Bluestem Prairie

Bills to re-open Appleton prison missed hearing deadlines, so how does option move forward?

Both the Swift County Monitor and the West Central Tribune are reporting that the sponsors of legislation to lease or purchase the shuttered private prison owned by CoreCivic, the human traffickers formerly known as Correctional Corporation of America, are hopeful the language will go forward, neither HF1510 nor  SF1322, its state senate companion bill, received committee hearings by Friday's deadline.

So how does that work? Spoiler alert: there's a way for the measure to go forward, although they missed the first deadline. This path may also help minimize messy citizen testimony and demonstrations in the state capitol.

In Appleton prison bill waiting to be heard in state Legislature, the Swift County Monitor reported in an article posted online Friday, March 10:

A bill that could put the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton in a better position to house prisoners at some point in the future has been introduced in the Minnesota House by District 17A Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg. In the Senate, District 17 Sen. Andrew Lang, R-Olivia, is carrying the bill.

However, the bill has yet to have a hearing and with the deadlines rapidly approaching in the Minnesota Legislature for bills to be heard, time is running out for it to move forward this year. [emphasis BSP]

The bill deadlines are:
  By March 10 committees must act favorably on bills in the house of origin;
  By March 17 committees must act favorably on bills, or companion bills, that met the first deadline in the other house; and,
  By March 31 committees must act favorably on major appropriation and finance bills.

Miller’s bill was introduced in the House Feb. 20 and referred to the Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. It has yet to be heard in the committee. Though no hearing was scheduled for this week, Miller says that one “is in the works.”

So far, it's not scheduled to be heard next week in the committee where it was first sent. As of Saturday, March 11, 2017, the calendar for the Minnesota House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee is hearing the following bills next week:

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

 

10:15 AM

Room: 10 State Office Building

Chair: Rep. Tony Cornish

Bills:

HF1773 - (Anderson): Tax Court appeal notice date clarified, alternative proof of timely mailing allowed, and small claims jurisdiction increased,

HF1838 - (Sauke): Tax related notice provisions modified.

HF630 - (Rarick): Child out-of-home placement cost aid under the Indian Child Welfare Act provided, and money appropriated.

HF1119 - (Theis): Criminal penalties modified.

HF1847 - (Becker-Finn): Background check consistency provided.

HF1670 - (Zerwas): Driver diversion program made permanent, proof of insurance provided by courts authorized, uniform traffic ticket amended, waiver of criminal surcharge authorized, court appearance for driving offenses mandated, and money appropriated.

Attachments:

(3/10/2017) H1670A5.pdf

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

 

10:15 AM

Room: 10 State Office Building

Chair: Rep. Tony Cornish

Bills:

HF1702 - (Kresha): Children under 14 informed of the right to counsel, waivers of counsel required in writing by the child, and notice to counsel required.

HF1443 - (Loonan): Insurance fraud regulated, penalties and notices modified, term defined, Commerce Fraud Bureau authority to apply for or execute search warrants clarified.

HF1932 - (Theis): Central Minnesota Sex Trafficking Task Force funding provided, and money appropriated.

HF2017 - (Clark): Voice of East African Women grant for programs to reduce recruitment of East African youth by violent organizations established, grant to local governments with populations at risk for recruitment by violent organizations established, and money appropriated.

HF2068 - (Daniels): Antiterrorism grant funding provided, and money appropriated.

HF1833 - (Johnson): Emergency vehicles exempted from motor vehicle size, weight, and load restricts; and technical changes made.

 

Thursday, March 16, 2017

 

10:15 AM

Room: 10 State Office Building

Chair: Rep. Tony Cornish

Bills:

HF2119 - (Urdahl): Disaster assistance account modified.

HF1165 - (Backer): Farmer financial eligibility conformed to the general poverty-based standard, and income limit removed.

HF1475 - (Franke): Soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism crime created.

HF1875 - (Zerwas): Controlled substance schedules modified.

HF1892 - (Howe): Military member clarified, and veterans added to offense of impersonation.

HF1179 - (Newberger): St. Cloud, Duluth, and Moorhead; emergency response teams funding provided, and money appropriated.

HF2121 - (Cornish): Fire safety account funds appropriated.

Nor has it been heard or placed on the calendar next week by the senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy committee.

Nevertheless, Miller and Lang remain happy warriors. At the West Central Tribune, Tom Cherveny reports in Legislators hopeful for Appleton prison legislation:

. . . State Sen. Andrew Lang, R-Olivia, and Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, expect the legislation they authored to be receiving committee hearings in the next week or two. Miller told the Tribune he is confident the legislation will win approval in the House. Lang said he is optimistic for the legislation in the Senate as well. . . .

We'll see if the bills are added next week, before the second deadline, even though they weren't heard in committee in either body by the first deadline.

DOC Spokester: Challenge Incarceration Programs more effective option

Meanwhile, Cherveny reports that "neither legislator has heard how Gov. Mark Dayton feels about the legislation this session." However, the veteran reporter did ask the Governor's agency about the plan:

The Department of Corrections is not interested in utilizing the space in the Appleton facility, according to [Department of Corrections communications director Sarah] Fitzgerald. The department wants to address the needs by investing in the Challenge Incarceration Programs at the correctional facilities in Moose Lake and Togo. The chemical dependency program reduces recidivism and encourages offenders to change their criminal behaviors, according to Fitzgerald.

"CIP has a recidivism rate of only 32 percent and the additional beds would have an impact of over a half million dollars in cost avoided per year,'' she told the Tribune in an email.

Fitzgerald mentions the CIP facilities that house male offenders; CIP for women moved to Shakopee in 2014. The prison in Appleton has housed male offenders only; reopening the facility would not address overcrowding at Shakopee nor address needs of female offenders now boarded at county jails, although Miller used their plight (reported in the Star Tribune) when he spoke in 2016 to his earlier bill (HF3223) for reopening the prison.

Cost of Appleton facility?

In the West Central Tribune article Miller brings up prison expansion plan that the Dayton administration has abandoned, without getting into specifics about how much re-opening and running the Appleton prison might cost.

Fortunately, there's a document from Miller's last prison rodeo (on behalf of his political contributors): the fiscal note created by House nonpartisan staff for 2016's HF3223. Here's that document:

Fiscal Note HF 3223 posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd

 

Governor v. Cornish budget bills

Bluestem Prairie reached out to Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center, the minority lead on the Minnesota House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee, in order to discover how policy bills that missed deadlines might still go forward. Hilstrom speculated that while the House bill itself wouldn't reach the floor without suspension of the rules, committee chair Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, could insert funding for leasing/purchasing, then operating the facility, in in his budget bill, which has yet to be unveiled.

According to Hilstrom, HF986 is the "governor's bill" for the courts, public safety and corrections. If Bluestem isn't mistaken (we may be), Cornish can hear testimony on the policy bills, but not move them forward; instead, the measure would be funded in the Public Safety omnibus budget bill.

One supposes that the language might also be slipped into another bill via the amendment process in committee or on the House floor--though that isn't exactly the "hearing" for the bills that Miller and Lang say they've been promised.

Should funding for leasing/purchasing and operating the prison reach the Governor's desk via an omnibus budget bill, Mark Dayton has the option of a line item veto. In Minnesota, a governor can use the line item  for a budget line (example here), but not a policy line, Hilstrom explained to Bluestem.

Hilstrom is the author of HF1692, which would require all state and local prisoners to be housed in public facilities, while prohibiting the state and counties from contracting with private prisons. Like its senate companion bill, SF1675 (Ron Latz), the bill did not receive a committee hearing by the March 10 deadline. There's a lot of that going around.

We'll keep watching this issue.

Note: Process isn't Bluestem's forte, so if we've stumbled in this explanation, please let us know.

Photo: The prison fence, with Appleton's water tower behind it.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the  paypal subscription button.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

Chronic Wasting Disease: concerns for MN wild whitetails prompts deer farm moratorium bill

Concerns over the impact of chronic wasting disease (CWD) spreading from farmed deer to Minnesota's treasured  1-million-animal wild whitetail herd--which generates "more than $500 million annually in economic activity tied to deer hunting"-- has lead to the introduction of HF1948, which would impose a moratorium on new deer farms until January 1, 2020.

While the headline at the Duluth News Tribune might make the casual reader think deer farms are now spas for captive whitetails, reading down column turns up this data:

Recap of current CWD investigations of farmed deer in Minnesota:

• Merrifield (Crow Wing County): Herd of origin for the current CWD investigation. Positive CWD test from two white-tailed deer. Remains under quarantine.

• Dassel (Meeker County): Positive CWD test from one white-tailed deer. Remains under quarantine.

• Freeport (Stearns County): No CWD tests conducted. Remains under quarantine.

• Brainerd (Crow Wing County): Negative CWD test from four white-tailed deer. Released from quarantine.

• Mountain Iron (St. Louis County): Negative CWD test from one white-tailed deer. Released from quarantine.

The new article--and the bill--come on the hooves of investigative reporter Tony Kennedy articles in the Star Tribune, including Tensions over deer farming surface in Minnesota's double outbreak of CWD and National alliance calls for a review of Minnesota's handling of deer farms.

