"Loss" reported for background checks
Author |
Message |
matt160
|
Post subject: "Loss" reported for background checks Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:03 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:18 am Posts: 1086 Location: Anoka, MN
|
Next time some shifty sheriff or anti politician reports that they are loosing money on the background checks I will refer them to this. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S14248.html?cat=1 Quote: "I think there's a misconception that that was the goal – revenue,” says MnPass Administrator Nick Thompson. “That's never been our goal." Quote: A proposal to expand the MnPass program currently in use on 394 to other areas may not have a lot of support as it is currently losing over $1,200 per day.
The proposal is to add a MnPass lane on a six mile stretch of 35W, between 494 and Highway 13. The nine-month-old MnPass will lose $450,000 in its first year of operation, and currently loses $1,232 each day.
"I think there's a misconception that that was the goal – revenue,” says MnPass Administrator Nick Thompson. “That's never been our goal."
Thompson says the program’s goal was instead to reduce traffic congestion. Officials at Minnesota’s Regional Traffic Management Center in Roseville say MnPass has reduced congestion on an eight-mile stretch of 394 by half.
The officials also admit the $450,000 loss is $1.2 million short of projections.
"All our objectives - except for kind of our revenue goals - are being met,” said Thompson.
MnPass has had twice as many users as projected, with 9,300 in total. Drivers pay $1.50 per week to lease a small white transponder that is placed on a vehicle’s windshield. Tolls are then deducted from the users’ account, from a low of 25 cents to $8.
David Strom of the Minnesota Taxpayers League says the program’s pricing does not reflect demand. "It's clearly overpriced, because there's not enough cars on that yet," he said.
Strom says the program should be more affordable and should be expanded to all major metro freeways.
"Whatever money we get from the tolls pales in comparison to just getting cars off the normal two lanes that people aren't paying for and freeing up traffic space for everybody,” Strom said.
MnPass will start a major new marketing campaign next month to increase drivers and revenue.
_________________ "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
|
mo_the_mouse
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:39 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:48 am Posts: 517 Location: Coon Rapids
|
OK. Maybe I am being dense, but what does MN Pass have to do with background checks? How are you tying the two together?
_________________ MADFI Certified Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
That is all....
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:16 am |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
I think I take it as "Money is not the point". Background checks are a step to having the public defend itself. Which is priceless.
As for the MnPass lanes, if money is not the point, then why charge for it? Why not build these lanes and allow anyone to use them when they are headed the direction the lanes are going. Then make a system that points where the lesser traffic is. MNPass is just an end-round on the toll system they can't get put in. (reminds me of anti-gunners, just a little here and there)
As for MnPass on 35w, they really need to do a study first. Open the HOV lane to ALL traffic during rush hour and see how that does. If it doesn't lessen traffic with 100% usage, then there is something wrong with the road. I would support MNPass on 35w if they built a NEW seperate section (build upwards). But, don't break a 6 lane highway like they did with 394.
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
matt160
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:59 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:18 am Posts: 1086 Location: Anoka, MN
|
Quote: I think I take it as "Money is not the point". Background checks are a step to having the public defend itself. Which is priceless.
Correct whether they are making or losing money in the background checks it should not matter, it's for safety not income.
_________________ "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
|
BigRobT
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:30 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:25 am Posts: 1772 Location: North Central Texas (now)
|
Now, I may be wrong here, but I was TOLD that the background check for a "Permit to Purchase" and the background check for "Permit to Carry" are done the same way. So......... if one can get a "Permit to Purchase" for free, why can't one get a "Permit to Carry" for free?? Mark Olson, my local congressman, (until we recently moved), believes that we shouldn't have to pay for the "Permit to Carry", either.
_________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. - Barry Goldwater
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
The Nanny State MUST DIE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:22 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
BigRobT wrote: Mark Olson, my local congressman, (until we recently moved), believes that we shouldn't have to pay for the "Permit to Carry", either.
Great man... anyone invite him to a CCRN meeting?
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:59 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
It's an interesting issue. With a state-imposed lack-of-fee, the sheriffs would be screaming about unfunded mandates.
Never mind that permit-to-purchase background checks are exactly that.
Another interesting issue is whether a $100 fee for a permit to carry unfairly discriminates against those lacking the funds to pay for the permit.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:37 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Another interesting issue is whether a $100 fee for a permit to carry unfairly discriminates against those lacking the funds to pay for the permit.
Very hard to argue with that reasoning. (quoting in Joel's proposal thread)
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
BigRobT
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:39 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:25 am Posts: 1772 Location: North Central Texas (now)
|
Pakrat wrote: BigRobT wrote: Mark Olson, my local congressman, (until we recently moved), believes that we shouldn't have to pay for the "Permit to Carry", either. Great man... anyone invite him to a CCRN meeting?
No, but I will. He is pretty pro-gun, pro 2nd, etc. H seems like the GOP of the olden days. Super guy, all in all.
_________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. - Barry Goldwater
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
The Nanny State MUST DIE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:44 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm Posts: 2362 Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
Since background checks are SOOOO expensive, maybe we should eliminate the need for permits to purchase. Anyone who wants to buy a handgun can do so, the NICS conducted by the dealer, not the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 10 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|