urbanMSP

You understand that most of this growth was achieved by building new town on virgin land, right? The suburbs also grew that fast.

Growth isn't categorically bad. Unproductive growth is bad. It's not complicated.

My point was that building thousands of units on open land is easy -- backfilling a built city is hard.

So now we triage.

The problem Matt, is that your "now" is mostly predicated on an energy crisis that hasn't happened yet. If gas prices were to suddenly double or triple in price, you'd be less wrong. I'm not saying you won't be right in the future (like when we're all dead or at least very old), but you're mostly tilting at windmills here. And it's getting f***ing old.

I'm as pro-transit, pro-bike, anti-sprawl, anti-pollution as anyone. I genuinely wish for gas prices to double, immediately, for the good it would do for the future of our species...and I drive to work! In spite of all of that, the constant turning of every thread into a Strong Towns fantasy-land circle jerk is really testing my patience.

No, the fundamental problem isn't the cost of gas. If gas prices double or triple, it would just speed up the inevitable.

The problem is negative return on investment. This is what is screwing over Detroit, Stockton, etc. If we care about the future of our places, we must care about the viability of those places.

Pretty sure racism screwed over Detroit and Stockton long before white flight did.

You don't go from 100 miles an hour of building suburbs to dismantling them in a day. The point of things like LRT to suburban areas, TOD etc. is to slow suburban growth. The slower suburban growth is, and the faster urban growth, the easier it'll be to eventually do the things you want to do, mattaudio. But none of that can happen Right Now.

I'm as pro-transit, pro-bike, anti-sprawl, anti-pollution as anyone. I genuinely wish for gas prices to double, immediately, for the good it would do for the future of our species...and I drive to work! In spite of all of that, the constant turning of every thread into a Strong Towns fantasy-land circle jerk is really testing my patience.

Quoted for truth.

You don't go from 100 miles an hour of building suburbs to dismantling them in a day. The point of things like LRT to suburban areas, TOD etc. is to slow suburban growth. The slower suburban growth is, and the faster urban growth, the easier it'll be to eventually do the things you want to do, mattaudio. But none of that can happen Right Now.

So we should tolerate some subsidy of financially unproductive growth, but just not as much as we're doing today? I don't understand how that's any better... it still makes local governments poorer, just a little more slowly than the status quo. Why are we afraid of ending a subsidy of a particular land use, and letting the market correct itself? It's not like these places are going away, because they have value in the market (maybe just less than they used to). I don't get why people are so afraid of letting the market pick winning and losing land uses rather than subsidizing winners with money from losers.

So we should tolerate some subsidy of financially unproductive growth, but just not as much as we're doing today? I don't understand how that's any better... it still makes local governments poorer, just a little more slowly than the status quo. Why are we afraid of ending a subsidy of a particular land use, and letting the market correct itself? It's not like these places are going away, because they have value in the market (maybe just less than they used to). I don't get why people are so afraid of letting the market pick winning and losing land uses rather than subsidizing winners with money from losers.

Because people have built their lives around those subsidies, and those are the very same people we need to vote for Democrats in order for us to ever have decent transit that, someday, we can orient the city around. It's the practical reality of this metro area.

So we should tolerate some subsidy of financially unproductive growth, but just not as much as we're doing today? I don't understand how that's any better... it still makes local governments poorer, just a little more slowly than the status quo. Why are we afraid of ending a subsidy of a particular land use, and letting the market correct itself? It's not like these places are going away, because they have value in the market (maybe just less than they used to). I don't get why people are so afraid of letting the market pick winning and losing land uses rather than subsidizing winners with money from losers.

Market corrections usually result in significant pain, especially for the middle and lower classes.

You think the Great Recession was bad? Yank the carpet out from our current system. I bet dollars to donuts we wouldn't suddenly be in some financially-flush happy land.

Excllent point. The architect of the strong towns cult is a hard currency yahoo who believes we can contract our way to prosperity. (Still waiting for that 200% inflation, chucky) If we suddenly abandon suburban road maintenance, build a tunnel under Nicollet Ave, run a train at grade through an 80 ft row in North and stripe a few more bike lanes we won't be a more prosperous region or country.

