The Cannon Falls Beacon reported last week that a Resolution against ZipRail [was] approved by the Goodhue County Board:
Goodhue County Public Works Director Greg Isakson reported at the March 1 County Board meeting that a resolution had been drafted stating that the County is opposed to the proposed Zip Rail project that was suspended last month by MnDOT. The resolution will be sent to Mn/DOT, Commissioner Zelle and to Olmsted County, and will be added to the comments about the content in the Alternatives Analysis document.
The resolution is strongly worded and states: "This project is not consistent with local plans, and it is presumptuous and downright wrong to imply passive support for a project simply because the County's Comprehensive Plan is mute to the issue. It would create substantial and unacceptable adverse environmental, economic and social impacts on the lands and citizens of Goodhue County. The Goodhue County Board of Commissioners hereby declares there is no support for, and there is opposition to the Zip Rail project as presented in past meetings, past reports, and envisioned in the last study before the project was suspended, specifically the Alternatives Analysis project for the Investment Plan and the Tier 1 EIS study."
The resolution is important because comments in the Alternatives Analysis infer that local governments and communities were in favor of the Zip Rail project. Rechtzigel noted that over 25 cities, townships and agricultural co-ops in Goodhue County have also sent in resolutions stating that they are opposed to the project.
Commissioner Brad Anderson suggested that when the new County Comprehensive Plan is updated, it should state that whatever project comes forward in the future, it must benefit Goodhue County or approval will not be granted.
Why was this resolution necessary? Isn't the ZipRail Project dead? Sadly, private rail promoters have been bitten by the walking corpse of ZipRail and simply seem to keep coming.
We're not sure from the Cannon Falls Beacon exactly where the MNDOT report implied local support, but we did find this sort of thing in the text
Clearly, the Goodhue County Board doesn't think the project was consistent with its land use plans, and will be strengthening language when updating its new County Comprehensive Plan.
Secondly,the original business plan for the North American High Speed Rail Group's private "Velos" high speed passenger rail line between the Twin Cities and Rochester implied that local governments had reviewed and approved the concept. We wrote back in November:
The first was this statement on page 3 for Stage I: Proof of Concept Assessment: Rail and Real Estate:
Obtained acceptance and approval by Federal, State, County and Municipal governments.
The suspicions of citizens living in "fly over" area where no stops have been planned seem confirmed by this sort of assertion. We have not found "approval" of the project--or the Ziprail before it--by Goodhue County. Quite the contrary.
Moreover, while the spokester for the private bullet train and other supporters frequently note publicly that their project is much different from the Ziprail, the business plan asserts that earlier studies for the Ziprail are being used to support their project. We're not sure they can have it both ways.
We'll watch to see if the private group cribs the "pro" concept language from the MNDOT report. Perhaps more importantly, we'll look to see whether the Twin Cities press manages to report on local government opposition as well, rather than lazily spinning this as a tale of angry residents against the shiny thing.
One more contradiction from private group
More recently, the strategic director for the company told the U.S.-China Business Connections business group:, according to the Dolan Media article, Twin Cities-Rochester rail line proposal nears a decision:
The line, which would reach speeds between 180 and 200 mph, is expected to sustain itself financially, even without any business development attached to the project, she said.
Still, new development is an integral part of the project, she said. The group currently doesn’t own any property, but that would change if plans move forward.
“So we see the rail as the centerpiece of an overall project,” Meadley said during the meeting. “We will buy land and create end-point stations.”
This is fascinating, in that the original business plan stated that fares wouldn't sustain the line's operating costs. Moreover, this information is repeated on the company's webpage about the Minnesota project:
No public funds are requested for the project, with all project planning and capital funding requirements provided through private sources, and all operating costs supported by farebox revenues as well as related commercial, institutional, mixed use and industrial development revenues.
See the screenshot of the page at the top of this section. So much that has been on the company's webpage suddenly disappears. For one example, check our November post, Why did the North American High Rail Group delete page about negotiations with XpressWest?
If project "needs" development property for operating costs, must neighbors sell?
What if those along the line don't want to sell their property so that Wendy Meadley and her investors can prosper, but simply want to tend their land peaceably as their families have for generations, just like Naboth sought to do in his vineyard in the Old Testament?
Fortunately, present landowners won't be facing Jezebel's covetous stinkeye, but it's possibly for private railroads--even those that aren't using public money to build and operate their projects--to use eminent domain (condemnation).
As we reported in February's post, Zombie Zip Rail question in CD2 GOP forum could re-animate eminent domain debate
The use of eminent domain by a private railroad is not dependent on use of public funds for a project. The question of eminent domain was raised at the final meeting of MnDOT's Zip Rail Technical Advisory Committee. On page 4 of the minutes:
As a private entity, what is their process for land acquisition?
We do not know that yet. They can have eminent domain authority if they become a private railroad but they would have to get that authority from the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
The use of eminent domain by a private railroad is also allowed under Minnesota state statute. According to a League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo on Railroads and Cities:
Railroad corporations have the power to acquire land by purchase or eminent domain. This applies to any land that is needed for roadways, spur and side tracks, rights-of-way, depot grounds, yards, grounds for gravel pits, machine shops, warehouses, elevators, depots, station houses, and all other structures necessary for the use and operation of the road.
The League of Minnesota Cities' memo cites Minnesota state statute 222.27 Power to Acquire Property:
Every foreign and domestic railroad corporation shall have power to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, all necessary roadways, spur and side tracks, rights-of-way, depot grounds, yards, grounds for gravel pits, machine shops, warehouses, elevators, depots, station houses, and all other structures necessary or convenient for the use, operation, or enjoyment of the road, and may make with any other railroad company, such arrangements for the use of any portion of its tracks and roadbeds as it may deem necessary.
According to the North American High Speed Rail Group's business plan for the "Velos" private train, side real estate developments along the line will pay for the train, rather than ticket sales. In short, residents along the line face the distinct possibility that a private corporation with absolutely no track record can force them to sell their land along MnDOT right-of-ways, so that the corporation can use it to underwrite speculative real estate developments.
Remember: the rail group's strategic communications director told the City Pages:
It is the North American High Speed Rail Group's interest to plan, design, build and operate this passenger rail corridor through a private funding approach. In this way a full range of economic development opportunities that complement the passenger rail service can be included in a new financial model. When combined, the economics of a project like this are integrated and amplified in a new business model focused on a larger development landscape.
We'd wondered how Social Wendy would acquire property for that vision if the family farmers now occupying the land weren't willing to quit that imaginary landscape.
We'll go out on a limb here and suggest that this project is the sort of pro-professional policy that Thomas Frank decries (in a different context in a recent column for the New York Times). People in the way of a shiny new thing to convey the New Economy’s winners 77 miles between The Cities and Rochester? What losers.
Earlier this month we reported in Draz bill to make private high speed rail private; Meadley touts private funding for roads, bridges that area state representative Steve Drazkowski has tendered a bill to prevent the use of public fund and eminent domain by the project. We rarely agree with The Draz about anything, but this is an exception.
Surely, if everyone connected with this project is so gung-ho on making this a truly private project, they'll get on board and support the bill. Right?
Photo: The Rolling Dead, because regardless of the impossibilities of a short line in relatively a small transportation market, this thing just won't die.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail dot com as recipient.
Comments