MPR Decoder: Broken Bridge = Gas Tax?

As Laurie Blake reports, a gas tax is a near certainty in a special session likely to take place in September. After years of trying to pass a gas tax, having it vetoed, and coming within a vote or two of getting one enacted, it looks like the Minnesota political standoff has reached a tipping point (after I 35W tipped into the river).

MPR's midday (blissfully free of Gary Eichten) had a whole show with the leaders of the legislature talking about the gas tax, without really mentioning it too many times. Apparently the only question now is, how big will it be?

The way I read this: the DFL knows they have all the political cover they need to pass a gas tax and not take any heat for it. Pretty much the only political angle for the Republicans is to accuse the Democrats of 'politicizing the issue,' kind of like what happened at Wellstone's funeral. So the DFL is going to stay very, very far away from saying anything negative about Pawlenty or the House leadership, and instead repeat over and over again how important it is to 'fund long term investment' to keep our roads 'safe'. They can't really lose with that.

Usually in these special sessions, the Governor and the two leaders of the House and Senate meet in advance of the session and agree to agree on the one or two needed bills, so that the legislative session itself is kind of a perfunctory formality. I'm not sure if this session will be like that, though, because it sounds like the DFL is going to try and have a larger agenda, not only to pass as large of a (political heat-free) gas tax as they can, but also to include some of the LGA restoration (aid money to cities) that the governor vetoed this spring.

Here's a terribly rough transcription, with most of the fluff edited out, and some editorial commentary.



Speaker of the MN House, Margaret Anderson Kelliher (MAK): We need to come up with a 10% match on federal money, and it might even be higher... The debate about congestion has changed to a life and safety debate -- and I don't think its a debate any more. [Meaning: I don't even think Marty's bestest, most conservative friend Rep. Tom Emmer is stupid enough to stand there and say we don't need more money for roads when the freeway is laying in the river.]

House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (MS): We certainly need to do a bill for overtime, a match of federal funds ... and then there's going to have to be an assessment done... [Meaning: We need more time for all this emotional political heat to cool down, before we try and minimize the tax increase.] We need to assess what the need is... We're not going to come rushing in... [Meaning: We're not going to be happy about passing a permanent gas tax in September]... It would be helpful to have hearings... [Meaning: Please give us more time] ... we do have a bonding capacity, many of those types of things so we have an analysis done and that it wouldn't drag on for a long time, come in and have swift action... [Meaning: Please no gas tax! You know how we hate taxes... We just want to pass a really quick appropriation of borrowed bonded money to look at a few bridges, and get out of there without having a long unwinnable debate about this.]

MAK: We'll be forming a joint House Senate committee to review information from the past, and examine further aspects from the I35 bridge... In 1997 the legislative auditor did a study of bridge and trunk highway system and looked at deficiencies and funding issues... We're going to ask them to begin work to update report... They wrote that 1997 it was $100 million, and now its over a billion... [Meaning: You want time to study the issue? I'm going to 'head you off at the pass' here and start studying the issue right now, so that when we have our session we'll already have a fresh report in our hands and can talk about the gas tax!]

MS: We can get money out to those folks that need it, but we don't have a firm idea of the amount of money... I want to help in what way I can on a transportation package that we can move a bill through quickly and get the governors signature on it and also some long term needs that we have... [Meaning: Pawlenty might veto something! We're not afraid to do it. (OK we are afraid, but we'll talk about it at least...)] We have to place life safety first... We're gonna have to look at some other mechanisms, the surplus or um other places to meet the immediate needs... [Meaning: Oh. I almost said the words Gas Tax. Don't make me say those words... it hurts... it hurts...]

State Senator Steve Murphy, Chair of the Transportation Committee (SM): We do know full well what the full impact is on our transportation system. Speaker Kelliher said that we're deficient over a billion dollars, and that's only on the trunk highway system... If you add everything up that number is 1.7 billion dollars of unmet need every year.... Clearly a third of our budget is in what I would consider a deficit situation, and we need to do something about filling up that hole... We need to make major strides, and it will take a tax increase. [Meaning: There's no way in hell, Marty, that you're going to get away with not passing a gas tax.]

