Quarterly Newsletter and News Articles

from the Coalition for a Healthy and Active America

The lack of green space in many American cities isn?t just an eyesore; it very well may be contributing to the prevalence of childhood obesity today, according to some studies on the impact of urban growth patterns. Communities need to create ?active environments? that will promote a healthy, active lifestyle for our kids and encourage activities such as biking.

In many large cities, parks and playgrounds where children once played are often squeezed out by office buildings and condominiums. Sprawling suburbs have made it impossible for most students to walk or ride a bike to school. And in some communities, crowded neighborhoods have led to unsafe pathways and make visiting nearby friends more difficult.

As a result of these adverse urban growth patterns, most school-age kids are getting less of the daily exercise we once took for granted. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found participation in P.E. classes for 9th through 12th graders dropped from 42 percent to 29 percent from 1991 to 1997. The decline in organized fitness activities, combined with a lack of exercise at home, makes it safe to assume many young people are not getting the sixty minutes of daily exercise recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General.

While the causes of childhood obesity are varied, a reduction in time spent on physical activities, as well as the increase in sedentary lifestyles, are important factors to consider. Mixed land use helps encourage greater amounts of exercise by developing inviting paths for walking and biking.

Many local leaders have taken notice of recent trends toward childhood obesity and are taking action. Community leaders across the country have helped form the Coalition for a Healthy and Active America (CHAA), which supports grassroots efforts to partner parents, schools, and communities to craft responsible solutions, including a rededication to physical fitness and expanded nutrition education, to the problem of childhood obesity.

CHAA encourages communities to support ?active environments.? Coalition members believe that physical activity for our youth, both during and after school, creates a healthier community. Schools can promote physical activity by ensuring they provide quality physical education throughout the school day.

Communities can create an active environment for young people by providing and sustaining walk-able communities with wide sidewalks and slower speed zones. Safe bike paths in natural settings will encourage children to take a daily ride with friends. Local communities can also provide clean and safe parks and recreational areas for children to play after school.

Developing active environments is good policy for the whole community: families are attracted to more ?livable? neighborhoods; businesses can locate nearby and take advantage of the new population growth; and the ensuing increase in exercise means healthier families.

The Coalition for a Healthy and Active America encourages you to find out more on creating active environments in your community. It?s a modern solution to meet the modern challenges of urban growth.

CHAA coalitions have already formed in more than a dozen states across the country, including Missouri. For more information on how you can get involved, please visit www.chaausa.org or e-mail missouri@chaausa.org.

Related:

Tips&Stories: St. Louis University study links poor community environment and obesity

News: Creating Active Environments for Active Lifestyles

permanent link to article: "Creating Active Environments for Active Lifestyles"
posted by Brent Hugh at 3:11 PM |comment on this article

Amendment 3, if passed by Missouri voters in the November 2004 election, will dramatically change the funding mechanisms for Missouri roads and highways and all other state funds. This summary of the proposed amendment was prepared by Missourians for Tax Justice on September 9th, 2004. This summary and the conclusions presented are not necessarily endorsed by the Missouri Bicycle Federation.

Summary: Amendment 3
"The Highway Robbery Amendment"

Amendment 3 ("A-3"), an initiative amendment to the Missouri state constitution, will be on the November 2, 2004 election ballot.

• "A-3" would take money that now goes to fund education, mental health, services for children, families and seniors, and other vital state programs and shift this money to construction of new roads. At present, one-half of the state sales tax paid on motor vehicles goes to state General Revenue and the other half is dedicated for transportation purposes. The shift of state general sales tax from General Revenue to "transportation" occurred with a constitutional amendment in 1979. Until then, all the state sales tax on motor vehicles (as with all other consumer goods) went to the General Revenue Fund where it could be used for Missouri's most critical needs.
  
  
• "A-3" would do away with this split between General Revenue and "transportation" of the moneys collected from the sales tax paid on motor vehicles. General Revenue's half of those sales tax moneys would be transferred to a State Road Bond Fund and could be used only to buy and repay bonds issued by the Highways and Transportation Commission.
  