Kennedy reports in the first article:

A painstaking and high-stakes fight to stop a deadly outbreak of chronic wasting disease in wild deer in southeastern Minnesota has expanded to include faraway cases on commercial deer farms.

The infections in captive deer — potentially cascading to multiple farms — have prompted state quarantines on five private deer herds and renewed tensions between the Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Animal Health, which regulates the business of deer and elk bred as livestock for fenced-in trophy hunts and other purposes.

The double outbreak has both agencies scrambling to halt the mad-cow-like disease from spreading and becoming intractable, as it has in Wisconsin and other states. As recently as Thanksgiving, Minnesota was thought to be CWD-free.

At risk is the state’s 1-million-animal deer herd, more than $500 million annually in economic activity tied to deer hunting and the state’s legacy of family and friends bonding over whitetails in the fall.

“It’s tremendously important to Minnesota to get this right,” DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr said last week while he waited for a Board of Animal Health CWD update. . . .

Cozy relationship

Minnesota is home to 460 deer and elk farms that generate rural jobs and economic activity last measured in 2011 at $17.6 million a year. Dr. Paul Anderson, a veterinarian and assistant director at the Board of Animal Health, said the so-called “farmed cervidae” industry is keenly focused on CWD prevention and mindful that transmission of the disease can travel in or out of the mandatory 8-foot-high fences that enclose private herds.

“The DNR’s task is to deal with the wild deer and our task is to deal with the people who farm them,” Anderson said. “We’re working on this thing together as a team.”

But while Anderson speaks highly of the cooperation between the two agencies, two DNR officials on the front lines of CWD prevention say they have been frustrated by untimely and incomplete information sharing by Animal Health staff. They also see coziness in the relationship between deer farmers and the board, made up of three livestock producers and two veterinarians appointed by the governor.

“I struggle with the closeness of the regulators and the industry,” said Lou Cornicelli, the DNR’s leading CWD tactician and top big game researcher. “They are closer to their stakeholders than we are to ours.”

The DNR is particularly frustrated, agency e-mails show, about farmed deer escaping into the wild. The agency is also concerned the Board of Animal Health might change its CWD-related deer farm regulations, possibly compounding the threat to wild deer. . . .

Read the entire article at the Strib. Later in February, Kennedy reported in National alliance calls for a review of Minnesota's handling of deer farms:

The National Deer Alliance, an advocacy group for wild deer made up of public and private interests, is calling on Minnesota's Legislative Audit Commission to review deer farm oversight by the state Board of Animal Health.

Federal Premium Conservation Director Ryan Bronson, a board member at National Deer Alliance, said Friday that the organization is concerned about the possible spread of chronic wasting disease from captive deer in Minnesota to the state's wild herd. The resource of more than 1 million free-ranging whitetails generates annual economic activity of more than $500 million.

The alliance suspects that the Board of Animal Health is too cozy with the farmed deer industry to effectively regulate it, Bronson said. The state is home to about 460 deer and elk farms, including herds of penned animals sold for private shooting.

"If the agency isn't protecting the interests of all Minnesotans — and it's not just hunters — that's troubling,'' Bronson said.

Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, who is vice chair of the Legislative Audit Commission, said he received the audit request and forwarded it to Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles. Nobles could decide on his own to investigate, or the request will become a potential topic for consideration by the commission, Hansen said.

Hansen said the audit request didn't come with a specific allegation of wrongdoing, but he supports an independent evaluation of the commission based on his belief that the Board of Animal Health is an example of "regulatory capture'' by the livestock industry. . . .

Hansen, himself a deer hunter on his farm in Southeastern Minnesota near Harmony, is the chief author of the bill. International Falls DFLer Rob Ecklund, Hermantown DFLer Mary Murphy, and Minneapolis Democrats Jean Wagenius and Diane Loeffler, are co-authors.

Maybe there's more than the ability to wear blaze pink while hunting with firearms that concerns women in the Minnesota House who care about the state's deer hunting heritage.

Photo: A whitetail deer with CWD. While the prion disease doesn't affect humans, it's awful for deer.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the  paypal subscription button.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

All bonding is equal but one industry is more equal than others: the curious case of the RFA

There's little expressed opposition to Republican state representative Tim Miller's HF14, which will fund Minnesota's Rural Finance Authority, a farm crisis-era  program that's persisted. Typically, funding for the program is part of the bonding bill, Miller told the Minnesota House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday.

What's causing concern--and those asking questions intend to vote for the bill--is that RFA isn't the only project left behind by the failure of the Minnesota House to pass a bonding bill last year.

Representative Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, minority lead in the House Capital Investment committee, and Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, asked a few questions about why this bill was being fast tracked over so many other bonding (capital investment) bills.

It's not a rural versus metro thing, the statements by both women made clear. What they didn't address is who is putting off bonding. To learn about that, Bluestem recommends Don Davis's piece for Forum Communications from late December, Don’t bet on big 2017 Minnesota bonding bill:

. . . While Republicans hold the majority in the House and Senate, they do not have enough votes to reach the required super majority to borrow money. That means Democrats who want a bigger bill, and different projects than the GOP wants, will have a say.

“We are open to a bonding bill, but it would be end of session,” said Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, who will be Senate majority leader. . . .

[Dean]Urdahl predicted a bonding bill for “some pressing projects,” but a big one will not come until 2018, “the way it normally is done.”

The representative handing the bonding gavel to Urdahl, Republican Paul Torkelson of Hanska, said he “would be very surprised” if there is a big 2017 bonding bill, adding that “it is really too bad.”

So what's the rest of Minnesota waiting for while one private sector--agriculture--goes to the head of the line? Hausman explains that it may set a precedent of individual projects going forward but other equally worthy projects being left behind. She cited an article from the Worthington Globe noting that legislators from that area are suggesting this:

Everyone in St. Paul agrees the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System needs to come to Worthington, but that isn’t the problem.

Robinson said while both houses and the Governor’s office are all in agreement that funding for the Lewis & Clark connection to Worthington is in their bill, the bonding bill is one of the last things that will be done in the legislative session in late May.

“It’s where all the bargaining chips are held; it’s the last piece of negotiation,” Robinson said.

Robinson, Hamilton and Weber don’t want to wait that long to get construction started. That’s why they’re working on standalone legislation to free up approximately $8 million in surplus funds from the money used on phase two construction from Magnolia to Adrian to be used on phase three. The extra money, which resulted from favorable bids, is locked up with a restriction that it can only be used for phase two construction.

Combined with $9 million in federal funds, Robinson said the money would get a majority of the construction done, but not all of it. The city and Lewis & Clark officials want to get the money as soon as possible in order to go out to bid early and get favorable bids.

“If it stays in the bonding bill and it passes, it would be late May, and we would lose much if not all of the 2017 construction season,” Robinson said. “The plans are done, and the easements are in place. So, if we had that $8 million, we could go out to bid within several weeks.”

As Hausman notes, other projects across the state face the problem of losing a construction season. Here's her observation:

Liebling also questioned why HF14 jumps ahead of other projects. She understood that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture couldn't make the loans for farmers but didn't know why this was more urgent than a leaking dam in Lanesboro and other infrastructure issues around the state that everyone feels are urgent in their communities.

Here's her question:

Miller responded that there was a timeliness in HF14 in that farmers need to get crops in during the spring. However, we're puzzled how this argument cancels the point that Hausman made about the construction industry, which like farming is bound by Minnesota's pronounced seasons.

We're seeing this frame--farmers' needs over those of others and "Greater Minnesota" defined as farmers vs the metro and regulators (Cargill CEO Greg Page at the Water Summit)--act as a shorthand in policy questions.

It obscures the needs of small cities for drinking water and wastewater system replacements, the Lewis and Clark water pipeline, the dam at Lanesboro, and dozens of other projects across Great Minnesota.

It's as if Minnesota outside of the metro is nothing but a monoculture of farms and nothing else. This is a lazy and divisive frame. By all means pass this bill--but let it be the exception and not the rule.

The legislature should knock it off treating the bonding bill as the item "where all the bargaining chips are held; it’s the last piece of negotiation," and instead get a bonding bill that funds projects across the state. Many of these were vetted last year--and a new construction season begins mere weeks from now.

We'd like to see construction workers, farmers, and more all prosper. Get working, representatives and senators.

Photo: The Lanesboro Dam.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the  paypal subscription button.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

Is Zombie Ziprail, aka North American High Speed Rail Group, aka MN Corridor, finally at peace?

Bluestem Prairie had noted on January 9 in Not nicknamed Zombie Ziprail for nothing: NAHSRG rebranded as Minnesota Corridor, that there was nothing but a home page on a new webpage, and that Chief Strategist Wendy Meadley had left the building, according to her Linked In page. And this:

Once upon a time, there was a public project (Ziprail). Once upon a time, North American High Speed Rail put together a business plan (later redacted). Once upon a time, it was going to use investment by EB-5 visa holders to help finance the high speed rail project. Like the unfortunate creatures in the Walking Dead, this thing seems to have less and less meat on its bones with each new rising.

Now Heather Carlson reports in the Post Bulletin article, High-speed rail at crossroads?:

That skepticism comes as the status of the private company that had been pushing the project is unclear. The North American High Speed Rail Group had been leading the charge to do something never before done in America — privately fund a high-speed rail line.The company estimated the $4.2 billion rail line could make the trip from Rochester to Bloomington within 29 minutes.

