St. Croix Bridge Toll

An article in today’s Star Tribune about funding options for the St. Croix Bridge boondoggle suggests the possibility of a toll.  Interesting.  The actual toll of this bridge won’t be realized until it is built.

From start to finish, this bridge is a bad idea, but we wouldn’t expect less today.

Let’s think like a politician…or more importantly, let’s think like a politician representing Minnesotans.

Pretty, isn’t it?

Lining up behind the untarnished wisdom and deep intellect of Michele Bachmann, no less, the Minnesota delegation pushed for an over-sized, high-priced bridge to Wisconsin.  The Twin Cities — the region’s economic hub — is in Minnesota.  The bridge offers little more than a conduit for Wisconsinites to evade taxes that support the economic engine that benefits them.  Good call, Minnesota!

It also sets up one of those classic (and misleading) scenarios where the “makers” threaten to abandon the “takers” by fleeing across the border to a lower-tax state.

The bridge essentially tethers Minnesota to Wisconsin in a tax-parity sort of way.  The problem is, western Wisconsin isn’t Minnesota.  Those people across the river enjoy the benefits and advantages that strong a strong economic and social center bring and Minnesota’s delegation is happy to buy them a way to benefit from it.  Dispersing our tax base seems like the right for a Minnesota politician to do.

Honestly, Amy Klobuchar‘s enthusiasm for the project cost her my vote this year.  It was the last straw.  I have only voted for her in the past because she’s a Democrat.  I am not a big fan.  She gives Milquetoast and cheerleaders a bad name.  When you’re a leader, lead.  Don’t follow the likes of Michele Bachman, for Christs’s sake, and come up with meaningful projects.  Boo hiss Amy.

I hate to say it, but the same should be said to Mark Dayton, Al Franken, et al.

And of course this bridge will bring about a toll of another sort.  Environment degradation.  When towns like New Richmond and St. Joseph become cities like Woodbury you can kiss your starry nights good-bye, but that’s not the worst of it.

Federal legislation to protect wild and scenic rivers was enacted precisely because environmental interests needed protection from economic interests.  Left to the short-sighted propensities of the free market, tomorrow’s resources will be squandered today.  And guess what…we disregarded that reasoning and the laws set to protect it in favor of purely economic interests.

Klobucharetown or Bachmannville?

Good job, Minnesota politicians.  I would expect this from Bachmann and (regrettably) Klobuchar, but where is the backbone from the rest of our progressive delegation?  Fail.

I have said it repeatedly here and elsewhere, rivers are more than that body of water flowing through a valley.  Rivers are the watershed that surround them.  Strip malls and suburban lawns up and down the Wisconsin side of the river do not bode well for the St. Croix River.

I need to cut this short (!) because I am heading out to Afton Alps to ski this morning.

When I was a boy the land from Newport to Afton was mostly farmland.  I know, I know…populations grow and things change…but what was once a mix of small growth residential and semi-rural landscape is now giving way to large tracts of suburban homes and hideous malls and office parks.  A few giant schools and churches, too.  (How can you know your classmates and neighbors in those things?)

If you don’t think that will happen in Wisconsin, then I have to ask…why build such a proportionately larger bridge to replace the smaller existing Stillwater Bridge?

Related articles

• Weekly Basket: Bridge on the River (St.) Croix (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Questions About a Proposed New Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Wrong Idea on Proposed Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• St. Croix Bridge Plan a Mistake (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)

Politicians and the Fiscal Cliff

A story in today’s Star Tribune about looming “fiscal cliff” says it all about where the blame lies.  If Republicans — not Congress, but Republicans — fail to reach a budget deal we are in big trouble.

It is time to stop being bi-partisan when explaining our nation’s woes.  Unless Republicans show some sincere effort to recognize that they do not represent 100% of the ideas and people in this county and begin to work on an overall solution that involves compromise, they are to blame.  Period.

Look at the positions.  Obama is cited saying “I refuse to accept any approach which isn’t balanced.”  Senator Amy Klobuchar says “This is a time for grownups to get things done.”

Meanwhile the paper cites Michele Bachman who claims “I pledge to continue to work everyday to create jobs.”  Speaker John Boehner warns that “raising the top [tax] rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country.”

