehensive Transportation Fund, taking some of that money to the General Fund budget. That means we are taking money for the bus programs, mass transit programs, Amtrak service; van pooling is in this cut; public transportation where we are at time, as I said earlier in the other budget amendments, that we are dealing with a time when people need more of public service. So we must establish our priorities, and, to me, our priorities should not be cutting public transportation. Again, they’re services that are so important to our citizens when they are at higher needs for those services. This budget is a budget of establishing priorities, and it seems to me that this should be a priority for our state.

So, again, I ask members to adopt this amendment to look at the budget again as an issue of recognizing not just the fact that we have to make budgets cuts—because we do,—but to recognize that the people of this state are suffering and they need special services from our state. This is a time when we should be providing that. We cannot let our safety net dissolve. These kinds of cuts make sure that that happens. So I ask members to restore this cut to the budget, and I ask for your support.

 

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

Fellow Senators, I speak in regard to two rather important issues. One, to reiterate the previous speaker’s remarks about the process. It was earlier stated by the Majority Floor Leader that an amendment hadn’t been read and a decision had been changed. It was further stated that there is a right way and a wrong way to perform our duties. Now I have heard that one many times in the last two and a half years. I agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things when we are seeing our transportation dollars being shrunk with a solution or a remedy involving mass transportation. And, once again, Michigan decides that we are going to fall behind other states. We see the increased deterioration of our roads, but also in recent times, we’ve seen an increase in ridership with the Amtrak services.

Michigan used to be considered a futuristic, a very progressive state. We used to think it was important that we led the nation in innovations and opportunities. We were the car, the automotive-making capital of the world. We transitioned from the horse and buggy to the combustion engine. Today all indicators are showing that it is time we dedicate more resources and a stronger purpose toward mass transportation. And, yet, the budget before us today, the amendment dictates that on page 14, line 22, that we will reduce Amtrak funding by $2 million; that we will strike from line 7 on page 15, we strike another $2 million out of that line item. A further difficulty is when we see we are reducing the number of days provided by Amtrak from seven to five.

In recent times, we’ve neglected the opportunity to put more people in the seats of Amtrak because we’ve never marketed that service. When you came to Flint, Michigan, you couldn’t even find where the depot was. So only a few years ago, we dedicated about $100,000 to market where you actually get on the train and how you utilize the services. We didn’t market prior to that. We’ve seen an immense increase in ridership and a greater increase in receipts for those who are riding Amtrak.

Yet, today, because we didn’t use a purposeful method to come to a conclusion on what money we were going to dedicate to mass transit, we just say, well, we are going to cut this money because we don’t have it; to revert back again to a prior budget when it was said that we actually increased the budget involving the military services and one vote was dedicated against that budget because there was an increase to that particular budget.

I think it is high time that we take serious our consideration toward mass transportation. Let’s do the right thing by putting more people in the seats of the mass transit opportunities. We are having intense conversations today in Washington, D.C., to find funding for light rail. At the same time, the conversations are being undertaken at our national level with our federal delegates. We are slashing the money which we are dedicating to mass transit right here today.

Now we are making this decision to cut this budget, and here is one of the most supreme difficulties and probably the most troubling experiences I’ve had with the budget process in the Senate over the last couple of years. We keep saying that we don’t have money for the military services; we don’t have the money agriculture, we don’t have the money for transportation. I believe that the process is wrong because whatever budget comes out last, we’ve already spent that portion. Every single day we address a budget, proportionately we are losing state revenues. So whatever budget we address last, that money is restricted because of the previous decision this chamber has made.

So I think we have to have a more responsible way of handling this budget. Let’s give every department a fair opportunity at the money. You know, we spent money on the last few budgets which we voted on today with the total expenditures which we were willing to vote for. The money which we vote for on this budget cannot be spent on the next budget which is before us. So let’s have a comprehensive approach to the budget. We know there’s difficulty. We have a shortage of money, but let’s not curtail the funding streams of future budgets by saying, okay, we’re going to give the Transportation Department or their budget $5.6 billion. Then we can’t give this $5.6 billion, in proportion of it, to future budgets.

So I ask for affirmative votes on increasing the opportunity for mass transit, in particular, the Amtrak line which is running along both coasts of Michigan. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

 

Senator Cherry’s second statement is as follows:

This amendment restores the bus operation portion of the cut in the Comprehensive Transportation Fund. It is very important at a time, again, when people are needing transportation. This is the one way that many people get to their work, their employment. Without this, they may not even be able to work. It seems to me that we would be wanting that as a priority for those who need public transportation. It’s also very important for the elderly to be able to have some kind of transportation available.

Further cuts in this program, again, don’t say very much about the priorities that we’re establishing within this Senate. While I understand that you have targets that you’ve decided that you have to meet, those targets still are up in negotiations with the administration and with the House. I think at this time, it’s important to establish what our real priorities are, and this is a priority that I think we should be funding. I hope members agree with that, and I ask for your support.

