In case you missed the article in the Strib, Patrick Stephenson and Zachariah Schaap are reprising their "30 Days of Biking" event from April. Ride a bike every day in September to participate. You can register at their website and write about your experience there or on Twitter at 30daysofbiking.

We'd like to propose a friendly competition to see if more Watchdog subscribers from Minneapolis or from Saint Paul participate. Send us a note to let us know you're participating at watchdog@metrowatchdog.org  . Post on our Facebook page, too. Subscribers outside of the Twin Cities, please do participate in the program,too, and let us know that you are.

Stay alert and happy riding,

The MetroWatchdog

Seems that retail giant Target has stepped in a big pile of PR shit, which has hit the fan in a big way. Speaking of fans, as I write this there are 54,386 fans on the Boycott Target Facebook page. A demonstration at the downtown Target today has been organized by SEIU.

A week ago, Target CEO made a "sort of" apology for the $150,000 that Target contributed to the Tom-Emmer-loving MN Forward. As reported in the Strib, the "what were we thinking" apology wasn't really an apology for their action as much as an apology for offending people with their action.  "I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry." Reeks of sincerity, no? In other words, CEO Greg Steinhafel said, in effect, that their real regret is that the donation may cost them business.

Mistake?

Target may not have been surprised at all, though. They may have simply been testing the political waters after the horrendous Citizens United Supreme Court case that allows unlimited corporate political contributions. $150,000 is a drop in the proverbial bucket, as is the $100,000 that electronics Big Box chain Best Buy contributed to MN Forward. Much, much more support for conservatives is likely to come from a slew of corporations. Welcome to the world of corporate free speech.

With Target planning to open its first two stores in San Francisco, testing the public reaction to its contributions to right-wing organizations may have been a calculated move. After all, Target is nothing if not PR conscious.

Bad Ties

According to an article in the Bay Area Reporter, "Target states that three executives are responsible for evaluating political donations: Vice President of Government Affairs Matt Zabel, Executive Vice President and General Counsel Timothy Baer, and Steinhafel. All three men have financial ties to anti-gay politicians.

According to donation-tracker http://www.opensecrets.org, Zabel is the former chief of staff for Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota), while Baer has donated thousands to the campaigns of former Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Representative John Kline (R-Minnesota). Steinhafel has donated thousands to the campaigns of Representatives Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota). Like Emmer, each of those politicians support a constitutional ban on marriage equality."

MN Forward, which is the love child of the MN Chamber of Commerce and the MN Business Partnership, is directed by former top Pawlenty aide Brian McClung. Target also gave $5,000 this year to the Freedom First PAC, which was founded by our own Tim Pawlenty.

This isn't the first or last we'll hear of bad behavior from Target. They are rabidly anti-union, pay non-living wages, and use "sweatshop style foreign suppliers." Walmart is the business model for Target. That says a mouthful.

Cafe Press has Target boycott items for sale, in case you have a consumer itch (just in case you need more stuff).

Among the many issues we watch here at MetroWatchdog are those related to justice: racial, social, economic, and environmental justice. The lack of mainstream media coverage of racial injustice creates the impression that it is, by and large, a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it's just another case of negligence on the part of mainstream media.

In his most recent blog entry, Jeff Nygaard writes about some indicators of racial disparity in Minnesota. The numbers are disturbing. They contradict popular impressions of fairness and equal opportunity here. Jeff did a great job in his blog, so I'm just copying it whole here (click "read more" to read it). I recommend Jeff's blog, too, by the way, Nygaard Notes.

A seemingly overlooked article (only 17 reader comments!) in the May 17th Star Tribune talked about large number of vacancies at former big box sites and the efforts to fill those spaces. While the tanked economy (which was credited with killing the giants) isn't anything to smile about, I can't say I'll miss the collossal eyesores. The article said that there are currently 80 empty big box locations in the metro area, using a minimum of 10,000 square feet as the guideline.

The vacancies represent some interesting opportunities. The article says that "no one's calling it the death of the big box," but also says that many of the sites are expected to sit empty for a long time. Big boxes elsewhere have been converted to other uses, like community pools and churches. (I think of churches as big boxes. The main difference is that churches get even more tax breaks than the retail big boxes.) Some of the spaces are being cut up into smaller retail spaces to make them palatable to potential suitors.

Big boxes are a blight, visually and economically. When they leave, having altered the economic landscape for the worse, they leave unceremoniously, they leave unapologetically, and they leave a big mess. This is made clearer by our current economic environment, which may make bans/limits on big boxes more politically palatable. Here's an article about the big box ban in Santa Clara, CA. It mentions other CA cities that have banned or limited big boxes. Last month San Diego's city council voted to study a proposal  "which would require supercenters to pay for an economic impact analysis to determine whether their projects would hurt surrounding neighborhoods and businesses." There's more than one way to skin a Big-box cat. This article on the Sacramento, CA big-box ordinance discusses some of the issues involved.

Maybe it's time to re-visit limiting/banning big boxes in the Twin Cities. Let's break free of our chains!

Remember to check out the Watchdog calendar, including the Watchdog fundraiser coming up this Saturday! The more resources we have, the more we can do for the Twin Cities. Please join us and be as generous as you can.

The Jefferson Avenue bike trail proposal was approved! The vote was 6-1, identical to the April 7th vote to  move the project forward. I spoke at the hearing. Among other things, I acknowledged that the initial vote was 6-1. I implored them not to make any further concessions, since that wasn't needed to pass the measure.
 
I think it was 8 people who signed up to speak against the proposal.  28 signed up to speak in favor of the resolution.  Harris once again spoke against the measure, but he was so badly outnumbered (which he noted) that he had to concede that the project had a lot of merit. Not enough for him to vote for it, though.

This is a classic example of a serious shortcoming of the ward system for the city council.  The location of a project seems to be the primary determinant as to whether a project will be approved or not. If a project is in a single ward, the council member for that ward is virtually given carte blanche to decide the fate of the project. In this case, the proposed bike trail will go through two wards, wards 2 and 3. Dave Thune (ward 2) strongly supported the project, while Pat Harris (ward 3) opposed it. Now Godzilla has to fight Mothra. If the proposed trail had only gone through ward 3, it would probably be dead in the water. Because it also goes through ward 2, the six council members who support the project were free to vote for it. Still, they made multiple concessions for a vote they didn't need and knew they wouldn't get. All politicking.

There are plenty of examples of *bad* projects being approved because the project was in the ward of a council member who wanted it. One example is the water park that will be built in the Como neighborhood of Saint Paul. Council Member Lee Helgen told a meeting of residents that he wanted the water park for his daughter to enjoy. Since it's in his ward, it was approved.

Another egregious example was the Midway Shopping Center development. It was originally approved two days before the guidelines for Central Corridor development were passed in 2007(and not by coincidence). Construction didn't start within two years, requiring the developer to re-submit their proposal. In fall of 2009, with the new guidelines for development on the Central Corridor having been in place for two years, the developer submitted the identical proposal. It did not meet the guidelines. The Union Park District Council, which covers the area where the proposed project is located, unanimously voted against it, noting that it violated the city's guidelines. I was told by a credible source that Melvin Carter, in whose district the project is located, wanted it to be approved. It was approved by a vote of 6-0. Even Russ Stark, champion of transit-oriented development (especially on the University corridor!) voted for it. Thus it is with the territorial etiquette of the ward system. (By the way, I was also told that the developer had a $700,000 debt to the city forgiven as part of the deal. What could possibly have made this a good deal for the city? All the city got from the developer was an easement for the bus barn that the city wants to sell. The bus barn was land-locked without the easement. Eminent domain would have given the city the easement for nothing. One of the few legitimate uses for ED--no not that ED. Makes you wonder what went on behind the scenes.)

Minneapolis has the same system, with similar unfortunate results. One partial solution is to return to having at-large council members. I've generally heard proposals to have a mix of ward-based and at-large members. The at-large members wouldn't be constrained by the desire to have their personal ward projects automatically approved or rejected.  My guess is that everyone goes along with this I-have-final-say-if-it's-in-my-ward system because each council member wants that power. To get it, they have to give it.

There are other reforms we need to local government. Another one I've heard for the city council that I like is to change the terms to 2 years. That's what it used to be in St. Paul. It's clear that we're not getting what we need from either city council in the Twin Cities.

Stay active, stay alert,

The Watchdog

An editorial in the Star Tribune issues criticism of Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan for re-hiring an officer who was recently fired from the Metro Gang Strike Force:

"According to an April 20 story by Star Tribune reporter Randy Furst, Garman's September firing was linked to the seizure of cell phones during a 2009 Strike Force raid and subsequent coverup of phone usage.

"This week, the Minneapolis Police Federation's John Delmonico said a police panel had recommended Garman's termination before Dolan fired him. According to Delmonico, a union official met with Dolan last fall and reported that the chief was holding firm on his decision to fire Garman. The union then did what unions do: It reviewed the case and decided to grieve the termination and go to arbitration, which was slated for this month.