But questions are swirling as to what has happened to the ail group. Visitors to North American High Speed Rail Group's website are instead referred to a website for "Minnesota Corridor." Wendy Meadley, who served as the rail group's chief strategy officer, states on her LinkedIn page that she left the company in October. She also terminated her status as a lobbyist for the rail group on Nov. 2, according to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

Meadley declined a request for comment.

Records show that Meadley purchased the web domain name for Minnesota Corridor — mnhsr.com. Meanwhile, Joseph Wang's LinkedIn page still lists him as chairman and CEO of the North American High Speed Rail Group. Wang could not be reached for comment.

Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the agency has not heard from the rail group or "anyone on a related topic for a number of months."

This lack of activity might encourage some to suggest that proposed legislation should be dropped as does one Rochester Republican, Carlson reports:

Some fellow Republican lawmakers are speaking out against the legislation — not because of what is in the bill but because they do not believe the high-speed rail project is going to happen.

"It seems like a waste of energy. It's probably great for voters in their districts. I just don't see it having any real impact," said Rep. Nels Pierson, R-Rochester.

However, Pierson has a past with rail projects in them, so his "pay no attention to the zombie train" attitude may not be the best advice to project opponents. On the PB's Political Notebook blog, Carlson reported in Rochester Realtor to announce run for Benson's seat that "According to his LinkedIn profile, he has also served as a consultant for the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance." (The information is no longer on his Linked In page). In 2011, the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance blog announced Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance Unveils Zip Rail.

Moreover, Pierson "continued study of Zip Rail to connect Rochester to Minneapolis," according to the Post Bulletin endorsement of his candidacy for the state house in 2014. We're guessing he's not on the same page as Draz.

Carlson reports that project opponents are vigilant:

Opponents of the proposed high-speed rail line are also left wondering what happened to the rail group. Heather Arndt, co-chairwoman of Citizens Concerned About Rail, said it has been nearly a year since she talked to Meadley. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the private company, she said it is important rail opponents keep up the fight.

"Until it's good, dead, buried and six feet under, we're staying engaged," Arndt said. "We're continuing to work with elected officials at all levels and stay engaged and watch it. These are our homes and our communities and businesses and we are not going to walk away from it while it could still come back around."

Sound strategy, given the fact that this zombie project has yet to experience clear head shot. Since first learning about concerns about the project from Minnesota Farmers Union members while serving as a member of the group's policy committee, this seemed like a "flyover" project that positioned convenience over local landowners and communities needs and rights.

Read about the legislation against the project in the Post Bulletin article.

Image: Marge Simpson found the passenger rail project office in the cartoon series. It's been a bit harder pinning down the folks behind the southeastern Minnesota private rail project.

JANUARY FUNDRAISING DRIVE

Please donate! If you enjoy Bluestem's take on the news--and our investigative blogging--please consider throwing some spare change into our paypal account during our January contribution drive. Bluestem relies on reader contributions to continue publishing.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

JANUARY FUNDRAISING DRIVE

Please donate! If you enjoy Bluestem's take on the news--and our investigative blogging--please consider throwing some spare change into our paypal account during our January contribution drive. Bluestem relies on reader contributions to continue publishing.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

Not nicknamed Zombie Ziprail for nothing: NAHSRG rebranded as Minnesota Corridor

The website for Minnesota's incredible shrinking high speed rail project has just gotten a rebrand, along with having a lot less information (i.e. none) posted online.

North American High Speed Rail Group's domain name, http://nahsr.com, now redirects visitors to something called the Minnesota Corridor, domain name http://mnhsr.com.

A search on ICANN's WHOIS site reveals that Minnesota Corridor's domain was registered on October 22, 2016 with one person for registrant contact, admin contact and tech contact:

Name: Wendy Meadley

Organization: Social Wendy Group

Mailing Address: 6403 Limerick Drive, Edina Minnesota 55439 US . . .

The screenshot at the top of this post is the entirety of the Minnesota Corridor two and a half months later.

The rebrand itself isn't news. In our December 13, 2016 post, Tonight on Southern Minnesota's walking dead: why won't zombie ziprail stay dead & other stuff, we'd noted that the Star Tribune reported about the name change:

At the Star Tribune's "Who Knew?" division, Janet Moore reported in Private plan for Twin Cities-Rochester high-speed rail draws pushback:

The prospect of a high-speed rail line slicing through the rural stretch of land between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.

To others, it’s folly.

. . .[A] privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project. [emphasis added]

The group’s reorganization will continue to meet opposition from a determined grass-roots group called Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) and several southern Minnesota lawmakers.

There's no listing for Minnesota Corridor in the business filings database at the Minnesota Secretary of State's website. Meadley is still registered as a lobbyist for the North American High Speed Rail Group with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Perhaps the good country people in CCARL can ask the board whether, in the name of transparency, the reorganized entity needs to register as an association with the board.

It might be helpful for the newly reorganized group tell the Minnesota Secretary of State's office about that new name as well.

While Meadley owns the domain name, she doesn't list either the North American High Speed Rail Group nor the Minnesota Corridor as current employers in her LinkedIn profile (below) as of January 9, 2017. Of course, there's no law (that we know of) requiring the Social Wendy Group to actualize its client list.

Once upon a time, there was a public project (Ziprail). Once upon a time, North American High Speed Rail put together a business plan (later redacted). Once upon a time, it was going to use investment by EB-5 visa holders to help finance the high speed rail project. Like the unfortunate creatures in the Walking Dead, this thing seems to have less and less meat on its bones with each new rising.

We could go on....as must likely this grifters' dreamscape will appear every once in a while, as did "Wendy Meadley sitting on a bench on the ground floor of the State Office Bldg" last Thursday, a source tells us in an email.

Screenshots: Top: the Minnesota Corridor's website (side note--thank heavens CCARL is good about keeping screenshots of the old pages in case journalists ever want documentation of earlier manifestations of the project. Bottom: Wendy Meadley's LinkedIn profile as of January 9, 2017.

Please donate! If you enjoy Bluestem's take on the news--and our investigative blogging--please consider throwing some spare change into our paypal account during our January contribution drive. Bluestem relies on reader contributions to continue publishing.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

Rural broadband blues: was 2016 provision a poison pill? Plus Pat Garofalo says funny things

After we posted Empire of the senseless: rural legislators shrug off rural broadband funding for coming session, we came across two more rural broadband pieces via The Morning Take.

In Mark Fischenich's article at the Mankato Free Press, Rural broadband fight to continue in '17 session, there's this item:

. . . But while lawmakers and Gov. Mark Dayton have had well-publicized debates over the grant funding, the telecommunications industry has been winning quieter battles that may be undermining the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program, according to Dan Dorman.

"It's really been a tough uphill battle," said Dorman, executive director of the Greater Minnesota Partnership, which lobbies for policies that promote outstate economic development.

One of Dorman's biggest concerns is a change in the grant program approved by the Legislature in 2016 that allows existing cable companies and other internet providers to challenge grants being sought by a new competitor looking to enter a marketplace.

The provision seemed reasonable at first blush — that existing companies could object to state aid being provided to competitors if the existing provider promised to upgrade its service.

"On the surface, a lot of legislators said, 'Well, that sounds reasonable — let the local provider have that chance," Dorman said. "... It sounds like it just protects the local guy, but it really is really anti-competitive and keeps the competitor out." 

The problem is that incumbent providers can challenge most grant applications by promising that they are planning to provide better service. The promised service can be substantially slower than what the new competitor is proposing, and the existing providers don't have to actually follow through on their promise.

With 2016 coming to a close, not a single grant has been authorized from the $35 million in funding for the program approved by the Legislature last spring.

"It sure looks like — since the grants haven't been awarded and everybody's hush-hush — that there's a problem with the challenge process," Dorman said. "... At least the rumors are that it's causing problems." He also worries that companies in coming years will choose to back off on expansion plans into underserved areas, deciding that any grant application will be challenged by an existing provider.

"What we don't know is, will this have a chilling effect moving forward?" he said, noting that it can cost $25,000 or more to develop preliminary plans for expanding a broadband network into a new city or rural area.

Lovely.  But there's more. Once again, Republicans are promoting the notion that advances in technology will make fiber broadband obsolete and the invisible hand of the marketplace will swoop in with cheap wireless or whatever. The Morning Take features this fun quote from state representative Pat Garofalo speaking to MNN:

Republican Representative Pat Garofalo, [R-Farmington] says technological changes and market forces will improve broadband access “way more than more government spending.  Just like the government didn’t buy cell phone towers to bring cell phone service to rural areas, it’s the exact same thing with broadband,” he says...Garofalo says fiber-optic installations are very expensive and don’t make sense in low-density rural settings — but he says emerging technologies such as wireless could work.  . . .

As a matter of fact, just as the state's broadband grants allow rural internet providers to bring broadband service to rural customers, who then pay for the service (it's not owned by the government or free to subscribers), "the government"--the federal government --did indeed provide provide to the telecommunications industry to bring cell phone service to rural areas.

