Is there a public demand for Met Council? (Minneapolis, Woodbury: 2014, townhomes)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

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Also note, in regards to the AEI piece, that AEI is right-wing propaganda organization and the published piece was not peer-reviewed.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."

Whether or not the article is peer reviewed is a red herring. Of course it's an opinion piece. The New York Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, and Minnpost all lean left and they publish opinion pieces all the time that are not peer reviewed. You even linked to one! Their political leanings and the fact that none are scholarly journals certainly doesn't make the views they express invalid.

And while what the Minnpost article says about economic differences between states is interesting, it doesn't explain why the Twin Cities lag other cities within Minnesota.

And since they do lag, one cannot hold the Met Council up as a body whose policies lead to superior economic growth.

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

And while what the Minnpost article says about economic differences between states is interesting, it doesn't explain why the Twin Cities lag other cities within Minnesota.

And since they do lag, one cannot hold the Met Council up as a body whose policies lead to superior economic growth.

I agree, but I don't think that the purpose of the Metropolitan Council is to provide for superior economic growth, or that faster economic growth, in and of itself, is an appropriate policy goal for regional urban planning body such as the Met Council.

The Met Council's primary purpose is to coordinate urban planning among many different counties and municipalities. This additional layer of planning approval will, if anything, result in slower growth, quite literally.

I think the chief benefit of something like the Met Council isn't faster growth, it's the elimination of bureaucratic redundancy among the various municipalities and counties in the metro area and more coherent urban planning across the metro: smart growth, rather than fast growth.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

I agree, but I don't think that the purpose of the Metropolitan Council is to provide for superior economic growth, or that faster economic growth, in and of itself, is an appropriate policy goal for regional urban planning body such as the Met Council.

The Met Council's primary purpose is to coordinate urban planning among many different counties and municipalities. This additional layer of planning approval will, if anything, result in slower growth, quite literally.

I think the chief benefit of something like the Met Council isn't faster growth, it's the elimination of bureaucratic redundancy among the various municipalities and counties in the metro area and more coherent urban planning across the metro: smart growth, rather than fast growth.

It would be good if the Met Council clearly stated what they see as their mission. Unfortunately, they don't, at least not clearly. From their website:

The Metropolitan Council is the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the Twin Cities metropolitan region. The Council's mission is to foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous region.

https://metrocouncil.org/About-Us/Th...ho-We-Are.aspx

What does it mean to "...foster efficient and economic growth..."?

I think you're probably right that their objective is to enforce central planning on local governments and, if necessary, inhibit economic prosperity. If that's the case, we can say they have probably been successful.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

Yes and Yes and I think they have way too much power. See Oak Grove, MN vs. Met Council. Oak Grove is basically in the sticks. They want to develop some farm land into 2.5 acre lots and the Met Council wants to put the kibosh on that based on population projections WAY out into the future. The Met Council would like to see every inch of the 7 county metro developed into dense tiny lots.

Don't get me wrong. Long term planning is obviously good, but allowing the almighty Met Council to dictate exactly what can and can't be done is a crock. It is basically their way or the highway. Add in the fact that they are not elected. This is off the MC webpage:

They are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor.

Little scary when you consider who our Governor is....

The Met Council has one goal, and one goal only: to put as many third world so-called refugees into as many areas outside St. Paul and Minneapolis proper as possible. That is it. They are trying to bring more tension into areas that otherwise don't have to worry about these things being forced down their throat. Bringing crime to places like Woodbury or Stillwater or Maple Grove is what the Met Council is really all about. They are, simply put, evil.


Un-elected. They are likely all financed by George Soros with a pretty clear agenda, if you takes some time to look into it.

[Isaysos]

Why do places like St Cloud, Rochester, Mankato, Sioux Falls, Fargo and Winnipeg have just as many if not more refugees per capita then? Is it because of the Met Council? I for one have several friends who came here as Hmong and Cambodian refugees. Some of the nicest and hardest working people I know and some of my best friends. Many of the businesses that I frequent and adore are owned or started by refugees. The The Twin Cities has an amazing southeast Asian and Somali/Ethiopian community. You should check it out sometime and then maybe you wouldn’t be so afraid of them. I would hate to see the Twin Cities without them and I know many others who feel the same way.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by MN Outlook

Does the metro area public know how influential the Met Council is and that they're unelected?

Only the informed, so figure 10-20%.

[TimtheGuy]

Originally Posted by mr roboto

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.

So, "special little towns" be damned. We need to be one giant, dense as possible, homogeneous suburb.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by mr roboto

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.

If you moved to Lake Elmo thinking you in any way got away from riff raff (Oakdale is literally a stone throw away, and Woodbury has turned into Mogadishu last time I was out there), you are quite a fool. You have to move at least 30 miles out of TC proper to get away from riff raff, and even then you still got Met Council forcibly putting low income units up in Forest Lake.

[Dreiser]

Originally Posted by Isaysos

Why do places like St Cloud, Rochester, Mankato, Sioux Falls, Fargo and Winnipeg have just as many if not more refugees per capita then? Is it because of the Met Council? I for one have several friends who came here as Hmong and Cambodian refugees. Some of the nicest and hardest working people I know and some of my best friends. Many of the businesses that I frequent and adore are owned or started by refugees. The The Twin Cities has an amazing southeast Asian and Somali/Ethiopian community. You should check it out sometime and then maybe you wouldn’t be so afraid of them. I would hate to see the Twin Cities without them and I know many others who feel the same way.

It is all Lutheran charities organization that sponsored those guys coming here.
https://www.lirs.org/
Somali are different from actual African Americans. There are always news about fights between AA and Somali students in Minneapolis schools. It's funny you put Somali and Ethiopians together because they hate each other. You obviously don't know anything and one of those "educated" snowflakes.

We fought their warlords in Mogadishu and now one of those terrorist says that "somebody did something" about 9/11.

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by TimtheGuy

Yes and Yes and I think they have way too much power. See Oak Grove, MN vs. Met Council. Oak Grove is basically in the sticks. They want to develop some farm land into 2.5 acre lots and the Met Council wants to put the kibosh on that based on population projections WAY out into the future. The Met Council would like to see every inch of the 7 county metro developed into dense tiny lots.

Don't get me wrong. Long term planning is obviously good, but allowing the almighty Met Council to dictate exactly what can and can't be done is a crock. It is basically their way or the highway. Add in the fact that they are not elected. This is off the MC webpage:

They are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor.

Little scary when you consider who our Governor is....

Oak Grove is a good example of overreach.

People want their big plots way up there in the sticks (almost to Isanti!) but since the Met Council decided to build a $36 million dollar waste treatment plant down in East Bethel, they are demanding that Oak Grove be forced to divvy up the plots into little .25 acre ticky tacky suburb plots, so they have more people to wrest taxes from. The proletariat must comply.

Septic tanks work just fine in that soil for tens of thousands of private home owners who bear the cost themselves.

It is about centralized control in that situation, not better serving the people of Oak Grove.


https://www.startribune.com/in-oak-g...ons/417095693/