Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Update on Goodhue County Wind
State Representatives Steve Drazkowski and Tim Kelly, along with State Senator John Howe, have an opinion piece in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune about the Goodhue County wind project.
Also, another blogger has posted about the Wednesday meeting with the local utility. It includes all the details that I left out of my account.
Also, another blogger has posted about the Wednesday meeting with the local utility. It includes all the details that I left out of my account.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Town Hall Minnesota In Action
I wish I could take credit for the idea, or even the execution, of the meeting I attended as an interested spectator this afternoon. It was pure Town Hall Minnesota in action.
Two officials of the state's largest electric utility came to Belle Creek Township, Minnesota (population 437), to answer questions about a controversial wind farm project proposed for the surrounding Goodhue County, which lies about an hour southeast of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The wind farm is being developed by a third-party with the output to be sold to the utility, under contract. The utility officials were there to answer questions from concerned citizens after touring the area with the meeting organizers, who are opponents of the project and live within the proposed project's footprint.
The meeting literally took place within a town hall. Not just any town hall, but this one,
a one-room meeting place for the Township's citizens. Several dozen people, including families and children, packed the space to standing-room-only capacity.
As they themselves acknowledged, the utility officials were not necessarily giving the answers the local citizens wanted to hear. But from where I was sitting, I thought both sides acquitted themselves well. Questions from the meeting organizers and audience were without exception well-informed, sometimes pointed, but more often then not, delivered with humor. Answers were informative, respectful and acknowledging of the seriousness of the occasion. I doubt anyone left the room happy, but I suspect just about everyone left better informed.
The utility officials answered questions for almost 2 hours on topics ranging from the science behind noise pollution, to the roles of state regulators and regulated companies, to dairy farm operations in springtime conditions and just about everything else under the sun.
Attending as audience members were the local State Senator and State Representative (I apologize if there were other elected officials there that I did not recognize), but the event was centered on the local citizens and their questions. It was Minnesota at its finest.
Two officials of the state's largest electric utility came to Belle Creek Township, Minnesota (population 437), to answer questions about a controversial wind farm project proposed for the surrounding Goodhue County, which lies about an hour southeast of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The wind farm is being developed by a third-party with the output to be sold to the utility, under contract. The utility officials were there to answer questions from concerned citizens after touring the area with the meeting organizers, who are opponents of the project and live within the proposed project's footprint.
The meeting literally took place within a town hall. Not just any town hall, but this one,
As they themselves acknowledged, the utility officials were not necessarily giving the answers the local citizens wanted to hear. But from where I was sitting, I thought both sides acquitted themselves well. Questions from the meeting organizers and audience were without exception well-informed, sometimes pointed, but more often then not, delivered with humor. Answers were informative, respectful and acknowledging of the seriousness of the occasion. I doubt anyone left the room happy, but I suspect just about everyone left better informed.
The utility officials answered questions for almost 2 hours on topics ranging from the science behind noise pollution, to the roles of state regulators and regulated companies, to dairy farm operations in springtime conditions and just about everything else under the sun.
Attending as audience members were the local State Senator and State Representative (I apologize if there were other elected officials there that I did not recognize), but the event was centered on the local citizens and their questions. It was Minnesota at its finest.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Experiments in Public Services
Today's lead editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune decries two recent experiments by local governments in delivering public services ("Don't Experiment with Public Safety"). The editors believe that public safety (police and fire) should be exempt from efforts to redesign government at the local level.
However, for small municipalities, public safety makes up the bulk of the services they provide. To exempt those services from any makeover attempts gives small communities little room to maneuver.
In 2011, the town of Foley, Minnesota, decided to replace patrols by county sheriff's deputies with patrols by private security guards. As the editors note, private security guards do not have the same powers of arrest, etc. as do sworn peace officers.
Nowthen, Minnesota, (yes, you read that correctly) ended patrols by deputies and replaced them with...nothing, in a cost-saving measure.
The editors lump together these two actions, but I think a reasonable distinction can be made between a community that tries a different method of delivering a service (Foley) and a community that ends the provision of a service (Nowthen).
