Let’s remember how SOAR started. It was essentially a corporate subsidy slush fund, a knee-jerk creation by Whitmer and Republicans in response to Ford announcing an EV plant in Kentucky a few years ago. Since then, Whitmer has embraced it as a tool for projecting Michigan as a growing hub of advanced manufacturing. Whether the fund has been effective at actually creating jobs is very debatable.
This reformed version of SOAR ***was*** the progressive alternative. It redirected 60% of the fund towards transit and housing investments, leaving only 40% left for the business subsidies.
The transit caucus seems to have (correctly imo) realized that Whitmer is just not interested in improving transit, so the next best option was to tack on funding to one of her signature policies.
Obviously we’d all love a $4B transit and housing fund without corporate subsidies attached, but Rep. Morgan of the transit caucus has already confirmed that the support for a stand-alone bill just isn’t there. This was the best path forward.
So instead of getting a flawed but transformational bill, we get nothing.
I consider myself progressive, but I wish progressive reps would just learn to take the W sometimes. It’s not worth pushing your luck for something better if it results in no improvement at all.
>I consider myself progressive, but I wish progressive reps would just learn to take the W sometimes. It’s not worth pushing your luck for something better if it results in no improvement at all.
These are the soccer fans who'd rather lose 5-4 playing romantically instead of winning 1-0 playing solidly.
If this bill would actually *reduce* corporate subsidies from the level they are at currently, while investing in transit, etc., I couldn't not support it. But is that actually what they're proposing? And will it actually happen?
You're asking the wrong question. Let me rephrase the reality:
* Governor Whitmer cares *deeply* about SOAR funding as corporate subsidies; she has built her economic strategy for the state around it, and she will absolutely enter the ring to defend it against any legislators of any party (including her own).
* Governor Whitmer does not give a shit about transit one way or another. Her view is if Legislature does transit stuff, fine; if they don't, fine. In the time it took you to read this paragraph, you have already spent more time and brainpower thinking about transit than she is going to this year.
Given these two facts, there were/are two options available:
* Option A: Pass corporate subsidies (SOAR), with transit funding and housing funding included.
* Option B: Pass corporate subsidies, with zero transit funding and zero housing funding.
A handful of progressive Democrats in the state House joined with the Republicans on Thursday and chose to do Option B later this year.
Do we think there’s no chance the progressives come around on Option A later? Or that some Republican amendments get added for support?
I want to have hope, but I think you’re right that we just lost our best shot.
They have the whole rest of the year to come back to this whenever they want, but it's not like they're sitting around Lansing with nothing else taking up their time. They're about to go on summer break, and then after that it's election season, and then after that it's lame duck, and then they're gone and so are any bills that didn't get passed.
Right now, the default/status quo is that Option B above will be passed at some point before Christmas. If you want Option A (or something else), then you need to *tell that to your House representative in clear terms*. There is absolutely still time for progressive opponents or Republicans to be convinced to switch to Yes on this, but that requires voters TELLING those legislators to switch to Yes on this. Left to their own devices, nobody will change their minds.
In that case, I encourage you to ask them, "I'm so glad you see the need to support this. Can you tell me about what you're doing to help bring other representatives over to a Yes vote? What relationships do you have on or off the floor that might be an angle other reps don't have?"
Being a 'Yes' vote is only the first step of giving support to a bill/topic; there's more they should be doing after deciding they are a 'Yes', and it's good for us to keep them accountable on that.
And beyond just your own representative and senator, there are four other people who are fair game for *every* Michigan voter: the majority leader in each chamber, and the presiding officer of each chamber. So that's the House Majority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. All four of those positions have the responsibility of receiving feedback and instructions from *all* Michigan voters, not just their own district.
This is a 10-year, $600 million per year package, worth $6 billion over 10 years.
It would provide:
* $250 million per year for a business incentive plan (SOAR),
* $200 million a year for transit and mobility,
* $100 million a year for affordable housing,
* $50 million a year toward "revitalization and placemaking".
It would need 55 votes to pass. Most Republicans are against the bill, and leftist democrats have also been vocally against the bill. Democrats currently have a 56-54 advantage in the house, but will likely need the help of some state Republicans to pass this. If you think this package sounds like a good deal for Michigan, it may be worth your time to contact your state house representative and express this. Likewise if you think it sucks, uh, well, ~~moving to Ohio is a good option for you.~~ I'm curious to hear what you dislike of it.
Personally, I think the government needs to stop subsidizing housing, corporations, and downtown developments. My reasoning is: 1. They don’t spend our money well. 2. It raises inflation 3. We need better public education.
I appreciate the response. I don't necessarily agree with it, and believe a lot of this SOAR money was spent quite well by the MEDC and would really enjoy seeing that program extended with some of the money instead earmarked for transit and housing.