On April 16, Dolan signed a settlement agreement with the union to reinstate Garman, and the dismissal became a 30-hour suspension. The officer was back at work last Monday, and he'll receive back pay for the seven months he was off, minus the 30 hours. In effect, Garman got a seven-month paid vacation."

Without knowing the details of Garman's behavior it's hard to judge the situation with certainty. But given the details that have come out about the behavior of officers working in the Gang Strike Force, and the fact that an internal police panel recommended termination, the situation begs serious questions and skepticism.

From the outside it looks like one of the fundamental problems with police in Minneapolis has reared its head again: the chief is unwilling or unable to stand up to significant pressure from the Police Federation on the discipline of an officer.

Dolan's reappointment as Police Chief was not a complete cakewalk: councilmembers Elizabeth Glidden, Cam Gordon, Betsy Hodges, Robert Lilligren and Meg Tuthill voted against it. The Garman case seems to fall in the category of evidence that justifies their skepticism. 

Here's a follow-up on some of our action alerts and updates on some that are current:

The action alert about power lines over the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis has been updated with information on public hearings on April 5th and 6th, as well as opportunities to submit written comments through May 11th. Click on the power line alert title below for more information.

This Wed., April 7th, the St. Paul City Council is scheduled to decide whether or not to approve the Jefferson Avenue Bike Trail. This vote has been postponed several times, which indicates that it's not a slam dunk. If you haven't already submitted comments to the city council, please do ASAP. (Who knows, they might actually vote on it this time!) I'll check with one or two council members tomorrow to see what they expect to happen with this issue this week. Besides increasing bicycling options in St. Paul and encouraging non-motorized transportation modes, this project will also connect St. Paul bike paths to Minneapolis bike paths in two ways: via the Ford bridge and via the Lake Street bridge. This will be a boon for sustainable transportation for the entire Twin Cities area!

I'll do a follow-up blog on the Cyclops issue (surveillance cameras) soon. This is a big and on-going issue that has several ugly aspects to it, in addition to the cameras. In the mean time, please do send in locations and/or pictures of new surveillance cameras you find to watchdog@metrowatchdog.org

The Minneapolis City Council did not reappoint Dave Bicking to the Civilian Review Authority Board on April 2, dealing a serious blow to that oversight organization. There were 316 signatures on the petition calling for his reappointment, many of which came through the Metro Watchdog alert. As Dave Bicking put it, "This petition, and the overall campaign we have waged, is like nothing the City Council has EVER seen for a board appointment." Here is Dave's statement after the vote. Please let the Minneapolis City Council know what you think of their decision and, at least as importantly, the poor process they followed in making that decision:

CONTACT INFO:
Kevin Reich, Ward 1   kevin.reich@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Cam Gordon, Ward 2   cam.gordon@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Diane Hofstede, Ward 3   diane.hofstede@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Barb Johnson, Ward 4   barbara.johnson@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Don Samuels, Ward 5   don.samuels@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Robert Lilligren, Ward 6   robert.lilligren@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Lisa Goodman, Ward 7   lisa.goodman@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Elizabeth Glidden, Ward 8   elizabeth.glidden@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Gary Schiff, Ward 9   gary.schiff@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Meg Tuthill, Ward 10   meg.tuthill@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
John Quincy, Ward 11   john.quincy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Sandra Colvin Roy, Ward 12   sandra.colvin.roy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Betsy Hodges, Ward 13   betsy.hodges@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Phone number for all Council members is 612-673-22xx   where xx is the Ward number, examples:  Kevin Reich 612-673-2201,   Betsy Hodges 612-673-2213

Finally, the MN Senate Transportation Committee voted against the proposed 3-year moratorium on digital billboards. Because of the short session, this effectively killed the bill until the next session. There were five industry representatives present to testify at the hearing. This will come up again, and it will next be introduced after the federal study on the safety of digital billboards has been published. We had a strong response to this alert, so the committee members were probably quite surprised at the level of public involvement with this issue. As mentioned in the alert background, this issue ties in with the broader issue of local self-determination. Specifically, the process of amortization, which allows cities and townships to decide how they want to deal with issues like billboards, needs to be re-instated. Minnesota was one of the first states to repeal this, in response to pressure from the billboard industry. We hope to see an effort to bring back amortization, and we will connect you to that effort when it occurs.

The more we speak out and the more of us there are, the more we will be heard!

Stay alert. Stay involved.

-The Watchdog