  Note: Bonds are used for new construction, not maintenance and repairs. Also note that the decision on spending of these new highway funds would be made by an appointed commission. There is no legislative oversight in the spending of these funds.

• "A-3" would reduce the funds the Department of Revenue may receive for collection of the various transportation-related taxes and fees. These funds pay for the department's highway-related operations. The Revenue Department will have to have more dollars from General Revenue or cut back services. A cut back would probably mean some license offices would have to be closed. It could mean longer travel to license offices and longer waits to get vehicle titles and driver's licenses.
  
  
• Funds now appropriated to the Revenue Department from the state Highways and Transpor-tation Department fund would no longer be available. If these funds are not replaced, the department will be unable to perform administrative enforcement of driver license suspensions and convictions or vehicle registration suspensions. If funds for enforcement are not replaced with General Revenue dollars, then critical activities like DWI enforcement will have to be eliminated. Failure to adequately enforce state drunk driving laws could jeopardize millions of dollars worth of federal highway funds the state would otherwise receive.
  
  
• "A-3" would give a tiny 1% increase to "multi-modal" (the only source of state funds for aviation, rail, transit and water ports). It is estimated this increase amounts to less than one million dollars a year. State funds for multi-modal were $13.8 million in Fiscal Year 2004. In comparison, MoDOT received over one and one-half billion dollars for highways in Fiscal Year 2004. In addition, this proposed amendment clarifies that moneys deposited in the state road bond fund or state road fund shall not be used for multimodal purposes and thus reinforces the present neglect of alternative forms of transportation.
  
  
• "A-3" would make a fundamental change regarding funding for the Highways and Transportation Commission, and the Department of Transportation. All moneys from the gas tax, the sales tax on motor vehicles, and license fees "stand appropriated without legislative action." This amendment would allow these funds to be used and expended by the Commission and Department for administrative purposes as well as road and bridge construction and maintenance.
  
  This would permit MoDOT to withdraw funds from the state treasury without benefit of an appropriation, and that contradicts other constitutional and statutory provisions. Thus this amendment could create a "super-department" that is able to totally disregard the will of the people and state elected officials in regard to its budget and operation.

Related:

News: THE VOTE: Pro & Con on Amendment 3

News: MoBikeFed Editorial: Amendment 3 will affect Missouri's transportation future

permanent link to article: "Proposed Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3: The main points"
posted by Brent Hugh at 1:00 AM |comment on this article

Amendment 3, if passed by Missouri voters in the November 2004 election, will dramatically change the funding mechanisms for Missouri roads and highways and all other state funds. This summary of the proposed amendment was prepared by Missourians for Tax Justice on September 9th, 2004. This summary and the conclusions presented are not necessarily endorsed by the Missouri Bicycle Federation.

SUMMARY: Amendment 3
Proposed State Constitutional Amendment on the November 2, 2004 Election Ballot

1. The proposed amendment shifts General Revenue funds received from the sales tax on motor vehicles to a STATE ROAD BOND FUND. The moneys in the state road bond fund are to be used exclusively to fund and repay bonds issued by the highways and transportation commission.

Education - elementary, secondary and higher education, social services, mental health - in fact, all departments that receive state General Revenue funds - will be affected.

For FY05, General Revenue is expected to receive $125.6 million from the vehicle sales tax.

This proposal would phase in the shift of funds from General Revenue over a 4 year period, beginning July 1, 2005 (the start of FY06).

Total Cost/Loss to State General Revenue:

FY06 - $73.2 million

FY07 - $109 million
FY08 - $146.9 million
FY09 - $187 million (for this and succeeding years, and will increase with economic growth)

The amount given above for each fiscal year is cumulative (FY07's $109 million includes the $73.2 million for FY06, etc.).

At present, one-half of the state sales tax on motor vehicles goes to state General Revenue. The other one-half is dedicated for transportation purposes and is allocated in this way: 10% to counties; 15% to cities; 1% to the transportation fund (multimodal*); 74% to the state road fund. Under the proposed amendment, the state road fund's portion decreases 1% (to 73%) and the state transportation fund receives 1% more.