Do you see a difference?  The difference is stubborn delusion from the right.  Obama simply states a condition, not a firm, single position, such as a rigid no new taxes pledge.  He taking a position that sounds open to negotiation and option, but wants it to be balanced, i.e., fair.

Bachmann, on the other hand, claims she is working every day to create jobs.  For much of the last two years the only job she seemed focused on was her own.  And if she were indeed working  for creating jobs for all Americans, then based on her own assessment of today’s American job market, she hasn’t much to show for her efforts.

Boehner, on the other hand, is crying about losing 700,000 jobs if taxes on the very wealthiest are raised to help recover from decades of underfunding government.  If these magical tax cuts and unbalanced tax rates really were going to create jobs, where are they now?

Meanwhile, real experts at the Congressional Budget Office, not partisan hacks, warn that failing to avoid the “fiscal cliff” will cost 2 million jobs and result in as much as a four percent drop in GDP which equals another recession.

So let’s say Boehner knows what he is talking about.  Just pretend for a minute.  Isn’t it better to lose 700,000 jobs and avoid a recession while cleaning up our fiscal mess or is it best to lose 2 million jobs and make our situation worse?  Seems like an easy question to answer, even if half of the question isn’t based in fact. If we can trust people like Boehner to have their facts right, which is the better option?

Sadly, as we saw last Tuesday, tens of millions of Americans buy the irrational arguments of the conservative right.  Paying attention to simple arguments should sort out the choices we face, but people seem unable — or unwilling — to figure it out.  It is an absurdity.  As we see here, even if Republicans have the facts, they still don’t have the winning argument.

So why do they keep pushing?

Conservatives don’t like government.  They want to dismantle as much of it that they can.  They all believe, rich and poor alike, that they are wealthy landowners living in colonial Virginia centuries removed from reality.  I have no idea.  But the stupidity on the right, not on the left (sorry), owns the overwhelming burden of our current failures.

Prove otherwise.  Explain how we got to where we are today.  We have the job-creating tax cuts, we’ve privatized more and more of our government, we are fighting wars for freedom, we have cut government investments…where is the prosperity?

Related articles

• How the Fiscal Cliff Would Hit the Economy (vpr.net)
• Fiscal cliff: Compromise or hope for the best (upi.com)
• Are We About to Fall Off the Fiscal Cliff? – Patch.com (santacruz.patch.com)
• Boehner Tells House G.O.P. to Fall in Line (nytimes.com)
• ‘Fiscal cliff’ showdown begins as Obama and Boehner claim mandates on tax issue (guardian.co.uk)
• RPT-US Congress created this cliff and may now plunge off it – Reuters (reuters.com)
• John Boehner Goes After Bachmann’s Clinton Aide/Muslom Brotherhood Remarks:  ”Pretty Dangerous”  (mediate.com)

St. Croix River Bridge Plan Is A Mistake

Proposed Bad Idea for New St. Croix River Bridge

Today the US Senate unanimously approved legislation — supported by Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken — that would let a proposed bluff-to-bluff interstate-style bridge be constructed in violation of the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale helped write the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act when he served as Minnesota’s senator.  Ironically now Klobuchar and Franken will help weaken that law.  We have come to expect simple issues and solutions from Klobuchar, but Franken has been a bit more thoughtful and determined in supporting smart policy.  The proposed St. Croix bridge is neither smart nor thoughtful.

First of all, let’s remember why the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in the first place.  It exists to protect the scenic and ecological value of the America’s rivers from political and economic interests that would compromise the river’s natural value.  Precisely because people will want to build projects like the proposed bridge is the reason for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

What we do today has a permanent impact on the river’s future and let’s face it, we don’t always make the best choices in the here and now.

But on a more practical level this bridge does not make sense.  The proposed bridge is needed, supporters claim, to replace the aging Stillwater Lift Bridge.  If this is true, then the proposed new bridge does more than replace the existing bridge, it goes well beyond the service of the current Stillwater bridge.  Designs for a bridge that would in fact replace the service of the current Stillwater bridge exist.

Designs for a smaller bridge respect the tenor of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  The law was passed in 1968 with the intent of preserving designated rivers from further degradation.  The Stillwater Lift Bridge existed in 1968.  Replacing that bridge with a similar bridge stays within the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

And the smaller bridge designs cost less.

 

A Better Idea for a New St. Croix River Bridge

In this era of austerity, it is ironic that small government people like Michele Bachmann support a bridge that will cost $700 million and more.  Investing in infrastructure is a smart move during an economic recovery, but we have many projects on existing roads and bridges that need attention and which would benefit more people and a stronger economic base.  I won’t call the multi-lane bridge proposed now a bridge to nowhere, but it does connect metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul with relatively undeveloped west central Wisconsin.

If the bridge does spur more growth in west central Wisconsin it will add another layer of threat to the St. Croix River.   Rivers are more than the main river channel, they are watersheds.  What happens miles from the river’s banks impacts water quality.  More development in the watershed is a quality management risk.

It isn’t too late for more thoughtful ideas to prevail.  Representative Betty McCollum (D-St. Paul) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) and a growing list of state and local politicians oppose the plan are clear-headed voices opposing a bridge that requires circumventing Federal law.

Better ideas exist, let’s support those ideas and in turn support the river and respect the law.

Related articles

• Wrong Idea on Proposed Stillwater Bridge (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• A Better Stillwater Bridge Solution (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• St. Croix Bridge Clears Senate, but Prospects Still Uncertain (startribune.com)
• New bill calls for less costly St. Croix bridge (stillwatergazette.com)

Wrong Idea on Proposed Stillwater Bridge

Proposed St. Croix River Bridge Design

Senator Amy Klobuchar‘s legislation for a new bridge across the St. Croix River south of Stillwater in violation of the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act appears to be moving closer to making that bridge possible.

Proponents of the idea argue that they existing lift bridge in Stillwater is old and out of date, even dangerous, they say.

Opponents argue many points.  The bridge violates federal law, for one; it is a threat to the environment is another; and it isn’t economically the best choice for infrastructure investment at this time is yet another.

I want to support a middle ground that has already been proposed.  Rather than build a bluff-to-bluff interstate style multi-lane bridge, build one that truly replaces the function and purpose of the aging Stillwater bridge.  If the real motivation in building a new bridge in violation of federal law is a matter of replacing a worn out existing bridge, then stick to a plan that matches that bridge’s impact in the area.

One of the issues that the opponents raise when arguing against the current new bridge design is it’s environmental impact.  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is in place to protect the environmental quality of the river and opponents of the plan have a valid point.

Protecting a river involves more than protecting the primary river channel.  A river draws from many, many miles within a watershed.  Building a bridge larger than the current Stillwater bridge will encourage development in the region that might not otherwise happen.  Development, more than the span of a new bridge, is the real threat to the quality of the river and its environment.

A Better and Compromise Plan

Moreover, the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is the sort of law that we put in place precisely to protect natural assets from the risks of “pragmatic” excuses for doing things that might harm those natural assets.  It is hard to monetize the value of a public good like a wild and scenic river.  These things certainly would not exist in an entirely free market society.  The federal act is in place to protect the river against harmful, but otherwise popular, ideas and activities.

So if we are going to cave in and give up the literal intent of the law, we might as well try to preserve the tenor of the law.  When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed, the current Stillwater lift bridge existed.  The impact and its potential impact were already a part of the region and its future.  Replacing the bridge with one matching its capacity and impact will maintain those conditions.  What is wrong with a compromise like that?

This is a very costly project.  It doesn’t need to be as costly as it is.  Other proposals offer a solution at a third less the cost.  Before we make such a large investment, should we be certain it isn’t a reckless one?  It seems to me that the strategy has been to defeat the federal law then take advantage of that victory with as much structure as possible.  More modest ambitions would be sufficient and prudent.

NOTE:  You can still contact your representatives and voice your opinion.  There is word that there will be a “summit” next week among congressional representatives and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to discuss these plans.

Related articles

• Bachmann’s bridge project could draw Republican rivals’ fire (thehill.com)
• Is Michelle Bachmann’s Plan to Violate the Wild & Scenic Rivers the Green Move? (treehugger.com)
• Is This Bridge Worth It? (nytimes.com)
• Stillwater bridge plan opposed by 30 Minnesota, Wisconsin legislators (MinnPost)
• St. Croix bridge has $8 million obstacle (StarTribune)