An article in today's Strib discusses the phenomenon of selling advertising space in schools in order to raise money. The ads will actually be placed on lockers, walls and floors. It's surprising that it took so long for them to find this untapped advertising locale. The Coon Rapids based company that is behind this in the Twin Cities, called School Media's, estimates that nine metro-area school districts will be on board by the end of the year.

This is brilliant--capitalism at it's finest. (This is certainly a capital idea!) Suck the public schools dry and then ask them to sell their souls for a handful of beans. I've been thinking that children don't get enough ads targeting them, so this is a true win-win.

Here's a great reader comment from the Strib:

"Won't be long before my kid is attending Best Buy Junior High, Walmart Elementary or Taco Bell Spanish Immersion Magnet School... oh wait... they're going to kick out all the non-English speakers, so scratch that last one."

Meanwhile, we find out today that our pals at United Health Care exceeded market expectations for profits for the third straight quarter.

"Net profit for the quarter ended Sept. 30 rose 23 percent to $1.3 billion, or $1.14 per share, blowing past analyst estimates of 84 cents per share. Revenue rose 9 percent to $23.7 billion."

Corporate charters in the U.S. were originally very restrictive. They had to have sunset clauses, they could only do one thing (i.e., not diversify), and they had to provide a public good or service that could not be reasonably provided by individuals. Now they are just vehicles for concentrating wealth and power. That's the great sucking sound that you hear--wealth being drained from the middle and lower classes. Thomas Jefferson showed tremendous foresight when he said that the concentration of wealth and power is one of the greatest threats to democracy.

The judge responsible for making a recommendation to the Public Utilities Commission about Xcel Energy's request to put a major power line down the middle of the Midtown Greenway has issued a mostly positive ruling:

An administrative law judge recommended Friday that a high-voltage power line designed to serve the heart of south Minneapolis be buried under E. 28th Street rather than follow the Midtown Greenway, a major victory for the city and neighborhood groups.

It's great to see the community voice prevail on the central issue: preventing a high voltage line from being strung along the Greenway. MetroWatchdog issued an action alert during the public comment period on this issue.

The ruling isn't all positive: the judge sided with Xcel in siting two transformer substations. Plus, the final decision is not yet made: this is just a recommendation to the PUC.

August 26th marked the 90th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, allowing women to vote in the US. This has been dubbed "Women's Equality Day." A higher percentage of women vote than men now in the US, but there remains a huge gap between the numbers of men and women in elected office.

How are We Doin'?

Only 17% of Congressional seats are held by women in the US. While Europe is higher at 22%, that's nothing for them to brag about either. Nordic countries come quite a bit closer to parity at 42%. The Inter-Parliamentary Union claims that women hold 19% of national legislature seats worldwide. It ranks the US 90th (tied with Turkmenistan) out of 186 countries "based on percentage of women in the single or lower chamber of the legislature."

When it comes to President and Vice President, the picture is, of course, dismal. The Democratic and Republican parties have never nominated a woman for President (sorry Hilary), and each has only nominated a woman for the Vice Presidency once (1984 and 2008). So it may surprise you to hear that there have been 34 women candidates for President in the US and 86 women candidates for Vice President! These were, of course, third party candidates. According to an AP story, dozens of other countries have been headed by women, including Germany, Britain, Australia, Argentina, Israel, India and Turkey.

To add insult to injury, the US is one of ony seven UN members that have not ratified the 30-year-old women's rights treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Closer to Home

Minnesota is ahead of the national figures. While there were no women in the MN Senate in 1972 and only 7 women in the MN House, the numbers have steadily risen since then. In 2006 and 2008, 43 women were elected to the MN House (32.1%, compared to 27.6% in 2005 and 23.9% in 2003)) and 27 were elected to the MN Senate (40.3%). For the full legislature (201 members), this is 34.8%. Here's the latest status report on Women in the Minnesota Legislature.

On a local level, the Twin Cities are somewhat split. Saint Paul's city council lags behind the national figures--just one of seven, or 14.3%. Minneapolis actually has more women than men on their city council--seven of thirteen, or 53.8%! When it comes to mayors, Minneapolis beats the Capitol city, too, since Minneapolis has had one woman mayor (Sharon Sayles Belton). That's one out of 46, though the first 27 were elected before the 19th Amendment was passed. None of Saint Paul's 53 mayors have been women.

Encouraging Women to Run

The White House Project is a national nonprofit that "aims to advance women’s leadership in all communities and sectors, up to the U.S. presidency."

In conjunction with The White House Project, there will be a women's political leadership training in Duluth Sept. 10-12 (next weekend!) called Minnesota Go Run 2010. Scholarships are available.  As of Labor Day morning, there are a couple of spots left for the training. If you're interested, contact Liz Johnson 612-819-9898 , ejohnson@thewhitehouseproject.org

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