Under Wikipedia's entry for the Universal Service Fund we read:

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fund reported a total of $7.82 billion in disbursements in 2014,^[1] divided among its four programs. The fund is supported by charging telecommunications companies a fee which is set quarterly. As of the third quarter of 2016, the rate is 17.9%^[2] of a telecom company's interstate and international end-user revenues.^[3]

While separate itemization is not required by the FCC, it is common for USF fees to be listed separately from other charges on a consumer's bill.^[4][5] Universal Service charges should not be confused with what are sometimes referred to in telephone company bills as "Federal Subscriber Line" charges, which are access fees charged by telecommunications companies, not the local or federal government.

In short, a tax. What does it provide? According the FCC:

The Universal Service Fund provides support through four programs:

• High-Cost Support (now known as the Connect America Fund) provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high-cost areas, thereby ensuring that the residents of these regions have access to reasonably comparable service at rates reasonably comparable to urban areas . . .

In early 2009, Congress directed the FCC to develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure every American has “access to broadband capability. The plan was released in March of 2010. The plan highlighted ways that the government could influence the broadband ecosystem including to “reform current universal service mechanisms to support the deployment of broadband and voice in high-cost areas; and ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband; and in addition, support efforts to boost adoption and utilization.”

That support (High-Cost Support/Connect America Fund) has gone to such things as towers. CNET reported back in 2006's Cell phone coverage holes hurt public safety:

So why haven't carriers been able to fill in the coverage gaps left from retiring their old analog service or expand service to rural areas that have never had coverage? The answer comes down to economics. A single cell phone tower can cost between $500,000 and $1 million to deploy, and in many rural areas there aren't enough subscribers to pay for the up-front cost of building a new tower.

"Every one of our carriers is trying to cover these rural areas as quickly as they can," said Clay Dover, the incoming executive director of the Rural Cellular Association in 2007. "But without the population density, it's costly. So it makes sense to start rollouts in areas where there are more people."

A federal government program known as the Universal Service Fund has helped provide some cash for rural network construction. And it will likely continue to help operators looking to serve sparsely populated regions of the country. The program is funded by phone companies, which pay a fee based on the percentage of interstate telecommunications services that their customers use. Most operators pass on the charges to consumers.

Rural operators can also apply for low-interest loans from the Rural Utilities Service, a development agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Funding for these loans will likely be debated next year, when Congress reauthorizes the Farm Bill.

So yes, telecoms received support to bring cell phone service to sparsely populated parts of rural America--and the program (rebranded as the Connect America Fund) now helps fund among other things towers for voice and wireless. In 2015, Fierce Telecom reported in AT&T takes $427M in CAF II funding, sets plan to bring wireline, wireless broadband to 18 states:

AT&T (NYSE: T) has joined fellow Tier 1 telco CenturyLink, Consolidated Communications and others in accepting $427 million annually in phase two of the FCC Connect America Fund (CAF-II) program, allowing it reach 2.2 million rural locations in 18 of the 21 states in its operating territory with broadband services.

In making its decision to accept the funding, AT&T said it "carefully analyzed a number of factors including the regulatory obligations associated with accepting the funds and whether the funding makes deployment economically feasible (including by using our advanced fixed wireless technology)."   

The service provider will meet the commitments of the CAF II program using a mix of traditional wireline and wireless technologies. In the case of wireless, AT&T will construct new wireless towers in previously unserved areas.

Jim Cicconi, senior executive VP for external and legislative affairs at AT&T, said in a letter to the FCC that "they will diligently pursue the necessary tower siting and permitting processes so that these new towers can be completed in a timely manner."

Those wireless towers service voice as well as wireless broadband--and the towers are underwritten by the government program, just as earlier towers were installed with the help of the Universal Service Funds and the Rural Utilities Service program.

There's more. Garofalo is recycling points he's made in past sessions, and there's another way to look at the claim. He goes on to suggest that other technologies might be cheaper:

Garofalo says fiber-optic installations are very expensive and don’t make sense in low-density rural settings — but he says emerging technologies such as wireless could work.  Garofalo ays “if the policy changes are made to allow for more wireless technologies, new emerging technologies, that gives us the opportunity to deliver broadband to way more people at a far lower price.”

In 2015, consultant Dan Dawson wrote in Wireless is Not a Substitute for Wireline:

Any time there is talk about government funding for broadband, arguments arise that wireless broadband is just as good as wireline broadband. But it is not the same and is not a substitute. I love wireless broadband and it is a great complement to having a home or business broadband connection, but there are numerous reasons why wireless broadband ought not to be funded by government broadband programs.

The most recent argument for wireless broadband comes the Minnesota House which is currently in session. In last year’s legislative session, Minnesota approved a $20 million grant program to help expand broadband in rural areas of the state. That grant was distributed to a number of broadband projects, all wireline, which required a significant matching fund from an entity building the wireline facilities. The 2014 funding, which mostly went to independent telephone companies, is being used to bring broadband to thousands of rural residents as well as 150 rural businesses and 83 rural schools and libraries.

But the chairman of the House Job Growth and Energy Affordability Committee in Minnesota killed an additional state grant; it’s been left out of this year’s House budget. Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, said that wired broadband is too costly in sparsely populated areas and believes that wireless and satellite technologies are more financially effective. . . .

The NTCA, which is now called the Rural Broadband Association, sponsored a report from Vantage Point Solutions that compares wireless and wireline technologies, and which argues that government funding should only be used to fund wireline networks. This whitepaper makes many of the same arguments I have been making for years about the topic, and included a few I had not considered. Here are some of the major arguments made by the whitepaper:

• Even without considering the cost of spectrum, it costs far more to build a wireless network when comparing construction cost per megabit that can be delivered to end users. Modern fiber networks rarely cost more than $10 per Mbps capacity created, and often far less than that, while it costs several hundred dollars per effective megabit to construct a wireless network using any of the common technologies like LTE.
• From a physics perspective, the amount of frequency available through US allocated spectrum is not large enough to deliver large symmetrical bandwidth, which is the goal of the National Broadband Plan. This limitation is a matter of physics and not of technology. That limitation is still going to be there with 5G or later wireless technology unless the FCC massively reworks the way it allows frequency to be used.
• At least in today’s world, the prices charged to customers are drastically different for wireless and wireline data. Already today, 25% of residences are downloading more than 100 gigabits per month in total data. That can be affordable on wireline, but almost every current wireless provider has monthly data caps that range upward from just a few gigabits per month. A customer on a capped data plan who uses 100 gigabits in a month would face an astronomical monthly bill.
• The report also made the economic argument that the shelf-life for wireless equipment and networks is relatively short, in the range of seven years, while fiber networks can have an incredibly long economic life. The report argues that the Connect America Fund should not be investing in technology that will obsolete and potentially unusable just a few years after it’s built. There certainly is no guarantee that the large wireless carriers will make needed future investments once they stop getting a federal subsidy.
• The report also made all of the normal comparisons between the two technologies in terms of operating characteristics such as available bandwidth, latency times, and high reliability, all of which tilt in favor of landline.

We'll be keeping an eye on broadband funding proposals as the session drags on.

Photo: Even the cows understand the need for internet service.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

Empire of the senseless: rural legislators shrug off rural broadband funding for coming session

Although Greater Minnesotans speak up about the need for high speed broadband and the issue frequently grabbed headlines in rural newspapers last year, at Don Davis's Capital Chatter blog, the veteran Forum Communications reporter writes in Broadband not a top 2017 topic:

A new report says $100 million in state money is needed every two years to help expand broadband high-speed internet throughout Minnesota, but rural lawmakers have said relatively little about it leading up to the 2017 Legislature.

We posted about the report in Need for speed: MN DEED releases Governor's Task Force on Broadband 2016 Annual Report.

Davis is a trusted reporter--and we're grateful that he's dug deep and turned up some people in rural Minnesota not talking about the need for broadband. That's fine investigative work, because rural broadband access is common table talk here in far west central Minnesota. We've gotten ours--and the consensus of our friends is that we're all hoping other people in Greater Minnesota also coming to enjoy the same service that we do.

During the fall campaigns, some Republicans even used this common sentiment to place-bait against the Evil Metro.

In District 10B candidates share positions, Chelsey Perkins' coverage for the Brainerd Dispatch of a candidate forum between Lueck and DFL challenger Erin Wagner, we read this passage:

 . . . Funding for broadband internet expansion in rural areas, was also a success, he said, adding metro legislators don't understand those needs.

"Frankly, they just don't know what you're talking about when we're talking about no coverage or spotty coverage," Lueck said.

How that's changed since early October. Davis continues:

In a series of Forum News Service lawmaker interviews before the session, none brought up the issue. When asked, rural legislators said more state aid is needed, but there was a feeling that the issue is less of a priority than in past years.

Getting enough money to expand broadband will be tough, "given the fact that there are other issues that get more attention," Sen. Kent Eken, D-Twin Valley, said when asked.

The senator said that broadband is not a high priority for the general public when compared to improving roads and spending money on other issues.

"In some of our rural communities, you don't know what you are missing if you don't have it," he said.