NOTE: Prior to a constitutional amendment of 1979, all of the sales tax on motor vehicles went to state General Revenue. The state constitution was amended in 1979 to add subsections 2 and 3 to Article IV, Section 30(b). At that point motor vehicle sales tax was split between GR and highway funds.

*"Multimodal" includes aviation, highways, bridges, rail, transit and water ports.

2. The proposed amendment reduces the funds the Department of Revenue may receive for collection of the various transportation-related taxes and fees, and eliminates funds for other departments and state offices.

The amount the Department of Revenue may receive is capped at actual costs, but not to exceed 3% of the particular tax collected.

State budget officials say this 3% limitation will not provide sufficient funds to cover Department of Revenue costs for collection of sales and use tax and motor vehicle and driver licensing fees. These funds pay for the department's highway-related operations.

Officials of the Department of Revenue are concerned about this loss of funds. The department will have to have more dollars from General Revenue, or cut back services. This cut back would probably mean some license offices would have to be closed. It could mean longer lines to get vehicle titles and driver's licenses.

Funds that are now appropriated to the Dept. of Revenue from the state highways and transportation department fund will no longer be available. If these funds are not replaced, the department will be unable to perform administrative enforcement of driver license suspensions and convictions or vehicle registration suspensions because those are enforcement rather than collection activities. If funds for enforcement are not replaced with general revenue, then
critical activities like DWI enforcement will have to be eliminated. Failure to adequately enforce state DWI laws could jeopardize millions of dollars worth of federal highway funds the state would otherwise receive.

The proposed amendment requires that beginning in FY2006, funds from the state highways and transportation department fund will be permanently eliminated for the Department of Natural Resources, the State Auditor and State Treasurer.

3. The proposed amendment provides that the revenues distributed to the state road fund, the state transportation fund, the state road bond fund, counties, cities, towns or villages shall not be considered an "expense of state government" or a part of the "total state revenue" for Hancock purposes.

This means that the proceeds of the gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax and license fees are not included when "total state revenue" is calculated for purposes of the Hancock limitation on state revenue.

4. Moneys deposited in the state road bond fund may only be used to fund the repayment of bonds issued by the highways and Transportation Commission to finance the construction and reconstruction of the state highway system, or to fund refunding bonds. The only exception is that after January 1, 2009, that portion of the moneys which is not needed to make payments on the bonds may be appropriated to the state road fund. The amendment clarifies that moneys deposited in the state road bond fund or state road fund shall not be used for multimodal purposes.

5. The proceeds from the sales tax on motor vehicles which are subject to allocation and deposit into the state road bond fund will not include the proceeds of the one-eighth cent conservation sales tax, the one-tenth cent sales tax for soil and water conservation and state parks, or the one cent sales tax for the school district trust fund.

6. The state constitution currently provides in Article IV, Section 30(b)1 for payment of the administrative costs of the highways and transportation commission and the department of transportation. These costs, as with those for refunds, collection and enforcement, are to be paid first. After making all such payments, the amount that remains is to be used for road and bridge construction and maintenance (primarily payments to contractors), which "stands appropriated without legislative action."

The amendment makes a fundamental change regarding funding for the Commission and Department of Transportation. Except for vehicle sales taxes that are distributed to cities, counties, and the state road bond fund, limited payments to the Department of Revenue, and funds for the state highway patrol in administering and enforcing any state motor vehicle laws and traffic regulations, all revenue from the gas tax, the vehicle sales tax, and license fees must be deposited in the state road fund. These funds stand appropriated without legislative action to be used and expended by the highways and transportation commission and department, for administrative purposes as well as road and bridge construction and maintenance.

This would permit MoDOT to withdraw funds from the state treasury without benefit of an appropriation. This contradicts other constitutional (Article IV, Section 28) and statutory (Section 33.170) provisions. Thus the proposed amendment could create a "super-department" - one able to totally disregard the will of the people, governor and general assembly in regards to its budget and operations.

As such, MoDOT would be able to grant pay raises and provide other benefits not granted to other state employees at its sole discretion, as it would not be bound by appropriation bills for
highway-related functions. That would be an unfortunate development for the state overall.

The state has attempted to move towards a uniform, comprehensive approach to matters of compensation so that individuals performing similar work in different agencies receive similar pay. The same can be said for benefits. Depending on MoDOT's actions (and those of the commission), this could have a sizable fiscal impact on highway funds (as well as compensation equity issues between departments).

A second problem exists regarding how the highways and transportation costs are to be met. The provision regarding highways and transportation commission costs (as with transportation department costs) is deleted. But unlike the case with the department, nowhere in the remainder of the proposal are such costs addressed through new language. So technically speaking, while the commission is to oversee the department and all its operations, nowhere are highway funds explicitly endorsed for payment of commission expenses.

Related:

News: THE VOTE: Pro & Con on Amendment 3

News: THE VOTE: Amendment 3 and Missouri roads

permanent link to article: "Summary of Missouri Proposed Constitutation Amendment 3"
posted by Brent Hugh at 12:56 AM |comment on this article

September 4, 2004
A Report from Ed Chasteen

I am contacting my attorney to ask that he begin the process of bringing suit against the mayor and the town for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To find out why, read on.

Since Bush #1 was in the White House, I've been riding the 50 mile round trip from Liberty to Lawson for biscuits and gravy at Catrick's. Hundreds of times I've ridden up to Catrick's front door, propped my bike against the wall, and stepped inside. Thousands of miles these rides have totaled. Thousands of dollars my biking buddies and I have spent in this place of good food and fellowship.

But not today! Twenty-five of us pedaled east from Biscari Brothers Bicycles this morning a little after seven. Soon we were strung out along H Highway on our way through Excelsior Springs and then to Salem Road, with me in my customary last place. Even if I were not naturally slow, still would I ride sweep on these rides when I have called the group together. I want to make sure no one is left behind.

By shortly after nine, I'm a couple of miles this side of Lawson when I see a wave of riders coming toward me, headed back where I've just come from. Marvelous! Another big bunch of riders. Our numbers increase. Hold on! These are my riders. They shout something as they fly by. I can't make it out. I spot two riders up ahead, beside the road. It's Seth and Steve. As I come near, I hear them say, "The police turned us back." My blood pressure peaks. I keep pedalin'. "They won't turn me back," I shout.

I prop my bike along the wall by the door in its customary place. As I step inside, a nice-looking man in civilian clothes identifies himself as Lawson's Chief of Police. He asks me to step outside. He points to my bike. "You can't ride that here. You will have to move it."

"I've been coming here for years. I've always put my bike here."

"There's a city ordinance prohibiting bikes on Pennsylvania between Third and Fifth Streets," he says. "Bicycles have the same rights to public streets as cars," I say. "The mayor told you if you would call ahead when your group wants to come, we would rope off a spot for your bikes up the street." He says. "When those who drive cars call to let you know they're coming, then bike riders will, too." I say.

"Move your bike," he says. "I have Multiple Sclerosis," I say. "This bicycle is my wheelchair. I can't move it. I'm going inside to talk to my friends." I'm talking to Rick Holcomb, the owner, with his wife Catherine, of Catrick's. A uniformed policeman appears shortly and asks me talk to me. We step outside to my bike. The chief asks me again to move my bike. I say no. "Write him a ticket," the chief says to the officer.

Seth and Steve have walked up as the chief and I speak. They parked their bikes back in the lot where they were told. Seth volunteers to move my bike. I take the ticket and tell the officer I have no quarrel with him. "You have to do your job. I told the mayor he should take down that NO BICYCLES sign and put up one that says SHARE THE ROAD. That's what all the other towns we ride to have done."

Steve and Seth are sure our other riders have gone back to Mill Inn in Excelsior Springs for breakfast. But we're standing in front of Catrick's, one of my favorite places in these parts. And they have done nothing to make us unwelcome. We go inside and find a table. Catherine appears. I tell her that we had 25 riders wanting to come to breakfast. She is angry when she learns they were turned back by the police.

