2015-16 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Elections - City Councils and Commissions - Policies
Online
Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1266
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby Tcmetro » January 14th, 2015, 7:52 pm

I'm much more familiar with Scott County (used to live there) than Carver County. Some in the county want transit, some don't. The big problem is even if transit is wanted, it's for commuting out of county, not to create a situation where transit is usable for day-to-day needs. The other fatal flaw, is that land use plans are still geared toward the suburban sprawl, driving, big-box store orientation. If the land use plans aren't revisited, then there isn't much point in investing in transit.

One of the big issues with transit in Scott County has been solved, and has been relatively overlooked on the regional scale. MVTA took over services from Shakopee and Prior Lake which previously had independent bus systems. Last month (and before), one of the smallest counties in the region had three local bus operators, in addition to the dial-a-ride operation that is only semi-autonomous from the Metropolitan Council (rather than being a direct Met Council operation). The MVTA merger should have drastic improvements in Scott County transit usability once studies are completed and transit services are fully integrated.

As for Carver County, I'm far less aware of the situation there. The City of Carver did just open a new park and ride lot and collaborated with SW Transit to provide services, despite not being a member of the Transit Taxing District (different from CTIB).

As for increased transit funding in general, it's something that is needed in the Twin Cities region. On a fundamental level, a well-funded transit network is generally synonymous with well-performing regions. It's hard to say whether no funding is a good idea compared to a transit and roads funding plan, but I think without roads it isn't politically palatable within the near future. It's unfortunate, but hopefully there will be a way to squeeze additional transit funding out of road funding, through initiatives such as MnPass and BRT stations on highways.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4705
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby David Greene » January 14th, 2015, 8:45 pm

I wouldn't say the balkanized nature of our transit system has been ignored. There was a fairly scathing legislative report about it a year or two ago, though it was more about Metro Transit's poor coordination with the opt-outs than questioning the opt-outs per se. Transit advocates have long bemoaned the establishment of the opt-outs.

The fact is it's completely politically impossible to change the current setup. Lots of people have talked big about transit governance and no one has made any progress.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7560
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

2015 Minnesota Legislative Session - Ideas and Ad-Hoc Topics

Postby mattaudio » January 16th, 2015, 3:16 pm

I figured we could use a thread to talk about random things that come up during the session, since they don't fit in well with the running dialog about transportation, budget, and other big topics in the main thread.

Dayton to propose environmental buffer zone for all state waterways
http://www.startribune.com/local/288839371.html

My take? Seems like a decent idea, but we also need reform that recognizes the difference between urban and rural waterfront. Urban waterfront needs to be grandfathered in to some sort of alternative regulation, as even the existing shoreland overlay rules (DNR) are major inhibitors of urban growth in the metro but also in small towns. Protect existing shoreland and waterways, especially if it's natural. Work with land owners to return much of the waterfront to this state if possible. But keep urban waterfronts urban! Whether it's Red Wing, Bemidji, Mankato, Minneapolis, etc an urban waterfront can be a very different yet beautiful and important interaction with the river. We wouldn't expect Paris to rip out development and put buffers in along the Seine.

User avatar
Nathan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3946
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: 2015 Minnesota Legislative Session - Ideas and Ad-Hoc To

Postby Nathan » January 27th, 2015, 11:40 am


twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5964
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby twincitizen » February 18th, 2015, 10:40 am

Dayton releases list of road and bridge projects that would get funded if his proposed tax increases ($6B over 10 years) are passed: http://www.mn.gov/governor/images/trans ... _sheet.pdf

Is it just me, or is that just a listing of nearly every freeway bridge (at least for Hennepin County, which is the only thing I skimmed)?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7560
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby mattaudio » February 18th, 2015, 11:06 am

Same for Dakota County. We covered this in the other thread in Anything Goes.

phop
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 149
Joined: May 28th, 2013, 8:58 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby phop » February 27th, 2015, 5:00 pm

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 70441.html

Projected budget surplus revised upwards by a significant amount, $832 million dollars. $1.9 billion total surplus.

web

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby web » February 27th, 2015, 9:21 pm

yet wisconsin is cutting funds from the u of w due to a very large deficit.....