Oh?  In December, Ann Treacy wrote on the Blandin on Broadband blog in Rural Minnesota needs broadband to diversify: Heard on MPR:

Today I’m thankful for archived radio shows. Yesterday on MPR, Marianne Combs spoke about rural Minnesota and the economy. On the show she had Aaron Brown, author of “Overburden: Modern Life on the Iron Range,”  the website “Minnesota Brown: Modern Life in Northern Minnesota, ‘ and host of The Great Northern Radio Show on Northern Community Radio. Larry Cuffe Jr., mayor of Virginia and Ben Winchester, research fellow in the Extension Center for Community Vitality at the University of Minnesota.

It was great to hear from three experts with deep seeded roots in rural areas. The show is definitely worth a listen if you missed it too. I’m going to pare my notes down to what was explicitly said about broadband.

Several people noted that broadband is necessary for economic diversification. Not everyone wants to work for the Mining or to farm, broadband opens the door to other opportunities. Entrepreneurs need broadband to work with people around the world or across the street. And you can’t attract new businesses without broadband. . . .

But perhaps the lawmakers are on to something. Not funding additional broadband might ease some of Greater Minnesota's childcare crisis, if young people elect to move to communities with fast upload and download speeds, rather than settle in and raise families out here.

Photo: Even the cows understand this issue.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

CCA is now CoreCivic: Cornish leans toward renting rebranded private prison in Appleton

The Swift County Monitor reports that Minnesota House Public Safety Chair Tony Cornish would like to lease the closed private prison in Appleton--and that Corrections Corporation of America has rebranded itself as CoreCivic.

The paper reports in Promotion of Appleton prison to continue in 2017:

Swift County is already gearing up to make another effort to get the State of Minnesota to lease or buy the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton.

At the county board’s meeting Dec. 19, Commissioner Gary Hendrickx, District 1-Appleton, reported that he and Commission Chair Pete Peterson, District 3-south Benson, had attended a meeting of representatives of lobbying firm Goff Public and CoreCivic, the owner of the prison.

CoreCivic is the new name of Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest owner of private prison facilities. It changed its name this past fall. . . .

Also at the meeting was District 17A state Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, and state Senator-elect Andrew Lang, R-Olivia. The meeting was called to formulate a strategy for lobbying the Legislature during the 2017 session. . . .

It has been estimated that reopening the prison would create 350 jobs for western Minnesota, have a $13 to $15 million payroll, and provide a significant boost to the local economies of the many small towns from which the employees come.

Hendrickx told fellow commissioners that it seems that the appetite to purchase isn’t as strong as it was last year; there is more of an appetite to lease, he said.

Whose appetite is favoring leasing over buying? Commissioner Ed Pederson, District 2-north Benson, asked Hendrickx.

Republican Tony Cornish, chair of the state House’s Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee, seems to have more of an appetite for a lease, Hendrickx said. The lease doesn’t require the big upfront dollar amount a purchase would, he said.

Minnesota Democrat Gov. Mark Dayton, who has not looked at any use of the Appleton prison favorably, still has indicated he leans toward a purchase if it is done.

For the Appleton area, whether it is a lease or a purchase, it is the jobs that are important, Hendrickx said. But it is also important that the agreement that is reached whether a purchase or a lease shows a commitment to use the facility for the long term to ensure job stability, Hendrickx said. [emphasis added]

Unintentional humor? The story is filed under Death Notices. It's also clear from Commissioner Hendrickx that for Swift County, this thrust isn't about overcrowding or concern for the inmates, as was claimed during the session, but jobs.

Those pitching re-opening the prison carry on about the high unemployment in Swift County and the region surrounding it. Curiously, the Morris Sun Tribune, in next door Stevens County, reported earlier this month that the poor unfortunates at the Riverview chain of megadairies, "will advertise in at least 20 newspapers in several states" and be lucky if one applicant answers. Perhaps the unemployed in Swift County are only qualified to care for incarcerated human beings and not cows locked in CAFO-style buildings; perhaps it's prairie magical realism, where both labor and job shortages blossom under the same sun.

As for the feel-good branding, learn more about that in Richard Eskow's commentary in Huffington Post, “CoreCivic”: New Name, Same For-Profit Prison Greed. Eskow mentions campaign contributions on the federal level. Last month, we looked at CCA/CoreCivic giving in Minnesota in Swift Co Monitor endorses Falk, & all Tim Miller got was some lousy cash from CCA execs. About that lousy cash:

[Miller] did manage to snag some campaign cash from Corrections Corporation of America's executives and their spouses, as well as from a couple of CCA corporate lobbyists. From his pre-general election report to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (available here):

There's $250.00 each from CCA Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President David Garfunkle and his wife Carrie, both of Franklin, Tennessee, followed by the same amounts from CCA Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer Anthony Grande and his wife, as well as  from CCA President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director Damon Hininger and his wife (page 4 of Miller's 2016 pre-general report).

Former Appleton warden Daren Swenson, now CCA's Tennessee-based Vice President, Facility Operations, Business Unit 2 also gave Miller $250 (page 6 of Miller's 2016 pre-general report).

Finally, there's the $500 each of CCA's corporate lobbyists (Kelly Durham and Brad Regens, page 7 of Miller's 2016 pre-general report) handed over.

 All that money must be smooth as Tennessee whiskey for blunting the blow of rejection by Swift County's finest news source (We're not being snarly about the Monitor, whose editor is highly respected among country newspaper people).

An we haven't even touched on CCA's contributions to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has given $755,000 in the last ten days to the MN Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund. Earlier this year, the MN Jobs Coalition tracker Kip Charles Christianson jostled parade volunteers at Raymond Harvest Fest Parade.

Remember, Minnesota Republicans are talking about draining the swamp, but not how they'll replace the cash that waters their own campaigns if they were to not reward CoreCivics for the cash.

Here's the document about the 2017 Goff Public lobbying contract from the January 3, 2017, Swift County Board meeting packet:

2017 Session Swift County Goff Public Contract posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd

Screenshot: We're not sure if the Swift County Monitor wanted to file this story under the obits.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Trump victory puts suburban #MNGOP rep on point for state FSA & Rural Development heads

At the Star Tribune Tuesday, Stephen Montemayor reported in After Trump election, GOP committee will vet candidates for two federal judgeships that Erik Paulsen, the senior Republican serving in Minnesota's congressional delegation, will have increased influence in guiding the Trump administration's choices for federal judges.

While US senators ordinarily take the lead in these matters, Minnesota's two senators are Democrats; thus, the vetting process will fall on Paulsen's shoulders.

This influence won't stop with the judicial branch. A source in Minnesota's agriculture lobby reminded us this week that political appointees also must be vetted for the state offices of two important USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) agencies: the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Rural Development.

FSA administers farm bill programs ranging from Conservation Compliance to Agricultural Risk Coverage / Price Loss Coverage as well as farm loans to farmers and ranchers. Rural Development offers "loans, grants and loan guarantees to support essential services such as housing, economic development, health care, first responder services and equipment, and water, electric and communications infrastructure."

After an election cycle during which Minnesota's rural voters were buried in Republican legislative campaign messages about how the evil metro shouldn't be making decisions about Greater Minnesota, it's ironic to see these important choices in the hands of a congressman who represents suburban areas of Anoka, Hennepin and Carver counties.

We're told that Sixth District Congressman Tom Emmer, who lives just over the Hennepin County line and whose district is somewhat more rural, will be helping Representative Paulsen out. Thank heavens for small favors: while neither Paulsen nor Emmer served on ag committees during their time in the Minnesota House, Emmer did serve on the US House Ag Committee during his first five months in office. In late May 2015, he was appointed to the House Financial Services Committee; though he tried for a waiver in order to remain on on both of his former committees—Agriculture and Foreign Affairs—it was not to be.

Bluestem suspects that both congressmen will lean heavily on the advice of Emmer's Chief of Staff, former state representative David FitzSimmons. While most political observers in Minnesota recall him as one of four Republicans who voted for marriage equality, those of us in farm country (and people who check his LinkedIn profile and old state EIS) also know he's a managing partner in FitzSimmons Family Farms, LLC.

It's associated the Wright County branch of the FitzSimmons brothers' operations that morphed into Protein Sources in Blue Earth County in the late 1990s. Republican state party treasurer Bron Scherer is also a partner.

Certainly, Emmer's COS is grounded in production agriculture--and Republican inner circles, mostly.

The current FSA state head is Swift County's Grant Herfindahl, who was appointed in March 2016.  Former Blue Earth County Commissioner Colleen Landkamer has served as Minnesota's Rural Development head since 2009.

The last Republican FSA head? Steve Wenzel, of whom Strib blogger Michael Brodkorb wrote in Former DFL lawmaker running to be Trump delegate to Republican National Convention:

Former DFL legislator Steve Wenzel, who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives for almost 30 years, is running for election to be a delegate to the Republican National Convention from Minnesota's Eight Congressional District Convention in the delegate slot allocated for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In an interview this afternoon, Wenzel said while he is running to be a Trump delegate, he is actually a supporter of the presidential candidacies of both Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

If elected, Wenzel would be required to vote for Trump on the first ballot, but he is hoping that mulitiple ballots will be needed to elect the Republican nominee for president at the Republican National Convention.

"I am not for Donald Trump and I would not be voting for him on the second or third ballot," said Wenzel.