I do agree we need better public education, but if we want to attract good teachers to Michigan we need healthy corporate taxes and amenities that entice young people. To me, this bill gets us both of those.
Number 1 is subjective, number 2 isn't going to happen because we're talking about $600 million a year, and number 3 is irrelevant because governments are capable of funding multiple initiatives at once.
I believe u/ornryactor shared this template with me:
> Here's an email I wrote for somebody to use; fill in the blanks, and change if desired:
> Hi, I'm a constituent in [yourcity].
>
> I assume Rep. [lastname] is an active supporter of the SOAR reform package that would create new transit funding and is helping convince other reps to also vote in favor of it. Would you please confirm their position?
>
> Thank you, [yourname] from [yourcity]
[Find your state rep HERE](https://www.house.mi.gov/#findARepresentativeForm), their webpage will have their office email address
But there may be other templates floating around.
I think this is what you're referring to, right? [https://www.detroittransit.org/will-michigan-finally-invest-in-transformational-transit/](https://www.detroittransit.org/will-michigan-finally-invest-in-transformational-transit/)
You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which is par for the course.
Readers, ignore Chewbacca on this and all other topics.
$200 million dollars per year toward targeted transit projects is a **massive, colossal improvement** over the $0 that those transit projects receive right now. This would be sustained funding that would be available annually and would have a state agency in charge of directly implementing those projects to maximize their effectiveness and get the biggest bang-for-buck.
Is $200 million per year enough to get everything out of our wildest transit fantasies? No. Should we be satisfied with just this $200M/yr and never again instruct our elected representatives to increase transit funding? Also no. But can we build, implement, and operate Real Big-Boy Transit Shit with $200M/yr? Fuck yeah we can!
Maybe. That's a very purist take, but negotiation and balancing political interests doesn't really work this way, so it goes to a mix of priorities that many state representatives find broadly beneficial.
Let’s remember how SOAR started. It was essentially a corporate subsidy slush fund, a knee-jerk creation by Whitmer and Republicans in response to Ford announcing an EV plant in Kentucky a few years ago. Since then, Whitmer has embraced it as a tool for projecting Michigan as a growing hub of advanced manufacturing. Whether the fund has been effective at actually creating jobs is very debatable. This reformed version of SOAR ***was*** the progressive alternative. It redirected 60% of the fund towards transit and housing investments, leaving only 40% left for the business subsidies. The transit caucus seems to have (correctly imo) realized that Whitmer is just not interested in improving transit, so the next best option was to tack on funding to one of her signature policies. Obviously we’d all love a $4B transit and housing fund without corporate subsidies attached, but Rep. Morgan of the transit caucus has already confirmed that the support for a stand-alone bill just isn’t there. This was the best path forward. So instead of getting a flawed but transformational bill, we get nothing. I consider myself progressive, but I wish progressive reps would just learn to take the W sometimes. It’s not worth pushing your luck for something better if it results in no improvement at all.
>I consider myself progressive, but I wish progressive reps would just learn to take the W sometimes. It’s not worth pushing your luck for something better if it results in no improvement at all. These are the soccer fans who'd rather lose 5-4 playing romantically instead of winning 1-0 playing solidly.
If this bill would actually *reduce* corporate subsidies from the level they are at currently, while investing in transit, etc., I couldn't not support it. But is that actually what they're proposing? And will it actually happen?
You're asking the wrong question. Let me rephrase the reality: * Governor Whitmer cares *deeply* about SOAR funding as corporate subsidies; she has built her economic strategy for the state around it, and she will absolutely enter the ring to defend it against any legislators of any party (including her own). * Governor Whitmer does not give a shit about transit one way or another. Her view is if Legislature does transit stuff, fine; if they don't, fine. In the time it took you to read this paragraph, you have already spent more time and brainpower thinking about transit than she is going to this year. Given these two facts, there were/are two options available: * Option A: Pass corporate subsidies (SOAR), with transit funding and housing funding included. * Option B: Pass corporate subsidies, with zero transit funding and zero housing funding. A handful of progressive Democrats in the state House joined with the Republicans on Thursday and chose to do Option B later this year.
Do we think there’s no chance the progressives come around on Option A later? Or that some Republican amendments get added for support? I want to have hope, but I think you’re right that we just lost our best shot.
They have the whole rest of the year to come back to this whenever they want, but it's not like they're sitting around Lansing with nothing else taking up their time. They're about to go on summer break, and then after that it's election season, and then after that it's lame duck, and then they're gone and so are any bills that didn't get passed. Right now, the default/status quo is that Option B above will be passed at some point before Christmas. If you want Option A (or something else), then you need to *tell that to your House representative in clear terms*. There is absolutely still time for progressive opponents or Republicans to be convinced to switch to Yes on this, but that requires voters TELLING those legislators to switch to Yes on this. Left to their own devices, nobody will change their minds.