As far as I can discern from the editorial, the editors' biggest problem with experiments like Foley's is less that public safety will be compromised, but that public "expectations" may not be met. A lot of expectations will be disappointed as we move from a "giveaway politics" to a "takeaway politics."
Not all experiments will go well, but many will succeed and provide examples to other communities. But to say that experiments in delivering services cannot be tried is guaranteed to lead to failure.
However, for small municipalities, public safety makes up the bulk of the services they provide. To exempt those services from any makeover attempts gives small communities little room to maneuver.
In 2011, the town of Foley, Minnesota, decided to replace patrols by county sheriff's deputies with patrols by private security guards. As the editors note, private security guards do not have the same powers of arrest, etc. as do sworn peace officers.
Nowthen, Minnesota, (yes, you read that correctly) ended patrols by deputies and replaced them with...nothing, in a cost-saving measure.
The editors lump together these two actions, but I think a reasonable distinction can be made between a community that tries a different method of delivering a service (Foley) and a community that ends the provision of a service (Nowthen).
As far as I can discern from the editorial, the editors' biggest problem with experiments like Foley's is less that public safety will be compromised, but that public "expectations" may not be met. A lot of expectations will be disappointed as we move from a "giveaway politics" to a "takeaway politics."
Not all experiments will go well, but many will succeed and provide examples to other communities. But to say that experiments in delivering services cannot be tried is guaranteed to lead to failure.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Minnesota Sunset Commission
It is often said that the closing thing to eternal life, in this realm, is a government agency. As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, the Minnesota Sunset Commission is testing that theory.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Your Tax Dollars at Work: St. Paul Edition
A few days ago, I noted that the City of Minneapolis was steering a few hundred thousand dollars of federal taxpayer money to open a bike sales and repair/coffee shop in north Minneapolis. Not to be outdone, their rival east of the river is going much bigger.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports on that city's decision to subsidize an apartment and grocery store complex at the edge of downtown. On a split 4-3 vote, the City Council voted to kick in $15 million of city-taxpayer money in the hopes to gain a $40 million loan backed by the federal-taxpayer funded Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The new apartment building is not "affordable housing," with rent on a studio unit running more than $1,000 a month. The grocery store will be an outlet of a higher-end local chain.
In the Minneapolis Star Tribune's take on the project, the paper reports that not everyone was happy, writing
"Private developers and rental property owners complain about tax dollars going into a project that competes with their businesses. The three opposing council members wrote a lengthy commentary article detailing their distaste for using the entire pot of available--and scarce--development money for one project while others go begging."
and
"Opponents spoke against subsidizing market-rate housing and risking development dollars. Cheryl Golden-Black said, "We're all struggling. Any risk at this point that would burden the taxpayers further is too big, way too big."
As Mark Steyn says, America is the brokest nation on earth, yet the City of St. Paul has decided to spend $55 million of money we don't have to get into the property development business. What happened to just say no?
The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports on that city's decision to subsidize an apartment and grocery store complex at the edge of downtown. On a split 4-3 vote, the City Council voted to kick in $15 million of city-taxpayer money in the hopes to gain a $40 million loan backed by the federal-taxpayer funded Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The new apartment building is not "affordable housing," with rent on a studio unit running more than $1,000 a month. The grocery store will be an outlet of a higher-end local chain.
In the Minneapolis Star Tribune's take on the project, the paper reports that not everyone was happy, writing
"Private developers and rental property owners complain about tax dollars going into a project that competes with their businesses. The three opposing council members wrote a lengthy commentary article detailing their distaste for using the entire pot of available--and scarce--development money for one project while others go begging."
and
"Opponents spoke against subsidizing market-rate housing and risking development dollars. Cheryl Golden-Black said, "We're all struggling. Any risk at this point that would burden the taxpayers further is too big, way too big."
As Mark Steyn says, America is the brokest nation on earth, yet the City of St. Paul has decided to spend $55 million of money we don't have to get into the property development business. What happened to just say no?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Redesigning Government in Rural Minnesota
Everybody talks about redesigning government. Some people are actually doing it. This editorial from the Mankato Free Press (by way of the St. Paul Pioneer Press) lists some of the efforts underway in Minnesota.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)