Wenzel was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1972 and served until 2001, when he was appointed by President George W. Bush as the U.S. Department of Agriculture State Director in Minnesota, where he served until 2009. . . .

Would that mischievous recent history with the President-elect Trump cause Wenzel to be excluded from the vetting process?  We'll learn soon enough--first we'll need an ag secretary.

Calls to Paulsen and Emmer's offices for this story were not returned.

Photo: Eric Paulsen and a corn dog at the state fair. Close enough to farming, right?

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Need for speed: MN DEED releases Governor's Task Force on Broadband 2016 Annual Report

Yesterday, via a press release from the Minnesota Department of Economic Department, the Governor's Task Force on Broadband released its annual report, recommending biennial spending of $100 million in ongoing funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Grand Development Program and $10 million in operating funds for the Office of Broadband Development.

The office is located within MN DEED.

In a statement issued today, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith said:

“Broadband remains a critical tool for building a fair economy that works for all Minnesotans. This report reaffirms that significant, sustained investment is necessary to provide all Minnesotans the affordable, reliable, high-speed internet they require to run businesses, get educations, and access modern medical care. If we don’t make this investment, Minnesota will be divided between those who can access the promise of the 21st century and those who cannot. That is not right."

“Our Administration will propose another robust investment in broadband infrastructure next session. I hope legislators, many of whom ran on a promise to strengthen rural communities, will fulfill this commitment.”

Bluestem's editor's own experience concurs. We moved to a new home in rural Big Stone County where fiber broadband was installed by a local telephone co-op on September 1. Our housemate is a photographer who documents the prairie pothole region's beauty--and arrival of fast upload and download times has been a boon to his ability to market his photos and studio open houses.

It's just an imperative for farmers and rural auto shops, as these businesses require the ability to receive and send data swiftly.

In a press release, MN DEED summarized the report's recommendations:

The recommendations outlined in the report are aimed at ensuring every Minnesotan has access to broadband and the ability to use it. The recommendations include $100 million in ongoing funding for the Border-to-Border Broadband Grand Development Program and $10 million in operating funds for the Office of Broadband Development, located within the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).

“Last year, we made strides with the largest investment in the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program to date, but we know there’s more work to be done to achieve our goal of broadband access for every Minnesotan,” said Margaret Anderson Kelliher, chair of the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband. “Broadband plays a vital role in connecting people to health care, education and the global economy. The recommendations in our report will continue to move us closer to the border-to-border broadband access we need to succeed now and into the future.”

“Our goal is to make high-speed broadband accessible to every home, school, business and community in the state, particularly in Greater Minnesota,” said DEED Commissioner Shawntera Hardy. “This is an important tool that will not only improve the quality of life of all Minnesotans, but will be an investment in the future economic development of our state.”

The Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program, created by the Legislature in 2014 and initially funded at $20 million, provides funding to build the state’s broadband infrastructure and promote broadband access in unserved and underserved areas of the state. The grants provide up to a dollar-for-dollar match on funds, not to exceed $5 million for any one project, and are distributed to qualified entities. . . .

The Task Force recommendation to allocate $10 million in operating funds to the Office of Broadband Development recognizes that specific and targeted policies and programs can effectively aid the adoption of broadband and assist in deployment.

Additional policy recommendations include:

1. Take action to promote and communicate “dig once” policies

2. Establish a legislative cybersecurity commission for the purpose of information sharing, monitoring workforce issues, and supporting and strengthening infrastructure

3. Continue to monitor advancing telecommunications technologies

4. Amend building codes to require that multi-tenant housing units funded with public dollars deploy cabling that supports easier management of broadband connectivity

5. Build computer donation partnerships between state agencies and community-based organizations that get computers into the hands of those who need them

6. Modify the state Telecommunications Assistance Program to better align with the national Lifeline program to subsidize the cost of broadband service for low income households

7. Support continued funding of Regional Library Telecommunications Aid (RLTA)

8. Fully fund Telecommunications Access Equity Aid

Here's the full report:

2016 Annual Report Minnesota's Governor’s Task Force on Broadband posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd

Photo: The view from our kitchen window. All this and fiber broadband too.  Photo by Sally Jo Sorensen.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Will investors rush to fund upgrade of Tim Miller Memorial Goat Trail, or build Zombie Ziprail?

Just over a month ago, Bluestem posted about the possible convergence Trump's proposals for private investment funding America's transportation systems and the controversial elevated train between The Cities and Rochester in High speed rail irony for MN's red-voting fly over zone: Donald Trump loves fast passenger trains.

Looks like there might be another downside for transportation funding in Greater Minnesota.

In today's Star Tribune, Allison Sherry reports in Minnesota awaits result of national push for transportation spending:

President-elect Trump’s pledge to spend billions of dollars on new road and bridge projects could dramatically reshape Minnesota’s transportation priorities, potentially bringing private investment to finance massive public works projects.

In Minnesota and across the nation, elected leaders are scrambling to find ways to pay for road and bridge repair, hampered by limited taxpayer dollars and stiff political resistance to raising the gasoline tax.

Even before he has taken office, Trump’s team has pitched a private investment model that would devote more than $100 billion in tax incentives to lure private businesses to invest in projects.

To recoup their investments, these projects would typically have a revenue stream attached — like a toll on roads or a fare to ride a train. This model could breathe new life into fledging projects like a proposed high-speed train from Minneapolis to Rochester, home of Mayo Clinic. . . .

But some transportation advocates worry the private investment model won’t work in all cases, particularly in rural areas that need new wastewater plants or road repairs.

“If this is the be-all-end-all, it’s not going to be terribly helpful,” said Margaret Donahoe executive director of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. “It certainly wouldn’t help with greater Minnesota or help with the maintenance of roads and bridges we really need.”

How much coin will private investors through in the pot to secure tax credits to rebuild the section of Highway 12 that Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, has called a "goat trail?" In April 2015, lobbying law firm Winthrop and Weinstine's John Reich noted in Week in Review – Taxes, Transportation, and Goat Trails:

One of the more interesting points of the House Transportation debate was the discussion of an amendment to rename a rural Minnesota highway a “goat trail.” The amendment, offered by House DFL Minority Leader, Paul Thissen (DFL-Minneapolis) stemmed from comments to the StarTribune by freshman Rep. Tim Miller (R-Prinsburg) that Hwy 12 “is in about as good a shape as a goat trail.”  The amendment was to ostensibly draw attention to the state of Greater Minnesota roads.  In the end, the amendment was withdrawn after nearly 45 mins of debates on “goat trails.

Somehow, Bluestem suspects that private investors won't find the opportunity to fix US Highway by building a toll road between Kerkhoven and Ortonville all that attractive. But using eminent domain to seize property for real estate development along a private elevated train from the south suburbs to Rochester, while also grabbing a tax break? Hot damn.

Trump promised to drain the swamp. Perhaps he just meant wetlands along the corridors of toll roads and such.

Photo: Rural Minnesotans voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, whose plans for privatizing investment in transportation may help that SEMN bullet train they don't much like, while leaving the Tim Miller Memorial Goat Trail behind. At least we won't be condescended to or something, even if those private ventures manage to avoid paying prevailing wages. See our October post: Gruenhagen: repairing MN’s aging roads & bridges affordable if we pay workers less.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Tonight on Southern Minnesota's walking dead: why won't zombie ziprail stay dead & other stuff

While Bluestem was off feeding the chickens and looking into Trump's agricultural advisory committee declaration of war against those Americans who've never grown anything more than a backyard tomato, a couple of items about what's known in some parts as "Zombie Ziprail" surfaced in the media.

At the Star Tribune's "Who Knew?" division, Janet Moore reported in Private plan for Twin Cities-Rochester high-speed rail draws pushback:

The prospect of a high-speed rail line slicing through the rural stretch of land between the Twin Cities and Rochester, and financed by Chinese and other private investors, is to some an exquisite dream.

To others, it’s folly.

. . .[A] privately held Bloomington firm called the North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR) is keeping the idea of a high-speed rail line alive. Recently the group said that it was reorganizing and is now known as the Minnesota Corridor Project. None of NAHSR’s officers has experience developing such a project.

The group’s reorganization will continue to meet opposition from a determined grass-roots group called Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) and several southern Minnesota lawmakers.

“Do we want Chinese foreign nationals owning the major transportation corridor cutting through the southern portion of Minnesota?” said Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. “I don’t think so.” He plans on reintroducing legislation next year that would cripple efforts to build high-speed rail.

Some residents along the route fear that their farms and homes could be taken for public use through eminent domain, a prospect they find even more distasteful because it would be a private company engaged in the taking. They also worry about the project’s impact on the area’s environment, safety and quality of life. And they question whether there’s sufficient ridership to sustain the service.

“There’s nowhere near the capacity to support this,” said CCARL co-founder Heather Arndt, whose farm in Hader is a few miles away from the proposed rail corridor. “There’s no economic benefit for us or local businesses. By taking our farmland, they’re decreasing our income and devaluing our land. . . .

While none of this is a news flash for Bluestem readers, we're happy the Strib is looking beyond the rail group's press releases. Good work.

Closer to the path of the rolling dead, Doug Jones writes the Kenyon Leader in Stay dead Zombie Zip Rail:

A year ago Olmsted County took a $2 million loss when MnDOT officially killed zip rail, so why won't it stay dead? . . .

Among the many funny elements of this pipe dream are that it would run entirely down the median of Highway 52, elevated to fly over all crossroads. And the biggest laffer is that the investment would be covered by passenger fares and "high valued" freight like "medical samples."

As Chairman Steve Drazkowski has said, legislation will be presented to the next session of the Legislature to close the door on any MnDOT participation in this scheme.

So signs saying "NO ZOMBIE ZIP RAIL" keep springing up because no one in Goodhue County supports it, and even letter-to-the-editor writers in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune sound dubious.

There's that.

Photo: These yard signs sprang up in warmer weather. Maybe they'll hepl folks understand that common people don't much like the idea that a private firm can use eminent domain to take property for private gain, and such concepts make the peasants resentful. It's not rocket science.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

 

CURE MN: Power cooperative members must act now to keep control of energy in local hands

Bluestem's new home gets its electrical from an electrical cooperative, like the homes and businesses of many Greater Minnesotans. Some of our power as co-op members is in danger of dimming.

From our friends at Clean Up the River Environment (CURE), a grassroots rural environmental organization based in Montevideo, Minnesota:

Local control of electricity is under attack.

Basin Electric, an energy supplier for many co-ops across Minnesota and the Dakotas, is attempting take away co-op members ability to negotiate with local clean energy producers. This would put massive limitations on local control of clean energy in the future.

We can't let this happen.

Basin has attempted to keep their move under wraps from the general public and co-op members. They've given limited time for input and the little information made available is relatively inaccessible. Our local distribution cooperatives and Basin are responsible to us, co-op member owners. This action by Basin is not in the best interest of local co-op members, nor does it follow the cooperative principles for democratic control.

Tell Basin to follow the cooperative principles!

Questions:
Questions can be directed to Erik Hatlestad, Energy Program Associate at CURE. Erik can be reached at erik@cureriver.org.

There's more here on the CURE website:

Electric cooperatives were founded in the spirit of America: democratic, local control. Since the early 1900’s rural Americans have bonded together in cooperative enterprise to address community and economic issues themselves and to wrest economic control from absentee corporate elites.

However, these democratic ideals have been sidelined.

In many states within Basin Electric’s service territory, electric cooperatives are subject to limited regulation. The assumption is that members self-regulate through the democratic control of their utilities. For some time now co-ops have moved in an undemocratic direction that marginalizes members in their own organizations. Not only has the flow of information been restricted so members cannot have meaningful input in the overall governance of their local cooperative, but the ability for members to participate in distributed clean energy generation has been strategically impeded.

There is no better example of the thwarting of member inclusion than the process surrounding the Joint PURPA Implementation Plan and the document itself.

The Cooperative Principles call for:

1. Voluntary and Open Membership
2. Democratic Member Control
3. Member's Economic Participation
4. Autonomy and Independence
5. Education, Training, and Information
6. Cooperation Among Cooperatives
7. Concern for Community

Many of Basin’s distribution co-ops have done little to educate their members on the implications of surrendering local control and their local co-op’s rights under PURPA. Many Basin co-ops have not published information on the action in their local monthly newsletters and the implementation plan has received virtually no media attention. Beyond educating member owners of the actions of the utility that they (in theory) are in control over, members have not been given a reasonable opportunity to provide input in this comment making process. . .

If you're a member of a power co-op, check out the rest at CURE.

Photo: A picture of modern power in Greater Minnesota, via CURE.

Help CURE do its great rural work: Ordinarily, Bluestem asks for donations for our work at the end of posts. Today, we'd like to encourage readers to support the work of a genuinely rural, grassroots group that works for our landscapes, water, quality or life and values.

Follow this link to learn how you can give. If you live in Minnesota, There's a good chance you're downstream of these good folks working on behalf of the river.

Did today's Post Bulletin high speed rail headline trigger cryptic press release from NAHSRG?

Bluestem wondered about a cryptically boastful press release we received at 12:24 p.m. this afternoon from North American High Speed Rail Group strategic communicator Wendy Meadley.

A Google alert we just received for a news article published online before noon this morning may provide the answer. In Future of private high-speed rail project uncertain, updated five hours ago, Heather Carlson reports:

Those looking for an answer to whether private investors will build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities will just have to keep on waiting.

Wendy Meadley, who has been overseeing the rail project work, said Tuesday that no final decision has been made on whether to move ahead with the project, but she said there are several investors who remain interested in supporting it.

"There are private investors that are pursuing high-speed rail — passenger and freight services — connecting the Twin Cities and Rochester, with momentum," Meadley said.

t has been two-and-a-half months since North American High Speed Rail Group hosted representatives of China Railway International in Minnesota. The company wants to do something never before done in the U.S. — privately build a high-speed rail line. The plan calls for a $4.2 billion, elevated high-speed rail line to link Rochester and Bloomington. Most of the rail line would be built in the median of U.S. 52.

Meadley said no legal agreement has been reached with China Railway International to build the high-speed rail project. . . .

But the high-speed rail project is likely to face some push back at the Minnesota Capitol next year. Republicans will be in control of both the Senate and House, and many are wary of rail projects. Sen.-elect Mike Goggin, R-Red Wing, pledged during his campaign that the first bill he will introduce in January will be aimed at blocking the project.

Goggin said he wants to make sure no public money is spent on the project. He also wants to pass legislation to prevent eminent domain from being used to acquire land for the project. His bill will require the rail company to set up a decommissioning fund to ensure that if the project fails, taxpayers aren't stuck paying for it.

"There is not going to be any government money spent on this project. If they are going to somehow be able to do this, it is going to be on their own dime," Goggin said.

The project has faced fierce opposition from rural communities along the U.S. 52 corridor. Residents have expressed concern about the potential use of eminent domain and how that would impact farmers, small business owners and homeowners. . . .

Meadley can blather on about potential partners--as she has done for years now--but this seems like a train that's going nowhere.

Here's the press release:

Minnesota High Speed Rail Corridor Gains Regional Stakeholder Interest

November 23, 2016 (Minneapolis, Minnesota) These statement are being made as part of a previous commitment for a “go/no go statement" on behalf of the North American High Speed Rail Group and its Minnesota Department of Transportation work permits that conclude on December 1, 2016.

There is now robust excitement and interest to advance the high speed passenger and freight rail service and its significant development potential.  NAHSR looks forward to ongoing participation alongside the many stakeholders, developers and investors now focused on this effort.

We have acquired the information needed relating to the topographic and geologic features of the planned corridor and have determined that an extension of Minnesota Department of Transportation permit is not required at this time.

There are currently several technical and strategic partners that are joining hands to participate with regional stakeholders to bring high speed passenger and freight rail service to this important corridor, and supporting the vision of a future high speed rail program connecting the Twin Cities to Chicago Illinois, via Rochester, Minnesota. Periodic updates regarding project progress will be distributed as information becomes available.

That's some word soup, a thin gruel rather than a "robust" porridge, especially in light of legislative opposition and well-organized resistance in a part of the state where ordinary people have turned back a plan for a poorly-sited wind farm and secured township and county ordinances that put the brakes on the frac sand industry.

Image: This project reminds us of pop cultural iconic images about popular resistance to rail, from the Simpsons to Blazing Saddles.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Winona Co passes ban on new frac sand mining, processing, storage or transport operations

Call it a victory for organized rural people over corporate interests.

At the Star Tribune, Karen Zamora and Josephine Marcotty report in Winona County passes frac sand ban, first in the state to take such a stand:

Winona County commissioners voted Tuesday to ban the highly contentious industry of frac sand mining, making it the first county in the state to take such a stand.

After a 40-minute discussion in front of a roomful of community members, the ban passed, 3-2.

Commissioner Marie Kovecsi, who voted for the ban, said there are seven frac sand operations and an active mine in her district.

“These operations are literally in my constituents’ backyard,” Kovecsi said. “The direct implications of noise and dust and road safety are faced by my constituents.”

Sand mining in Minnesota and Wisconsin boomed and waned along with the oil and gas production practice known as hydrofracking.

The particular kind of sand found in parts of southeast Minnesota was in huge demand by exploration companies, which use it to prop open cracks in the underground shale formations that produce oil and natural gas. . .

[Frac sand] Opponents fear destruction of scenic bluffs along the Mississippi River, health problems from blowing silica sand dust, contamination of groundwater, and damage to roads and more accidents from the trucks that cart sand to and from transportation hubs. . . .

“People had their say and the local officials followed the will of the people,” she [Land Stewardship Project organizer Johanna Rupprecht] said. “They put the best interests of the citizens in the county and of the land of the county ahead of what’s best for the frac sand industry.”

Rupprecht had interned for the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office earlier this decade, but went home to Winona County, where her family farms near Lewiston, to organize with her neighbors. Our stretch of the prairie's loss is Winona County's gain as this talented young person returned to her home county.

UPDATE 11/22: The Winona Daily News' Glen Olson reports in Winona County approves frac sand ban; vote comes amid final fight, legal threat:

Supporters of the ban have been vocal for several years to move the process forward, citing concerns with water and air quality, health effects on county residents and reclamation possibilities, as well as the ability of the Winona County planning department staff to oversee the industry given its size, resources and workload.