NickP
Union Depot
Posts: 304
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 5:00 pm

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby NickP » February 28th, 2015, 12:12 pm

GOP friends on here, can you please explain to me this quote in the article. "Republican legislators meanwhile are calling for much of the surplus to be returned to taxpayers." I would think investing in schools and transport would be returning funding to the taxpayers.
I mean this out of genuine curiosity so if anyone wants to respond to this, please send me a PM, that way we can prevent a lot of pages of argument :) Hope all are well. :)

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 3rd, 2015, 8:04 am

NickP wrote:GOP friends on here, can you please explain to me this quote in the article. "Republican legislators meanwhile are calling for much of the surplus to be returned to taxpayers." I would think investing in schools and transport would be returning funding to the taxpayers.
I mean this out of genuine curiosity so if anyone wants to respond to this, please send me a PM, that way we can prevent a lot of pages of argument :) Hope all are well. :)
I'm not really on either side of the political spectrum, but I can give a quicktake: Spending money on programs or schools is not typically seen as giving back to taxpayers in the GOP mindset. The thinking is that there's inherent levels of bureaucracy (waste) in whatever they'll spend it on, and the gov't will probably pick "wrong" programs to spend it on in the first place, and so families will receive little benefit - at least less than they would be simply getting the cash themselves.

Apparently, this doesn't apply to roads. The GOP is more than happy to earmark a bunch of money for roads. Not transit; that's wasteful spending. In this specific case it seems the GOP is willing to cross its philosophical limits and spend pork on gov't-run things as long as they deem it "good spending."

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1263
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby xandrex » March 3rd, 2015, 9:01 am

Yeah, my dad's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and opposes pretty much any increase in government spending...except roads. The faster and wider they are, the better.

I've been able to soften him a bit on transit (since I take it to work every day), but I was somewhat-jokingly chastised when I used "light rail" and "beautiful" in the same sentence. And he referred has taken a firm stance against the "light rail to Duluth" (I was confused until I realized he was referring to the NLX project).

I think roads escape the conservative's eye because 1) they are a tangible product that they believe everyone can use, and 2) due to other world views/philosophies/cultures, conservatives tend to live in areas that more heavily rely on roads and where transit simply cannot be justified.

trigonalmayhem

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby trigonalmayhem » March 3rd, 2015, 7:18 pm

xandrex wrote: I think roads escape the conservative's eye because 1) they are a tangible product that they believe everyone can use, and 2) due to other world views/philosophies/cultures, conservatives tend to live in areas that more heavily rely on roads and where transit simply cannot be justified.
This. So much this. They can deal with the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance because it's absolutely necessary to their lifestyle choice.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5964
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby twincitizen » March 17th, 2015, 9:04 am

Grab bag of stories as we hit the halfway mark in the session: http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2 ... udget-day/

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5964
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby twincitizen » March 21st, 2015, 9:41 am

Dibble & Hornstein town hall today 10-12 at the Greek Chruch. I'll report Back what I hear.

All we're talking about is oil trains.

Someone asked about the C line aBRT debacle. YES!!! to that lady.

Lots of questions about pipelines and mining and old white ladies saying "meanHwile"

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2978
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby Nick » March 21st, 2015, 2:01 pm

could you actually report Bakk please thanks

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5964
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby twincitizen » March 21st, 2015, 2:26 pm

Dibble & Hornstein support full repeal of the ban o. Sunday liquor sales. Paul Thissen is the greatest question dodger of all time. Sources say he's gonna take another crack at governor in 2018

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4705
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby David Greene » March 22nd, 2015, 8:52 pm

twincitizen wrote:Paul Thissen is the greatest question dodger of all time. Sources say he's gonna take another crack at governor in 2018
I really don't get all the love "progressives" throw at Thissen. He hasn't actually done much as far as I can tell and he's primarily responsible for the DFL losing the House.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1263
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby xandrex » April 22nd, 2015, 8:13 am

A lot of suburban mayors—including ones not in the first ring!—calling for more transit/support for Dayton's transpo plan.

http://www.minnpost.com/political-agend ... prosperity

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4211
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby grant1simons2 » April 22nd, 2015, 8:21 am

Yay Tyra-Lukens! :D

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5964
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 2015 MN Legislative Session & Budget

Postby twincitizen » May 11th, 2015, 7:37 am

http://www.startribune.com/at-state-cap ... n=homepage

Bakk is firm on transportation tax increases, willing to trade for additional tax cuts desired by GOP caucus. The $40B question is which tax cuts (and how much) can actually pass the DFL Senate and get Dayton's signature...

GOP on the other hand could completely accede to Senate DFL spending targets in exchange for dropping the gas tax increase and getting to call that a win for their side.

TBH the latter proposal somehow seems more likely...


Return to “Local Politics and Governance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest