National Women's Editorial Forum
   Transforming the Media through a Gender Lens

  Recent Stories


 << Return to previous page
 

Editor's Note:

A copy of the commentary, editorial, or news item would be appreciated, as documentation of media use helps the Forum obtain continued funding and provide these materials for free.

Please fax CLIP or TEARSHEET to 1-800-549-1498.

Missouri FORUM | 06/30/2014

To Move Missouri Forward, Vote 'No' on Amendment 7
By Chloe Ames


OP ED

As a college student in St. Louis, my friends and I often rely on public transit. The light rail stops at University of Missouri-St. Louis, Washington University, and St. Louis University make it affordable for students like me to get to school. This isn't just good for students -- it's good for all of Missouri. After all, a more educated work force creates a stronger economy. Accessible and affordable public transit is good for Missouri. So why does the state largely ignore and underfund it?

Despite our need for an improved and enhanced public transit system, the Missouri Legislature devotes little resources to support it. Instead, the Legislature has put Constitutional Amendment 7 on the August 5th statewide ballot. If passed, the amendment will raise the statewide sales tax 18 percent and devote almost all of its revenues to highway building, with little money left for public transportation. This is the wrong investment, and that is why I am voting "No" on Amendment 7.

Here are three big reasons why Amendment 7 is a bad investment. First, Missourians are thirsty for more public transit options. Both bus and light rail ridership in the state have greatly increased in recent years despite underfunding. Second, Missourians want clean, healthy air, but more highways mean more air pollution. Third, the proposal encourages urban sprawl, which destroys productive farmland and forces people to commute long distances.

Missourians are choosing public transit. St. Louis alone has recently experienced some of the largest increases in public transit usage in the nation. Bus ridership increased 15.6 percent in St. Louis in the first quarter of 2012. But it isn't just the major cities that rely on public transit. All 114 counties in the state have some form of public transit including bus, light rail, Amtrak and para-transit systems. In rural areas, para-transit can be even more vital as it is often the only means of getting to hospitals, groceries and emergency services. Missouri students, low-wage workers, elderly, and people with disabilities depend on public transit to build their futures and support their families. Demand is rising for public transportation throughout the state, but if the supply is not met then people, along with their jobs, education and spending power, will move elsewhere. The state needs to dedicate more funds to public transit. Amendment 7 does not do that.

More highways mean more traffic from trucks and cars. That means more air pollution, which in turn triggers more asthma. In 2008, 14 percent of St. Louis children and 10.5 percent of Kansas City area children were diagnosed with the disease. On the other hand, more public transit means cleaner air and less asthma. For every passenger mile traveled, light rail transit reduces greenhouse gas emissions 57 percent compared to single occupancy vehicles. Decreasing greenhouse gas levels also means less small particle and ozone pollution.

Finally, the more roads we build in exurban areas, the more we encourage urban sprawl. Hundreds of thousands of acres of Missouri farmland have already been lost in recent years to suburban development, hurting the state's agriculture industry and food sustainability. Amendment 7's construction plans will only continue this destruction. Missouri's major metro areas already suffer from some of the worst urban sprawl in the US, according the 2014 ranking by Smart Growth America.

Let's move Missouri forward by rejecting Amendment 7 on August 5th. As a young person, I support investing in productive infrastructure such as public transit, which opens job and education opportunities to more Missourians, cleans up our air, and discourages urban sprawl. Until there is an amendment that supports real progress for Missouri, I am going to vote "No." Amendment 7 is simply the wrong investment. Many Missouri organizations share my opposition to Amendment 7, including environmental groups like the Sierra Club, disability services groups such as Whole Person, and economic progress groups such as the Missouri Association for Social Welfare. I encourage you to join us in voting "No" on Amendment 7.

Ames is an undergraduate student attending college in St. Louis.


Copyright (C) 2014 by the Missouri FORUM. The Forum is an educational organization that provides the media with the views of state experts on major public issues. Letters should be sent to the Forum, P.O. Box 211, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0211. (06/30/2014)

TOP