"We came back to support you," Seth and Steve say. "I knew you would," I tell them. "I tell Catherine I cannot walk to get my bike and ask her to go tell the police they must come take me to my bike. She does. They won't. Seth and Steve walk over to the police station. They are told they can bring my bike to me. As I'm about to ride off, Catherine rushes out. "We have got to fight this. It's not right. Let's go to the council. I'll email you with the date."

This problem with riding bikes to Catrick's first came to light back in May when a bunch of riders stopped here for the free lunch they were providing in support of our Greater Liberty Bke Ride for MS. A police officer stopped some riders that day and told them they couldn't ride there. I went to the police station when I heard and talked to the officer. I subsequently talked to the mayor. He and I then exchanged letters on the subject.

The mayor said the ordinance was passed because local youngsters on bikes were causing traffic problems and near accidents. I told the mayor that a better way to solve the problem would be to teach bike safety in the schools and to alert drivers that the road is meant to be shared with bikers. I told him that bicycle riders have the same right to the road as drivers. I told him I intended to come to Catrick's on my bike as I always had.

Since May, I have been to Catrick's many times alone on my bike. And our Saturday morning riders have come several times. I had talked to Rick and Catherine about the issue. I thought everything had been quietly and unofficially made to be okay. Lawson is one of five small towns we ride to from Liberty on given Saturdays: Orrick, Excelsior Springs, Kearney, Plattsburg and Lawson. We love them all. And they love us.

Now Lawson doesn't want us. I will not lead our Saturday riders to Lawson again until this unwise and heavy-handed ordinance is struck down. I will go alone, however. I will not change my routine of some 15 years because the town has inept political leadership that is driving away business and making the town look foolish and backward.

I am also contacting my attorney to ask that he begin the process of bringing suit against the mayor and the town for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I told the Police Chief that I have MS. That I have great difficulty walking. That my bicycle is also my wheelchair. That I need it close by. He told me to move it a block away. I told him I could not. He said to move it.

I am also contacting the Missouri Bicycle Federation to alert them to this infringement on the rights of bicycle riders. I am also contacting the Attorney General of Missouri to inform him of this improper Lawson ordinance and ask his help in securing relief.

I will go to court on October 4, as my ticket today requires. I will not pay any fine. If I go to jail, I will spend my time composing Letters from Lawson Jail, which readers of my web page and emails will find interesting.

I thought when I went to visit with the mayor in his office that the two of us could agree that prohibiting bicycle riders who come with money to spend is not a policy the business community wants to pursue. I thought we could agree that controlling the bike riding practices of local youngsters can be addressed with more specific measures, such as requiring helmets on all riders, a city-approved bike safety course and an educational campaign to educate drivers to the fact that roads are meant also for bikes.

P.S. As Seth, Steve and I stand in front of Catrick's following breakfast, three youngsters on bikes appear in the forbidden zone. No sign of police.

P.S.S. Our Liberty police ride bicycles. No streets in our town are off limits to them. Or to any bike riders. We have found better ways to keep our children safe than to limit bike riders. On the Saturday before the Lawson police turned us our of their town, the Liberty police (and the Mayor of Liberty) welcomed us at City Hall, where we presented them with two brand new police bicycles that we had led our town to raise money for.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO HELP
The Mayor of Lawson needs to get hundreds of letters urging his city to welcome bicycles and their riders. He needs to understand that I'm not just one crazy old man. Address your letters to

George Green, Mayor
City of Lawson
PO Box 185
Lawson, MO 64062

Ed Chasteen is a bicyclist and newspaper columnist for Sun-News of the Northland. Chasteen is a resident of Liberty, Missouri.

Related:

News: Ed Chasteen fights for bicycling in Lawson

AdvocacyAlerts-4 OCT 2004 [EXPIRED, successful]: "Ghandian" protest ride to Lawson; Court date Oct 4th, 2004

permanent link to article: "Lawson Turns Us Away"
posted by Brent Hugh at 4:30 PM |comment on this article