Nothing would promote regional prosperity more than the destruction of billions of dollars of wealth!

Yeah, but what if we stripe a lot of bike lanes, not just a few? Then what?

Who will control the Minnesota House? This thing is awesome. Combining 2 of my favorite things, maps & politics (woo look out Mr Party over here) it lets you see the current make up of the house districts, and create your own scenarios. It also offers up loads of information. Its similar to 270towin if anyone is familiar with that.

Who will control the Minnesota House? This thing is awesome. Combining 2 of my favorite things, maps & politics (woo look out Mr Party over here) it lets you see the current make up of the house districts, and create your own scenarios. It also offers up loads of information. Its similar to 270towin if anyone is familiar with that.

The red/blue county map looks very similar to the Minnesota biome map. Coincidence?

OMG that tool is amazing! I love interactive maps like that.

Two months out from the election, I am mildly confident that the DFL can retain their house majority, but it's going to be slim. They/we are likely going to lose at least 3-5 seats, just hopefully not 7 (which would put the House at a 67-67 tie). We want as strong a majority as possible if we hope for any transit/transportation funding increase, because there is no guarantee that all DFL'ers will vote for it.

Besides transportation, what are the big priorities for the DFL (and liberals/progressives in general) in 2015-16?

So much was accomplished in 2013-14, it makes me think it's going to be a pretty quiet biennium. I've heard that there was some unfinished LGBTQ business like banning conversion therapy (e.g. Marcus Bachmann's business), but that seems like it won't even be controversial by the time we get around to it. We'll probably take steps to improve (loosen) the recently passed medical marijuana law, but that would be the 2016 session as legislators wait and see how the rollout goes. There is obviously support in the legislature for allowing people to use actual plant material (MN being the only state that restricts use to pills & oils), and hopefully Mark Dayton will loosen up on that following his reelection.

Any other ideas what might be tackled in 2015-16?

Any other ideas what might be tackled in 2015-16?

Non-partisan legislature!
Legalize lower speed limits on urban streets!
Remove state aid design standards from the books!
Reform LGA and Fiscal Disparities to reflect value (cost included) regarding land uses!

Certainly child protection will be a huge issue.

Non-partisan legislature!
Legalize lower speed limits on urban streets!
Remove state aid design standards from the books!
Reform LGA and Fiscal Disparities to reflect value (cost included) regarding land uses!

-1

Except I'm all for partisan legislation as long as it's partisan towards my party...

Any other ideas what might be tackled in 2015-16?

Non-partisan legislature!
Legalize lower speed limits on urban streets!
Remove state aid design standards from the books!
Reform LGA and Fiscal Disparities to reflect value (cost included) regarding land uses!

Good ideas except for the non-partisan legislature. We already tried that. Why further hide peoples' agendas? I'd rather know straight away where someone generally stands.

All in all, I think we have a very good state governance setup compared to a lot of states.

Good ideas except for the non-partisan legislature. We already tried that. Why further hide peoples' agendas? I'd rather know straight away where someone generally stands.

I'm sure the major parties would still endorse, and the endorsees would wear that badge as they campaign. The Minneapolis elections last year were non-partisan according to state law (of course Mpls has the three word party or principle on the ballot) but it was not tough to figure out where folks stand. The idea that people running for office should conform to one of two narrow ideologies is rather damaging to our innovation as a state. After all, many of the major innovations that became law in our state happened before we moved away from a nonpartisan legislature in the mid-70s.

Any other ideas what might be tackled in 2015-16?

I think after labor's success with the raising of the minimum wage campaign, paid sick time could be on the table.

I think expanding rank choice voting statewide would be fantastic. The alliance politics rather than mudslinging politics was refreshing.

I hope paid sick time doesn't become mandatory for people with paid vacation... One value I benefit is having a larger pool of PTO that is usable irrespective of vacation or unplanned illness... the result is more vacation for those who stay healthy.