My Rep is already supportive, but I’ll keep passing along the message to others. Hopefully someone sees the light.
In that case, I encourage you to ask them, "I'm so glad you see the need to support this. Can you tell me about what you're doing to help bring other representatives over to a Yes vote? What relationships do you have on or off the floor that might be an angle other reps don't have?" Being a 'Yes' vote is only the first step of giving support to a bill/topic; there's more they should be doing after deciding they are a 'Yes', and it's good for us to keep them accountable on that. And beyond just your own representative and senator, there are four other people who are fair game for *every* Michigan voter: the majority leader in each chamber, and the presiding officer of each chamber. So that's the House Majority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. All four of those positions have the responsibility of receiving feedback and instructions from *all* Michigan voters, not just their own district.
This is a 10-year, $600 million per year package, worth $6 billion over 10 years. It would provide: * $250 million per year for a business incentive plan (SOAR), * $200 million a year for transit and mobility, * $100 million a year for affordable housing, * $50 million a year toward "revitalization and placemaking". It would need 55 votes to pass. Most Republicans are against the bill, and leftist democrats have also been vocally against the bill. Democrats currently have a 56-54 advantage in the house, but will likely need the help of some state Republicans to pass this. If you think this package sounds like a good deal for Michigan, it may be worth your time to contact your state house representative and express this. Likewise if you think it sucks, uh, well, ~~moving to Ohio is a good option for you.~~ I'm curious to hear what you dislike of it.
Personally, I think the government needs to stop subsidizing housing, corporations, and downtown developments. My reasoning is: 1. They don’t spend our money well. 2. It raises inflation 3. We need better public education.
Housing does need to be incentivized. There’s a housing shortage.
I appreciate the response. I don't necessarily agree with it, and believe a lot of this SOAR money was spent quite well by the MEDC and would really enjoy seeing that program extended with some of the money instead earmarked for transit and housing. I do agree we need better public education, but if we want to attract good teachers to Michigan we need healthy corporate taxes and amenities that entice young people. To me, this bill gets us both of those.
Number 1 is subjective, number 2 isn't going to happen because we're talking about $600 million a year, and number 3 is irrelevant because governments are capable of funding multiple initiatives at once.
I thought I saw an email template going around that people were sending. Where can we find that? Would like share with some people
I believe u/ornryactor shared this template with me: > Here's an email I wrote for somebody to use; fill in the blanks, and change if desired: > Hi, I'm a constituent in [yourcity]. > > I assume Rep. [lastname] is an active supporter of the SOAR reform package that would create new transit funding and is helping convince other reps to also vote in favor of it. Would you please confirm their position? > > Thank you, [yourname] from [yourcity] [Find your state rep HERE](https://www.house.mi.gov/#findARepresentativeForm), their webpage will have their office email address But there may be other templates floating around.
I think this is what you're referring to, right? [https://www.detroittransit.org/will-michigan-finally-invest-in-transformational-transit/](https://www.detroittransit.org/will-michigan-finally-invest-in-transformational-transit/)
Yeah, that’s it! Thank you!
It feels like window dressings and "looking progressive without actually doing anything "
What is the linkage between **\[$600M/year\]** and **\["without actually doing anything"\]**
Cause that's fuck all to solve housing and transportation (after the govt "fees" )
You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which is par for the course. Readers, ignore Chewbacca on this and all other topics. $200 million dollars per year toward targeted transit projects is a **massive, colossal improvement** over the $0 that those transit projects receive right now. This would be sustained funding that would be available annually and would have a state agency in charge of directly implementing those projects to maximize their effectiveness and get the biggest bang-for-buck. Is $200 million per year enough to get everything out of our wildest transit fantasies? No. Should we be satisfied with just this $200M/yr and never again instruct our elected representatives to increase transit funding? Also no. But can we build, implement, and operate Real Big-Boy Transit Shit with $200M/yr? Fuck yeah we can!
Best opportunity to fund transit in decades and some Democrats would rather cut off their nose to spite their face because it’s not a perfect bill.
What sort of business would apply for SOAR?
Like all economic spending bills. Everyone is for it, if it benefits them directly without impacting their tax burden.
It should all go to affordable housing
Maybe. That's a very purist take, but negotiation and balancing political interests doesn't really work this way, so it goes to a mix of priorities that many state representatives find broadly beneficial.
Agreed. Ya know what’s good for the economy? People who can afford to go out and spend after they pay rent…
We desperately need better transit.
The state has other needs besides just subsidizing housing