MS: We all agree that the need is there. [Meaning: Even I, Marty Seifert, cannot say the words 'high tax state' when the freeway is laying in the river.] We had different bills before the leg, I had one, Rep. Bernie Lieder (Chair of the House Tranposrtation Commmitte) had one. I think we're all open minded in this situation to getting the critical needs taken care of first and foremost, and that would be the bridges, life, and safety as the speaker mentioned, and then moving forwards. I think there are preferences from different members that would like to see bonding and general fund dollars. [Meaning: Now that most of the moderates are gone from our caucus, I'm going to have a hell of a time trying to get them to stomach a gas tax increase.] The gas tax is obviously gonna be something that's there for us to use in this particular situation. And I'm open minded I'm not gonna close the door on anything. [Meaning: I can see the writing on the wall. This sucks.] ... The details are certainly gonna be hashed out ... A lot of people would say I don't know all the differences between bonding, general fund, and gas tax, but my guess would be end of the day when all this is done ... this is probably gonna be some type of a combination, with some focus on life and safety, dangerous intersections, and bridges... We really need to focus on those critical needs first and then moving out long term. [Meaning: OK OK OK, a gas tax. I get it. But it's going to be a small one, or Mary Liz Holberg will sic her dogs on me. Please, please don't make it a big gas tax? I beg you!]

CALLER: How are we going to pay for this? ... We've wasted government moeny on things like stadiums and the mall of america, and we needed that money for other things [Meaning: Hey did you notice that the interstate fell into the Mississippi for no reason? ... Wait, nevermind. The Twins are on TV. Go Twins!]

SM: We just have a terrible underfunding problem with transportation. We need to take a major stride at addressing that underfunding.... We need to have more money, and if that takes a tax increase to get it done, so be it.... Back in 1988 when we last increased the gas tax, that 20 cents was buying 17 cents worth of product. not its 12 or 13 cents because of inflation . And we can't continue to bond because that just takes away from our maintenance program. We need to have all those pots of money that go into transportation need to be increased so that none of them has to shoulder the burden 100 percent. What's paying for the majority of work right now is our property taxes, and we can't continue to do that. [Meaning: Big gas tax now. No ifs ands or buts. Don't say the world 'bonding' to me. I don't even want to hear the word 'bonding.']

MAK: In my time in the legislature we've had no less than 3 major transportation packages, two that have gone to the governor... [Meaning: It's pretty clear whose fault this is, and its not really mine.] We have an underinvestment issue. I believe that we need new revenue. It has been my position, the position of every member of the house DFL caucus, and many members of the house republican caucus, and I think the senate is on board completely for doing some raising of the user fee, which is the gas tax, that funds our roads. Folks are right to have some very strong feelings about this right now. My hope when we go into special session is that we don't only deal with the immediacy of this situation, but we get the job done on funding our transportation system overall. And i don't think that's that hard to do, when you look at the fact that there have been a number of packages that have already been publically vetted. [Meaning: This is as close as I'm going to get to blaming the governor. But its pretty much the governor's fault, and I'm not afraid to stoke the fires a bit and tell people about all the other transportation funding packages we tried to pass. Now though, we have the votes to pass this thing with or without the governor on board, so don't mess with me Marty Seifert.]

SM: I want to caution people about just dealing with the immediacy of this issue. this bridge didn't decide to fall on Wednesday out of the clear blue. We got here... We don't know yet, ... We need to wait for the NTSB to come back with a report so we know exactly what happened with that bridge. But that bridge didn't get into the position that we have where it needed continual maintanence... We didn't get there overnight. [Meaning: This is as close as I'm going to get to blaming the governor, too. It's pretty close though. I'm this far from blaming the governor. [holds fingers close together]] ... We need to look long term because this is going to e along fix for a lot o the other infrastructure that you hear about. Cancer doesn't happen overnight, and you don't cure it overnight. We're talking about a 10 year plan.... [Meaning: A cancer metaphor. Perfect!] We need long term plans to try to address this with large infusions of cash spread out over a period of time so we can address these issues so they don't become catastrophic at a later date. [Meaning: Yeah, I'm talking about a big gas tax.]

MPR reporter Mike Mulcahey (MM): Doens't this cause a criseis in confidence in our state government? [Meaning: Didn't you guys pretty seriously f' up here?]

