From:
Bob Spaulding
Date:
May 15 19:01 UTC
Short link
Pioneer Press Staff Editorial:
BIG MALL MONEY [SHOULDN'T] MAKE CUT
http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9259636
"Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislative leaders have a large and messy to-do list as
the legislative session approaches its final days. Buckling to a demand for
public subsidy from the Mall of America, we believe, should not be on it..."
-------------------------
From comments on StarTribune article at
http://www.startribune.com/18915214.html
"I have to say that this is nearly the first time I have read posts to an
article and seen nearly everyone saying the same thing. I am glad to see that
others had the same reaction as me. I hope that everyone that is posting are
also writing their state reps and senators, so that they hear the reactions
from those they represent. Right now, what the reps and senators hear/see are
the building trade unions standing in the lobby of the capital, holding signs
saying 'jobs for Minnesota'".
--------------------------
BOB'S COMMENT:
Almost all the awful aspects about the original proposal remain (see
http://tinyurl.com/3smssr). The one notable improvement is that legislators
aren't proposing to undermine the fiscal disparities program anymore, from
which St. Paul got $20.5 million in the last year. There are provisions for
review of compliance with TIF law, and some general language about not
competing directly with places like Roy Wilkins. Otherwise, diddly-crap. I'll
put it roughly this way: instead being 100% bad urban policy, this legislation
is now only around 90% bad urban policy.
Knowing how these things work, my strong guess is that the fiscal disparities
was made part the legislation partly because Mall proponents aren't tied to any
sense of reality or the broader public interest, and partly because they know
it would likely become a strawman. As it became a strawman, legislators could
heroically strike down use of fiscal disparities to look like they're doing
something in the public interest, even as they pass the larger piece of
disgraceful legislation. Mall proponents will still huff and puff about any
deal that doesn't fork over as much money as possible to them, because that's
part of the game. And since they've never opened their books, they may not
need any money whatsoever for all any legislator knows.
My dear DFL and Republican legislators, you've got a long way to go to strike
anything that resembles a balance. This it is just about the most
fundamentally flawed urban policy I've ever seen with a decent enough chance of
passing in Minnesota.
When the overbearing voices of mall proponents finally subside, will this
really be something most legislators will feel good about? When legislators
walk down small-town and central city mainstreets that stand shuttered, and
know they had a role in subsidizing business to draw people to a giant, private
mall, will legislators really feel good about their work?
And at what point will we stop re-electing them? This is why people stop
participating in the political process.
Bob