Is there a public demand for Met Council? (Minneapolis, St. Paul: low income, crime)

[mr roboto]

Originally Posted by cheddar

The issues being debated between Oak Grove MN and the Metro Council show how necessary a regional oversight organization is. If each area of the broader metro area wanted to start developing residential areas randomly without coordination, it will be more expensive to serve these areas with public services including transportation. It is good for the region overall when there is a plan to govern sprawl.

Precisely. Same thing with Lake Elmo. They want to stay the rich 'country' enclave with huge lots and septic and well water to keep the riff raft out. But as the metro expands that just places burdens on communities around them to accommodate their desired vision for their special little town.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

I'm not against the Met Council. I've seen some highly questionable data collecting on their part to support their political ideology, but overall it seems to have value. My question is this though, why is "growth" so important to you & why is it something we should strive for?

Growth is important to me for a variety of reasons. Some of which include; maintaining and retaining our cultural and recreational amenities, airport connections, job connections, preserving and growing our tax base; new and exciting shops, restaurants and buildings; new people to meet; etc. I would much rather live in a growing metro area than a dying one and I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people would agree.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

It would appear that some people do credit the Met Council with the growth of the area.

I'm not going to get into the specifics with this but yes, in general I think that having a regional approach to transportation and economic development provides more opportunities to growth than severe government fragmentation and lack of regional cohesiveness.

[Glenfield]

If the purpose of the Met Council is to foster population and economic growth that exceeds that of other cities, then they've failed. https://www.americanexperiment.org/2...t-population/#

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

If the purpose of the Met Council is to foster population and economic growth that exceeds that of other cities, then they've failed. https://www.americanexperiment.org/2...t-population/#

We don't have the growth of sunbelt and mountain range cities? I'm shocked!
This article, from a conservative think tank, does not mention that the Twin Cities are gaining more people than any metro area in the Midwest or Northeast. The medium, steady growth that we see is great IMO. I don't want to become the next Dallas or Seattle (most of Seattle's growth is tied to Amazon btw.)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

We don't have the growth of sunbelt and mountain range cities? I'm shocked!
This article, from a conservative think tank, does not mention that the Twin Cities are gaining more people than any metro area in the Midwest or Northeast. The medium, steady growth that we see is great IMO. I don't want to become the next Dallas or Seattle (most of Seattle's growth is tied to Amazon btw.)

More interesting is the table comparing economic growth of various cities in Minnesota and neighboring states. It shows that the Twin Cities are lagging within our region.

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

More interesting is the table comparing economic growth of various cities in Minnesota and neighboring states. It shows that the Twin Cities are lagging within our region.

It is an interesting table. I haven't seen that data before. Is it statistically valid to compare GDP growth of metro areas so much smaller than MSP, though? MSP seems to compare favorably with most major metro areas except for the ones experiencing extremely (unsustainably?) rapid growth. I moved to Minneapolis from Seattle last year because the quality of life has been so negatively impacted by the too-rapid growth, so I see the steady moderate growth of MSP as a positive.

The article blames MSP's lagging economy on liberal policies impeding economic growth. Now I'm new to Minnesota but hasn't this been a more-liberal than average state since the 1970's? Have the state's polices really gotten THAT much more liberal and anti-business? Plus, if liberal policies have such a deleterious effect on business formation or expansion, how did MSP end up with the most Fortune 500 companies per capita of any US metro area to begin with?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

It is an interesting table. I haven't seen that data before. Is it statistically valid to compare GDP growth of metro areas so much smaller than MSP, though? MSP seems to compare favorably with most major metro areas except for the ones experiencing extremely (unsustainably?) rapid growth. I moved to Minneapolis from Seattle last year because the quality of life has been so negatively impacted by the too-rapid growth, so I see the steady moderate growth of MSP as a positive.

The article blames MSP's lagging economy on liberal policies impeding economic growth. Now I'm new to Minnesota but hasn't this been a more-liberal than average state since the 1970's? Have the state's polices really gotten THAT much more liberal and anti-business? Plus, if liberal policies have such a deleterious effect on business formation or expansion, how did MSP end up with the most Fortune 500 companies per capita of any US metro area to begin with?

I don't know if what the article describes as root causes is correct or not. My point is that the Met Council is not an instrument of economic growth since the economies of other cities in our region without a Met Council have grown at a faster pace.

So why do we need this powerful and unaccountable body? Surely regional transit, and water and sewerage can be planned in another, more democratic way. For example, each county in the metro area could elect or appoint a member to the council. That would give more voice to the counties affected and less power to the governor.

[MN Outlook]

Why does the Met Council have so much leverage over elected governments? Doesn't that a spit in the face of a democratic system? Whether they do good or not. Check out mnoutlook.com

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by MN Outlook

Why does the Met Council have so much leverage over elected governments? Doesn't that a spit in the face of a democratic system? Whether they do good or not. Check out mnoutlook.com

Just what the world needs- another right-wing crackpot site.

No, obviously it doesn't 'spit in the face of a democratic system', any more than any entity appointed by a democratically elected individual or body. Should we abolish the entire presidential cabinet? (Actually, maybe we should...). Perhaps we should abolish the judiciary system, or at least those significant parts of it run by appointment by governors or presidents.

Also note, in regards to the AEI piece, that AEI is right-wing propaganda organization and the published piece was not peer-reviewed. There's a very good reason for that: https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro...-politics-not-

"Though it looks like a research paper, with 30 figures, 5 tables, and a page of footnotes in tiny print, the report is actually an advocacy document more akin to a 40-page op-ed than an academic study. In particular, the conclusion (that Minnesota must lower taxes and reduce regulatory burdens) is the starting point, with evidence marshalled to support that end...

In particular, average growth does not mean Minnesota’s performance is mediocre; rather, average growth is exactly what economic theory predicts for a high-income state like Minnesota...

There are two problems with the Center’s argument: First, their assertions about taxes and regulation are not borne out by scholarly research, and second, they are missing a critical reason for slower growth that scholars across the political spectrum agree on...

However, there is a relationship between a state’s level of income and its growth rate. Specifically, research has shown time and again that states which start out with low levels of income per person grow faster than states that begin with higher levels of income per person....

I hope that in the future, rather than starting with policy prescriptions, the Center will first look at the evidence, formulate hypotheses about Minnesota’s growth performance based on economic theory, and then test these hypotheses against the data."