MAK: It is difficult right now. I know minnesotans have their own anxieties about this. ... But its not enought for us to say we believe we have a good system. ... We're witholding the speculation part of this... But I do think its striking that this bridge is carrying a load of traffic that it wasn't designed for... It all poitns back to this very same question of an overall investment strategy.... We need to renew our committment to a long term strategy here. like SM said, nothing gets this way overnight. [Meaning: We seriously f'd up. Its pretty obvious that we f'd up.]

SM: We need to put the blame game behind us. now is the time to join hands and come up with a package that works for everybody. we can't continue to point the finger. ... When we heard this all of our hearts sank. There was a terrible feeling in the pit of our stomach that if we had started this 15 years ago possible this may have never happened. but overall we need a huge investment Mike. [Meaning: I f'd up too. If only I'd tried to blame the governor more often and more effectively in the past!]

CALLER: How are we gonna pay for all of this? What about overtime for police officers? The City of Minneapolis funding for police officers is already stretched thin. ... The LGA money is stretched tight...

MAK: There will be some significant costs here... I do think we saw an action this week what things like LGA goes to, sitting in that emergency command center the last two days, watching the coordinated command of the county and the state ... [Meaning: I'm still thinking about whether or not I can twist the governors arm even further here and try to get the LGA cuts restored. I'd like to, but I'll probably just use it as a bargaining chip instead, to get more gas tax money.]

MM: About that LGA issue... What about the governor's recent veto of the tax bill? A lot of cities are looking at a dismal budget situation, aren't they?

MAK: That's up in the air. I've never stopped talking to the gov about having a special session on the tax bill, on the vetoed small capital investment bill... I think we need to go back to those issues. as we ask local units of govt to go out with us to inspect bridges and safety. We need to understand that we're one Minnesota. You should be able to be anywhere in the state and have police, fire, safety, and have a good road to drive on. I think that's critical for the entire state. [Meaning: Damn straight. But there'll be plenty of time to use this bridge issue to restore LGA cuts later, and I don't think I'm going to try and do it now. That doesn't mean I won't talk about it, though. (See: chip, bargaining.)]

Pothole Pawlenty Packs a Punch

[Image from CityPages]

OK, so I'm no fan of freeways. In fact, there's probably nothing I hate more in this world than an inner city interstate, and I really don't like the idea of throwing money at the Department of Transportation so that they can fuel the TC's all-you-can-eat sprawl. But that doesn't mean I want to see interstates crash into the river.

For some time now on this blog, I've been trying unsuccessfully to get the nickname Tim 'Pothole' Pawlenty into the local vernacular. I thought that the pothole was the perfect symbol for the Tim's tenure in state government. It symbolizes the gradual degradation of our government, the way that little cuts here and there start to add up and multiply until eventually you're driving on a cheese grater, the schools suck, and the city you love starts to resemble Detroit. Plus, potholes are kind of funny, and they're something everyone can relate to. They're the Fred Basset of transportation. I never thought, though, that a pothole could cause an interstate to fall into the river. But in a way, that's very literally what might (might) have happened. Of course, we won't know what actually happened for a very long time, if ever.

And I don't want to literally blame Pawlenty for the bridge falling down. That would be kind of like blaming Bush for 9/11. (How could he have known?) Instead, I want to blame the libertarian ideology that Governor Pothole espouses, and that's dominated US politics for the last twenty-five years. In a Ronald Reagan world where "government is the problem," it should come as no great surprise when levies break and bridges tumble. No, the problem is much bigger than our local Tim, but it still annoys me when I see him on TV uttering the word catastrophe.

And so, in the interest of not blaming Pothole Pawlenty for the I-35 bridge disaster, I've put together a 'best of' complation of the Star Tribune's Lexis-Nexis results about our governor and the state's transportation budget. There's quite a history to enjoy.

(Remember, I'm not blaming. "I'm just saying...")

"Clearly, traffic and traffic congestion and road and bridges are increasing in importance as a political issue [and] as a policy issue, and politicians respond to that," said House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty, R-Eagan.

"You go out in the suburbs and people are increasingly torqued."

Ventura has proposed adding $95 million to the $1 billion-plus budget for road and bridge maintenance and construction in the next two-year period.

Pawlenty and other key legislators say additional spending for roads, bridges and transit is likely this session.

The argument for new spending received additional fuel Wednesday with the findings of a study that asserts that Minnesota's highways, bridges and local roads could face nearly $8 billion in unfunded repair and replacement needs over the next decade. (Mpls Star Tribune 2/15/01)


Gov.-elect Tim Pawlenty said Friday that the state's projected $4.56 billion budget deficit means that his plans for billions of dollars of new investment in roads and bridges will have to be scaled back.

"It's not going to be as bold or dramatic as we'd like," he said during a visit to the State Capitol complex offices of the Department of Transportation (MnDOT). "But it is possible to move the ball forward somewhat."

Road building and repair are not directly affected by the general fund deficit because they are mostly financed by dedicated taxes on gasoline, vehicle sales and registrations.

During the election campaign, Pawlenty opposed other candidates' calls for increasing the state gasoline tax, which has stood at 20 cents a gallon since 1988, to spur highway construction. Instead, he urged new state borrowing of $1 billion to $2 billion, which he suggested could be repaid with future payments on the state's $6.1 billion settlement with the tobacco industry. (Mpls Star Tribune 12/7/02)


Gov. Pawlenty had originally proposed to use $130 million in cash from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to help solve the budget deficit. His plan was to issue bonds to replace that money, which was earmarked for road projects.

But when the Legislature was unable to agree on a budget-balancing package and Pawlenty was forced to act alone, he did not have legislative authority to issue bonds, said Bruce Briese, MnDOT director of financial planning and analysis.

Instead, the governor lifted $20 million from MnDOT that had not yet been committed to construction projects.

That means some projects may not go forward or the cuts will be made elsewhere, unless the money is replenished through bonds, Briese said. (Mpls Star Tribune 2/8/03)


More than 1,300 of the 35,000 state jobs in Minnesota could be eliminated by the end of June as part of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plan to deal with a $4.2 billion projected budget deficit, with major reductions coming in the Transportation and Corrections departments.

Workers began receiving layoff notices last week, but because of a complicated system in which senior employees are able to "bump" others to retain their paychecks, it may take several weeks before it is clear who will be given a pink slip.

Although agency heads will be given some leeway in determining how to cut costs, an analysis of Pawlenty's budget by the largest union for state workers shows where the possible cuts may come. Observers on all sides caution that the numbers are preliminary.

In the Transportation Department, 295 positions in the 5,100-worker department are targeted, but some would include early retirements and unfilled vacancies. Peter Benner, executive director of District 6 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest union representing state workers, said such things as 24-hour snow and ice removal could be affected by those layoffs. (Mpls Star Tribune 2/25/03)


If, however, the object is to make meaningful progress against mounting Twin Cities traffic congestion, then the governor has accomplished very little. No one should be misled by newspaper headlines boasting of a "billion-dollar road trip." Even Pawlenty acknowledges that his is a modest proposal, not a "be-all, end-all plan." In saying that, he has come close to conceding that additional taxes will be needed to make actual headway. For that bit of intellectual honesty Minnesotans should be grateful.

Any who doubt that more taxes will be needed should consider this number: $750 million. That's the additional sum it will take every year for 20 years for traffic not to get worse in the metro area. Pawlenty's plan borrows and leverages only a quarter of that _ $200 million extra per year for the next five years for the whole state. That's enough to fix a handful of two dozen metro bottlenecks. It's not enough to add lanes to the beltway or to build the new transit lines and connective bus routes the region needs so badly. For that to happen, a whole array of fees and taxes must be raised. That's an unpleasant prospect, but so is a future in which traffic diminishes Minnesota's quality of life and becomes a disincentive to growth and prosperity.

What makes Pawlenty's modest plan risky is that it squeezes money out of road maintenance and administration to finance new construction. It may well be proper to cut administrative costs, but safety is a serious question, and Minnesota's severe climate demands that the state care for the roads it already has before adding more. (Mpls Star Tribune 3/23/03)


Gov. Tim Pawlenty and rival legislators took their deadlocked negotiations over transportation funding public on Friday, accusing each other of impeding progress on much-needed improvements in roads, bridges and transit.

"We have stalled out, we have run into congestion, we have a roadblock in the form of the Senate DFL," Pawlenty said at a news conference.

An hour later, DFLers responded at their own gathering with reporters. Pawlenty "says it's our way or the highway; then he refuses to pay for the highway," said Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon.

At stake is the governor's five-year, $1.1 billion plan to speed up road building, with half of the funds borrowed over 20 years. DFLers originally proposed a $2.1 billion package financed by a higher gasoline tax and vehicle registration renewal fees, but they dropped it in the face of Pawlenty's opposition to such revenue-raisers.

…

Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger, DFL-St. Peter, characterized it as "a balanced solution . . . paid for in a fiscally responsible way." DFLers complained that the Pawlenty plan would cost taxpayers $300 million in interest over 20 years while cutting more than $10 million from transit funding.

Pawlenty, meanwhile, suggested that DFLers and business groups were resisting his plan as too small a step toward catching up with long-term transportation infrastructure needs of up to $20 billion.

"The standard shouldn't be do it all or do none," he said. "We should do what we can." (Mpls Star Tribune 5/24/03)


In his written statement, Pawlenty strongly defended Molnau's performance, crediting her for the largest road, bridge and transit package in state history.

"The lieutenant governor has brought a new brand of common sense to MnDOT, with a major restructuring that has dramatically improved efficiency and effectiveness," he said. "Today's vote [to reject her appointment as Transportation Commissioner] was a sad display of partisanship and a huge disservice to Minnesotans. The vote was not about qualifications, but was legislative payback for a reform-minded leader who is an agent of change." (Mpls Star Tribune 3/31/04)


To avoid increasing the gas tax, Pawlenty 's administration will sell $400 million in state bonds and use that money to attract $425 million in advance construction financing from the federal government. Budget juggling at MnDOT freed $100 million for safety improvement projects.

Altogether this provides about $900 million that will speed up the start of 12 projects around the state. About $30 million in bonds have been sold to date, according to MnDOT.

The decision to borrow rather than raise the gas tax to bring in extra money for roads and transit remains a political issue for DFLers who would have preferred a pay-as-you-go approach to extra construction, said DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson. (Mpls Star Tribune 4/7/04)


Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill almost guarantees another year will pass without meaningful progress on one of Minnesota's biggest problems. The condition and safety of outstate roads and bridges will continue to deteriorate. Metro freeways won't be expanded to meet population growth, and the transit system will continue to shrink just as it should be growing. (Mpls Star Tribune 5/21/05)


In an interview Friday, Pawlenty said he doesn't regret his veto of the 10-cent-per-gallon tax increase. Critics of his transportation policy should look at the 18 projects that his plan has delivered, he said.

"Yes, there have been some hiccups, but we have done more for transportation than any administration in modern history, a 20- to 40-percent-a-year increase in construction on my watch," he [Pawlenty] said. (Mpls Star Tribune 7/4/06)


Business interests are back in St. Paul this year arguing in support of a Pawlenty administration proposal to allow heavier trucks on Minnesota highways. The Legislature's answer should be simple and direct: Put your proposal away until Minnesota's highways and bridges are fully, adequately funded to handle existing commercial traffic. (Mpls Star Tribune 4/17/07)


"Coming forward with a big gas tax increase on a day when the gas price in Minnesota is $3.02 a gallon shows these DFLers have lost touch with the real world," [Pawlenty’s spokesman Brian McClung] said. (Mpls Star Tribune 5/10/07)


[Pawlenty] said the transportation bill, with its $5 billion in assorted tax and fee increases, would impose an "unnecessary and onerous burden on Minnesotans that could weaken the state's economy." (Mpls Star Tribune 5/16/07)


"I suggested to legislative leaders early on that if they put Senator Pogemiller in the driver's seat he's going to take them over the cliff, and I think that's where they're headed," Pawlenty said at an impromptu news conference moments after the signing. (Mpls Star Tribune 5/17/07)

I not saying there's a pattern here, or anything.


Also:

Columns in the media that get it right...

Nick Coleman's Column

Miles Spicer's Opinion Piece

Popular Mechanics Column

BLDGBLOG (from CA)

Interstate Bridge of the Week: 35W Mississippi River Bridge

This week's Interstate Bridge of the Week is the 35W Mississippi River Bridge near the West Bank/U of M/Metrodome area of downtown Minneapolis. It collapsed today into the river, and obviously it's a terrible tragedy in which many people lost lives or were horribly injured. My friend called me from the area five minutes after it happened, and I biked down to the U of MN campus to see what was happening.

I was living in Brooklyn during 9/11, and what happened in the Twin Cities today was a lot like New York six years ago: so many people stopped what they were doing, people called their friends and family on the phone, and crowds gathered around television sets to watch, comment on, and share the experience.

But at the same time it strikes me that there are a host of differences between the two events. The most important is that, unlike 9/11 or the San Francisco earthquake, there was nothing in particular that caused this collapse. It just happened, like entropy, or spontaneous combustion. The bridge reached a tipping point where it could no longer support the collective weight of steel, concrete, and cars, and its commuters suffered the consequences.

We should all be truly shocked that this was just a case of bad engineering. From what I've heard on MPR tonight (in a great bit of internet research by someone named Aarsanden Totten (?)), this bridge was a unique bit of engineering lacking the structural 'redundancy' that serves as a crucial backup in case the primary support fails. It might have been rust, or even one too many potholes on the bridge's surface, but in all likelihood this is a case of cutting one too many corners, either in the bridge's construction or its later maintenance. (Let me point out that the WTC collapse was in no small part due to the unique structural supports of the building. The outside of the building held it up, allowing more office space to occupy the interior, just as this bridge was uniquely built to allow an uninterrupted span to cross the Mississippi. Is this technological progress? Ingenuity?)

It makes you think about all the common infrastructure that we share, all the freeways, power lines, satellites, buildings, and sewers... all the the police, firefighters, and hospitals that we all count on whether we know it or not. This is not to mention the flows from farms and factories that provide everything we eat and use. We even rely on the media -- those bastardized televisions, radios, and cell phones that we use every day -- to let us know what's happening in our cities and countries, and throughout the world. So much relies on so much steel, sand, and stone.

But of course we forget. People think when they slam shut their car door, flip on the A/C, and crank up KS95 that they're invulnerable. We think that our walls are solid, and that homes are ours and ours alone. We believe that bootstraps are the only things holding us up, but we forget that cars are just as reliant on public infrastructure as everything else, as trains or buses or electric sockets. In fact, this country has pumped trillions of dollars during the last 50 years into building a vast, vast network of highways, bridges, and concrete overpasses. We've spent more money on highways in this country than on any other public works project (unless you call the military budget a public work), but it's the kind of thing that's easy to forget about until something reminds us that somewhere, at some point, some guy under a fluorescent light designed everything we take for granted.

No, the real story today is that we've been reminded that we're all in this together. The reporter on MPR right now is explaining that she's most surprised by all the people, and their collective response to the crisis. "The people the just keep coming and coming and coming", she says, "trying to see if for themselves" and "standing in groups, talking to each other." Yes, its a shock in the U.S.A. to share a collective experience, to join a group of your neighbors and witness the world around you. We demand a spectacle, like fireworks, football, or a good war parade.

When I went past the old bicycle bridge at the University of Minnesota (just South of the scene) I found it covered with people, and most of them were there because they knew they were part of a community. It could have been them in those cars, and if there had been any way to help out, somehow, they would have. For a moment, we were all in this together, and it reminded me of Manhattan in 2001 where, just like today, I was able to stop and talk to complete strangers about the world around me. (Hell, Channel 4 just interviewed a Hispanic family who was involved in the accident. It's probably the first time they've interviewed a Hispanic family all year. "They drive cars too?")

It's a cliche to say so, but it is times like this we pull together as Minnesotans, as Americans, and as people. Only it's sad that it takes a fucking tragedy to realize that we're not all atomized individuals, and that we all depend on each other all of the time. For some reason when something like this happens, I only wish that we could muster one tenth of this kind of engagement during our everyday lives. I wish that the radios, televisions, and newspapers would carry more stories about cuts to the transportation budget or layoffs at the Hennepin County Medical Center, and more importantly, I wish people would read and care about these stories. I wish that people all over the state, no matter where they live, would realize that the schools in Minneapolis or Baghdad matter just as much as the price of gas or property taxes, and that democracy might be more important than Kevin Garnett. Today we've seen the news doing what it does best, and really making a difference. But maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but someday, soon, and for the rest of our lives we'll go back to reading about Paris Hilton above the fold and caring about our checkbook more than our neighbor. And that, as much as the obvious destruction, is why I find times like today so sad... so sad, and at the same time, strangely hopeful.



