Victory Lap and City Council Rant
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