 

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:

I’m going to reluctantly vote for this bill. One of the key things I’ve spoken to this body at length about before has been the Detroit River International Crossing. I think it’s very important to note that we have set a date certain by which they need to give their report to the Legislature, which they keep trying to move back. I had thought by the end of this fiscal year, at the very latest, that they would have a report to us of what they have done with the 30 million in taxpayer dollars for the study that we had tried to stop two or three years ago. But the department did anyway, of which then we had to shell out 2 million more dollars. Otherwise, we’d have to give $17 million in federal funds back. But all that is just taxpayer dollars, evidently, as far as the Department of Transportation is concerned.

One of the key things that has to be done is to find out if we really need another international crossing there that the taxpayers or the government of Canada or whomever needs to put up. In order to determine that, one of the key things is to have an investment grade traffic study done. I’m surprised one hasn’t been done already. Then I found out not too long ago that a couple of years ago, Canada, evidently, commissioned an investment grade traffic study to be done. That was supposed to have been done a year ago. I’ve asked the department or one of the representatives from the department that if Canada is such a good neighbor and a good partner, where is the investment grade traffic study? I think the department told me that, well, they aren’t done with it yet or some other type of thing, after a year, supposedly, from what I understand, when the study should have been done.

However, this is something the department is very well aware of. I have in my hand a letter in which it talks about the DRIC EPE/EIS Project. It was a letter dated July 9. It goes back to the invoice that was submitted by one of the contractors, I believe, on the study on the progress report for The Corradino Group from June 1 through June 30 of 2008. On June 2, The Corradino Group prepared for and participated in the following meetings: June 2 with Transport Canada on the investment grade traffic analysis, and on June 25, they also had a meeting with Transport Canada on the investment grade traffic analysis. It would seem like we should have an investment grade traffic analysis that the government of Canada has done, and I call upon the government of Canada, if they’re going to be a good partner, to give us a copy of the investment grade traffic analysis.

Why haven’t they released it at this point? Is it because the investment grade traffic analysis will show the American taxpayers, the Michigan taxpayers, that perhaps it does not justify the building of a new DRIC bridge? I don’t know, but I have that question. I call upon the Michigan Department of Transportation to get us the investment grade traffic analysis as soon as possible. It would seem like a year after it was due that we would know where it is, what it is, and what it says.

 

Senator Basham’s statement is as follows:

I’d like to answer, relative to Senate Bill No. 254, a couple of comments from the previous speaker. One is, “Do we need another crossing?” And I would say according to federal highway, our Canadian partners, and MDOT, the answer is, “Yes.”

And I would also like to respond with, obviously, there is a disagreement between the DIVC and the DRIC folks, but I guess if they were here to ask questions, they would say, “Where are the permits for Ontario, for Windsor, for Detroit, for MDOT, for federal highway, for the Coast Guard, from the DIVC folks, who say they’ve had all the permits?” But the articles I’m reading in the Free Press and other papers are saying they are going ahead building a second span themselves without local, state, or federal approvals to do that.

So, again, we are talking about the budget here; that’s just a small part of it, but I would be glad to have those conversations with the Majority Floor Leader, off the floor—if he’d like.

 As a Activist against these wrong (corrupted) politicians who only think about getting paid from these private people. I think that the subject of having transportation should involve the Community Citizens as well. Who are the people who will benefit from this modern day movement aka mass Transportation? I live in the City of Highland Park, and its a sad affair that the City is being sold out by our own elected officials who is kissing butts of these investors. Highland Park is a small 2.9 square mile City that's inside of Detroit. Our boundries are (North) Six Mile Rd, (South)) Tennyson, (West) US-10 " John Lodge Freeway ", and on the (EAST) I-75 Freeway.

Our Main street is Woodward Avenue a two lane street going North & South, and I can not picture the modern age transportation going up & down Woodward. My Community group has submitted a proposal plan that involves the usage of the Grand Truck Rail tracks that's runs North & South on the Eastside of Highland Park. We suggested that the light railing be used from (what we call the Milwaukee junction) where the North & South bound Amtrak travels throught Highland Park. Which pick-up & drop-off points at Cariff Street plus Six Mile Road. These two locations can service Highland Park with the use of a bus shuttle service to & from Downtown Highland Park. Whatever Detroit, Ferndale, Royal Oak, Bloomfield Hills, and Pontiac does that's their business, but the Citizens here in Highland Park better think about the impact that this will have on our Communities.  In Closing, Its a shame that our own State Representative is trying to sell our City out. Whereas Transportation may be good for some Cities it might not be the best plan for all Cities.

 

 

 

 

Rep. Opsommer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I am both surprised and disappointed, not just that money is being stripped from the 127 project but that my amendment to restore that funding was gaveled down without the benefit of a bi-partisan opportunity for proper vote. I am also voting ‘no’ on this budget because it takes up to $18 million dollars for the Transportation Economic Development Fund and redirects it instead to the General Fund for non-road purposes.

It makes no sense to say on the one hand that we don’t have enough money for roads and then turn around and give some of the limited road money we do have to the general fund. Transportation Economic Development dollars are generated from driver’s license fees and are supposed to be used for financing road and street projects specifically in support of economic growth. State government first has to show it places a high priority on roads if we expect taxpayers to do the same; we should not be diverting money from taxes on gasoline, licenses, or registration fees to other things. There is simply too much road money being stripped out of this bill for me to vote for it. Taxpayers have a proper expectation that those dollars be used for roads.”