[Meanwhile, nations of the world race to plant flags claiming the oil beneath the North Pole.]

Update:

Great photos of the scene, up close.

Other City Sidewalks: Durham NC

For better or worse, I've spent most of my time in the old South in run-down places, dilapidated towns, and weather worn waystations... places like antedivulean New Orleans, Savannah Georgia, Memphis, Tennessee, and Bessemer City, North Carolina... so that when I think of The South I think of carpets of kudzu, faded paint peeling from signs, cars on bricks in the tall grass, and the smell of barbeque drifting over fields of trailer homes. I do not, however, think of America's post-industrial economy, nor do I think of the medical device industry, but arriving in Durham, North Carolina all that began to change. The difference was gradual, but somehow, arriving at the Cary train station, I crossed a bridge into the 21st century.

In his influential book of dot.com hype, Edge Cities, Joel Garreau apparently described Cary as the epitomal 'edge city,' kind of an autonomous, suburban, information economy paradise. My aunt and uncle on the other hand, aging hippies that live in the Durham-area woods, describe Cary as a Containment Area for Relocated Yankees. Whichever way you look at it, I was pleasantly surprised that the area in and around Durham, the so-called 'research triangle', seemed to have a burgeoning, diverse economy. Duke Univeristy and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill are both located a within a dozen miles of donwtown Durham, and their combined influence (multiplied by the multiplier, of course) means that North Carolina's tri-city area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) is a happenin' spot.

Perhaps because of the overall economic strength of the region, the city of Durham is undergoing an extensive overhaul of their sidewalks and street grid, adding a seemingly limitless amount of streetscape improvements aimed at rekindling a historic aura to the surprisingly well-preserved (albiet small) downtown core. It seemed to me that the downtown sorely needed some sort of catalysis, because, somehow, the region's economic vitality had passed downtown Durham by. Pretty much the only open or interesting storefront was the (mind-blowingly awesome) Book Exchange bookstore, which had rooms and rooms of 20ft shelves stacked high with books arranged, not by author, not by subject, but by publisher (!), so that there was an entire wall of 'Blackwell' or 'Oxford University Press' books from which you had to browse. It certainly challenged my knowledge of the publishing industry.

I asked the bookstore clerk, though, about the sidewalk project outside and he complained that the city'd been working on the streets and sidewalks for years and years. I'd probably have gotten a better response if I'd asked him about whether he'd enjoyed getting his wisdom teeth removed, and it points to one of the oft overlooked (by planners, anyway) problems with big construction ideas: the short term impact it has on currently operating businesses, which for many business owners, is what they're really thinking about most of the time anyway.

But Durham, which I learned had served as the Black Wall Street, with a number of banks and businesses fostering entrepreneurialism for African Americans during the early 20th century, has a lot of historical, dense infrastructure to offer, and their sidewalk/street project, when its finally done, should turn the downtown into one of the nicest places to live in the area. Part of the attraction, I'd gather, is the draw of the Durham Bulls Athletic Park (D-BAP), where the legacy of the classic movie Bull Durham has translated into strong attendance and support for Tampa's AAA-affiliate baseball team. (Durham is the smallest population Triple-A city in the country, reflecting both the strength of the region and the popularity of the franchise.) The D-BAP is one of the rare cases where I think a baseball stadium can actually serve as a neighborhood development tool, and a whole mixed-use complex is going up surrounding the relatively new stadium (office buildings and some retail). Other projects in Durham include changing the old tobacco factories into mixed-use office/indoor retail spaces, and local arts and crafts incubators. Like many old East coast cities (e.g. North Adams, MA), there's a whole lot of old industrial building stock, and finding uses for these huge, brick spaces can be a real challenge.

As for the Durham sidewalks, the city is replacing much of the poured concrete, and many of the crosswalks, with inlaid red brick, adding traffic calming bump outs, installing pedestrian/car separating iron posts, and changing many of the streets from one- to two-way traffic (thus decreasing the rate of speed, and making it easier to navigate the complex street grid). All together, these improvements will dramatically increase the walkability of downtown area, and look really nice. When they're finally finished in the next year or so, you can bet that downtown Durham will turn into a student hang out, a condo- and yuppie-filled neighborhood, and a great place to have your office if you're a lawyer or something. It's the kind of thing that many cities with old downtown cores, and relatively vibrant economies, should be doing (e.g. Saint Paul). (Of course it helps that Durham, probably for economic reasons, didn't extensively 'modernize' their downtown during the 50's and 60's.)

[Downtown Durham's beautiful art deco Kress building, currently being condo-ized.]

Pawlenty to City: Drop Dead

Some time ago, newly relocated blogger and friend of TC Sidewalks, Stephen Gross, wrote a post favorably comparing the Twin Cities to his native Cleveland when it comes to small, independent retail. It leads him to an overwhelming question:

And then I moved out here, and wow! Everywhere I look I see independent businesses. Besides the restaurants (big fan of Barbette & Three Fish), I see record stores (Electric Fetus), clothing (Cliche), quirky Asian imports (Robot Love), audio repair (The Good Guys), jewelers (Gerber, Gold'n Treasures), and more. Grand Avenue (with the exception of the Pottery Barn stretch) is a real testament to the strength and vitality of independent retail in the Twin Cities. How did you do it? Is there just an incredible commitment on a cultural level? Are there public policies of which I'm unaware that foster this growth?

Stephen's question had been floating around my mind for a while, and I didn't really have an idea about what the 'secret' to independent retail might be until recently when I saw an article in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press detailing the consequences of a budget crunch at the city government. According to (last journalist standing) Tim Nelson's piece, there's a big bottom line shortfall at City Hall and there's little choice but to make sizeable cuts in library and park funding in the capitol city. They're going to have to close a few library branches, and a few rec centers in various parts of the city.

Sure, on the one hand this is nothing new... city governments have long been struggling to make ends meet. But apparently the key missing budget ingredient is this little thing called local government aid (LGA). According to the piece,

The changes come five years after the state, suffering a $2 billion budget crisis of its own, made significant cuts to aid to local governments. St. Paul has made do with about $18 million less annually than the state and city expected as recently as 2003.

To compensate, the city has raised property taxes in each of the past two years - by $1.9 million, or 3 percent, in 2006, and by an additional $5.5 million, or 8.5 percent, this year. The city, since 2002, also has doubled the street fees it collects from property owners. But levies haven't kept pace with the drop-off in nontax revenue.

Minnesota's local government aid (LGA) structure is a very unique system designed to offset income inequality across municiaplities throughout the state, focusing particularly on big cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Set up by a strong urban-rural DFL coalition in the early 1970's, it essentially set up a shared taxbase where wealthier suburbs (like Minnetonka) would send money to poorer cities (like Minneapolis). As political scientist Myron Orfield describes in his book, American Metropolitics, LGA was created

as an alternative to annexation and consolidation of local governments ... [and] was an attempt to respond to a number of concerns, including increating property tax rates, tax-base and tax-rate disparaties, and interjurisdictional competition for development.

What it essentially meant was that economic growth in Minnesota happened at more of a regional level, so that the entire state would sink or swim together instead of suburbs or cities cannibalizing each other for high-income earners or lucrative companies. (Of course, this still happened, but to a lesser degree.) It also meant that older cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul which had to make dramatic transitions towards a more decentralized, auto-oriented, post-industrial landscape, had far less trouble maintaining their infrastructure (police, parks, etc.) than almost all other U.S. cities. While a city like Cleveland was almost bankrupted during the 1970's (under Kucinich?), Minnesota's LGA system meant that Minneapolis was able to keep a strong economy, retain much of its middle-class, industrial workforce, and keep its small independent businesses. LGA was a real success story, and as Orfield points out in his book, its the kind of thing that almost never happens in the every-man-for-himself world of American politics.

Sadly, though, LGA has seen steep cuts under two successive Republican governors -- Arne "Veto" Carlson in the 1990's and Tim "Pothole" Pawlenty in the 2000's. And Pothole's latest veto of LGA restoration directly aimed at staving off some of the Twin Cities' fiscal problems is yet another case of bad politically-motivated economics. Minnesota's local economy hasn't been performing as well lately, and in my opinion, the LGA cuts are an important reason why.

Update:

LGA doesn't just affect Minneapolis. As it says in this story, cities like Bemidji get big parts of their municipal budgets from the State, too.

Also Too:

Mankato has the same story as well.