The Minnesota Monitor takes a look at a local issue in the MN-01 race: the DM & E. Let's look at the post, then consider a historical incident not taken up by any modern critic of the DM & E.
Mn Monitor contributor Leigh Pomeroy states that this issue could be the deciding factor in the election; we respectfully disagree, in that much of the expressed frustration coming from opinion leaders and average folks stems from frustration with national policy (Iraq, the deficit) and Gutknecht's lackluster performance over the twelve years to which he promised to limit his Congressional career. Gutknecht's passivity on DM & E is but another example of the later.
Nonetheless, the analysis is worth the read. A part:
Nearly all cities along the route have signed community partnership agreements with the railroad, some begrudgingly, but the City of Rochester, bolstered by Olmsted County, the Mayo Clinic and the Rochester Chamber of Commerce, don't want the coal trains coming through town.
The chief objection is that the rail line passes within blocks of the Mayo Clinic campus. The Mayo contends that a hazardous waste spill from a derailment or other accident would cripple the downtown area and the Clinic. During any weekday approximately 30-40,000 people are in the city center adjacent to the tracks, making an evacuation particularly difficult. Further, at any given time as many as 600 Mayo patients are in intensive care or surgery, or are otherwise incapacitated, and cannot be moved. Mayo spokespeople call this "Rochester's potential Katrina."
During this struggle Rep. Gutknecht has been straddling the fence between catering to the large agricultural interests supporting the railroad and trying to appease the Mayo and the Rochester Chamber of Commerce, both long-time supporters. Now with Walz running a strong grassroots campaign and nearly certain to win key cities in the district like Mankato, Austin, Albert Lea and Winona, Gutknecht has to maintain his traditional hometown base in order to hold onto his seat.
Just recently, Gutknecht has aligned himself with Sen. Coleman to (finally) try to pressure the Department of Transportation to come up with a mitigation plan for Rochester, but DM&E opponents say this is doing too little too late.
Meanwhile, DM&E CEO Kevin Schieffer claims that 55 of 56 communities along the rail line have signed community partnership agreements with the railroad in support of the expansion, the one remaining holdout being Rochester. That's not technically true, however, as Brookings' agreement has been suspended until a referendum is voted on this fall, and Mankato's, while signed by the city has not been countersigned by the railroad, apparently due to a disagreement over a city veto clause in the contract. (Blue Earth County, in which Mankato is located, has yet to draft an agreement with the railroad.)
Another wrinkle to the issue is that the city of Winona, from which the DM&E plans to offload its trains onto barges to cross the Mississippi River, also does not have an agreement with the railroad. That's because the DM&E's tracks stop five miles north in Minnesota City, while the Canadian Pacific (CP) owns the line from Minnesota City through Winona. Further, according to a Track the Truth spokesman, the CP doesn't have the port facilities to offload the amount of coal that the DM&E is planning to ship.
All this has resulted in a strange brew of century-old railroad laws, community rights, competing economic interests and old-fashioned porkbarrel politics. The saga has gone on for eight years already and won't end soon. But there's no doubt in many minds that it's impacting the 2006 congressional election in Minnesota's southern-most district, and that the result of that election — and the new makeup of Congress in January — will determine the proposed project's final outcome.
We call our readers' attention to a matter Pomeroy overlooked: the role of those old-fashioned porkbarrel politics and railroads in the story of how Minnesota earned its unofficial nickname: The Gopher State. At the state legislature's web site, we find a list of "Minnesota State Symbols--Unofficial, Proposed, or Facetious." We find this passage under "Gopher State":
In February 1858, the new Minnesota Legislature introduced the “Five Million Loan” bill. The purpose of the bill was to provide money to build railroads in the state. A highly controversial proposal, the bill ultimately passed. During the public debate, a cartoon was circulated depicting the railroad tycoons as nine gophers with human heads pulling a Gopher Train. Minnesota’s nickname “ the gopher state” came from this 1857 cartoon. A full description of the Five Million Loan may be found in William Watts Folwell, A History of Minnesota, Volume II (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1961), pages 37-58. . . .
What were the consequences of the "Five Million Loan"? The Minnesota Historical Society notes the history in the biography of a contemporary governor:
The Five Million Loan bill loaned to four railroad companies the credit of the state, not to exceed five million dollars. Bonds were to be issued as railroad construction was completed. The railroad companies would pay off the bonds by selling land granted to them by the federal government. The bill, signed by Governor Medary, later proved disastrous. By July, 1859, the value of the bonds fell so low that they were no longer useable as collateral to continue building the railroads.
The state's credit rating was impaired for 20 years according to some contemporary accounts. Historical analogies are cautionary tales, rather than predictive evidence. Nonetheless, the anxiety of fiscal conservatives at Minnesota Central and Doppler Effect are grounded on legitimate concerns.
Last week, the DM & E announced one contract to ship coal. The opposition responded in today's Rochester Post Bulletin:
Some of the KFx coal will go through Rochester, a hotbed of opposition to the DM&E's plans.
Mayo Clinic spokesman Lee Aase said DM&E's deal with KFx does not raise fears that Rochester will have a coal-hauling railroad incrementally shoved down its throat.
"From our perspective, the contract really doesn't change anything. It represents a small fraction of what DM&E would need to repay a $2.3 billion loan from American taxpayers.
"It's a very small fraction of what they need in terms of coal contracts. It doesn't really do anything to illustrate the viability of their project," Aase said.
Editorial columnist Holman W. Jenkins Jr dismisses these concerns in a cutting op-ed piece published in Wednesday's WSJ editorial page (a pdf is available at the ever-entertaining Government Center blog).
OLLIE OX UPDATE: The Mankato Free Press considering whether opposition to the project is expanding to other cities.
Comments