Commissioner Greg Olson, the leading proponent of the ban from its first proposal, an issue that in some ways defined his successful re-election campaign, maintained that the majority of the people he heard from supported the ban.

“I’d put more weight on the public that had spoken … than I do a letter from an attorney from Minneapolis,” Olson said, addressing ongoing concerns that an outright ban could invite legal challenges to the county. “I think (the people) have been very unanimous.”

Maybe not all populism is anti-environment. [end update]

In a statement on its website, the Land Stewardship Project writes in In Historic Vote, Winona County Board Passes Ban on Frac Sand Operations:

The Winona County Board of Commissioners voted tonight to pass a ban on any new frac sand mining, processing, storage or transport operations in the southeastern Minnesota county’s jurisdiction. This step comes after a 17-month grassroots organizing campaign by county residents calling for a ban, led by members of the Land Stewardship Project (LSP).

For years, Winona County has been heavily targeted by the oil, gas and frac sand industry’s attempts to extract silica sand for use in hydraulic fracturing. Thousands of residents have opposed frac sand development due to its harmful impacts on the land, as well as on public health, safety and quality of life in local communities.

In June 2015, LSP members and supporters from across the county, many from neighborhoods that began fighting frac sand proposals several years earlier, set a goal of banning the industry outright, working to get Winona County to become the first county to do so.

“We felt a ban was needed for the health and well-being of people and the environment,” said Warren Township resident Barb Nelson. “And the vast majority of residents in the county agreed. I hope other counties are encouraged by the step we’ve taken to take a firm stand against the frac sand industry.”

During Winona County’s process of considering the ban this summer and fall, an average of 80 percent of public comments received were in favor of the ban.

“The bluffs here are full of the kind of sand this industry wants,” said Joe Morse of Wilson Township. “We’ve seen what’s happened where the frac sand industry operates in Wisconsin — bluffs are leveled and the landscape is destroyed. Winona County residents love the natural beauty of this land and want to protect it.”

Members of LSP’s Winona County Organizing Committee applauded the passage of the ban as a major victory for people and the land and as an example of local democracy at its best.

“I feel grateful we have a County Board with the wisdom to listen to the people they were elected to serve, and make the decision to prioritize public health and safety over the profit of a few,” said Wiscoy Township resident Kelley Stanage.

The County Board passed the ban by a 3-2 vote in the form of an amendment to Winona County’s existing zoning ordinance. It prohibits any new operations for the production of industrial minerals, including the silica sand used in hydraulic fracturing.

“I am relieved that we have protected our water and our vulnerable populations from frac sand operations,” said Lynnea Pfohl, a resident of Homer Township. “As a mother of young children, it’s also important to me that we were able to take this step locally towards tackling climate change, by putting our sand off limits for oil and gas production.”

While the overwhelming majority of public input from Winona County residents consistently favored the ban, the measure was fiercely opposed by the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council and other representatives of the frac sand industry.

“The story here is one of local residents taking on outside corporate interests bent on exploiting our communities and the land,” said LSP organizer Johanna Rupprecht. In Winona County, we’ve shown that people power can defeat corporate power. People can win when we organize and work together.”

Congratulations to the many citizens in Winona County who worked so long to protect what they cherish.

Photo: A frac sand mine.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

A stream of stories: support Clean Up The River Environment (CURE) for Give To The Max Day

It's best to open a fundraising appeal with a telling anecdote that touches readers' hearts, minds and wallets. I'd like readers to schedule a donation to a unique, strategic, and most of all, grassroots environmental group for Give To The Max Day--or give on November 17.

But it's hard to pin down one story to let you know how valuable CURE (Clean Up The River Environment) is for those of us who live in the Upper Valley of the Minnesota and the rest of the state.

Does "the" story start with sitting in a Lutheran church in Granite Falls with hundreds of other local people while polar explorer Will Steger leads a discussion of climate change?

Or is it gathering in the CURE office while lawmakers field questions about pollinator policy from rural people ranging from farmers to sportsmen who've seen bee and butterfly populations drop?

Or breaking bread a big potluck at the Watson Town Hall where everybody from young, beginning farmers to a state legislator stress the need to save a practical sustainable food production education program at a community and technical college in the watershed? There was local music there and art, along with the local food and young families eager to farm.

Is it a discussion in a Renville County community center about what a water charter might look like, in which people who started the meeting as strangers bond over their shared concerns, regardless of their age or political persuasion?

Paddling down the LeSueur River to its confluence with the Blue Earth, after listening to farmers, residents and a county commissioner talk about their river? Or walking on a sandbar near Sacred Heart while a young Native American girl educates me about river mussels and river health?

There are more episodes that come to mind, but the common river that runs through my memory is conversation and a common belief that ordinary people can make a difference. We hear a lot these days about paying attention to rural folks. I feel blessed to have been in the room so many times when CURE has created a space for conversation and action meant to clean up the river environment.

Bluestem Prairie encourages our readers to give to Montevideo-based Clean Up The River Environment (CURE), a rural, grassroots nonprofit founded in 1992, with the goal to rescue and restore the Upper Valley of the Minnesota River.  On its Give To The Max Day webpage, CURE describes itself:

CURE is a rural, grassroots nonprofit founded in 1992. Our mission is to protect and restore resilient rural landscapes by harnessing the power of citizens who care about them. We do this because we believe that robust human communities can only be sustained by healthy ecosystems, and robust natural environments can only be regained through vigorous stewardship. 

Our work takes many forms, but always involves three core practices:

• Awakening people’s bonds with the natural world around them
• Inclusively, strategically and dialectically exploring issues and actions
• Systematically building communities of change at critical intersections of ecological and social well-being

For more information visit: www.cureriver.org

That sounds a bit abstract, but CURE's work is anything but that out here on the prairie and the watersheds that connect us to the rest of the world. Please give to this tremendous organization and its vital work with rural people and communities.

Photo: One of CURE's youth education outings.

High speed rail irony for MN's red-voting fly over zone: Donald Trump loves fast passenger trains

Goodhue County, center of the citizen resistance against North American High Speed Rail Group's proposed private high speed rail line from near the Twin Cities to Rochester almost, voted solidly for Donald Trump in last Tuesday's election.

Bluestem is left to guess that opponents of new passenger rail lines--and the use of eminent domain to secure some of the property upon which those rails would be laid--had other issues that led them to vote for Donald Trump for president.

Because if there's one thing Donald Trump likes, it's high speed rail. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in Will Donald Trump support high-speed rail in California?:

Last March, Trump compared the United States rail system to that of a third world country. He lauded China for quickly building a nationwide high-speed rail system. "[The Chinese] have trains that go 300 miles per hour," said Trump. "We have trains that go chug-chug-chug."

During his election night victory speech, Trump emphasized that one of his top priorities will be funding a massive infrastructure program that could include high-speed rail projects across the nation.

Oh. And how to pay for that? At Marketplace, Andy Uhler reports in Trump infrastructure plan is private money and tax credits:

Infrastructure has been a hot topic over the last few weeks, and it’s one thing both political parties agree on. America’s bridges, roads, airports and schools need improvement and President-elect Donald Trump has promised a lot of investment. The markets have noticed. Copper and iron ore are up — a lot. But commodities are volatile, so it's unclear how long this spike will last.

Trump’s plan calls for tax relief for private businesses that invest in infrastructure projects. In doing so, the plan said, the national debt would not increase. Heidi Crebo-Rediker, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and CEO of International Capital Strategies, said private investment can be good, but this plan only includes private investment.

"If you look at this as a taxpayer, do you pay your taxes to fund infrastructure investment that can then rely on cheap government borrowing to invest in those projects?" she asked,"or do you go down the path where you have equity investors that will invest and then borrow what would be more expensive funds?"

And whose privately built projects would require user fees — for example, tolls on new bridges and roads. . . .

Why does that suggest to Bluestem that President-elect Trump will think a privately-funded (with tax breaks for wealthy investors) high-speed rail line is "huge"?

As for Mr. Trump's thoughts on the use of eminent domain by private investors for private gain, we recommend reading Ilya Somin's 2015 article in the Washington Post, Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse. Somin writers in part:

. . . On this issue, unlike most others, Trump has been consistent over time. When the Supreme Court narrowly upheld “economic development” takings that transfer property to private parties in the 2005 Kelo case, the ruling was widely denounced on both left and right. But Trump defended it stating that “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.” The feral cats who currently occupy the condemned land probably agree. Trump did not merely claim that the decision was legally correct; he argued that it was “good” to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote “economic development.”

Both the Kelo case and Trump’s efforts to benefit from eminent domain exemplify a longstanding pattern under which that power is used to take land away from the political weak and transfer it to influential private interests. In the long run, as cities like Detroit have learned, such assaults on property rights undermine development far more than they promote it. . . .

Ah! But losing a part of one's property so that rich investors can profit is just a small sacrifice Goodhue County landowners can contribute as we make America great again.

See our related posts for more information:

Zombie Zip Rail question in CD2 GOP forum could re-animate eminent domain debate

Citizens' eminent domain concerns dominate regional news coverage of Zip Rail meeting

All House & Senate candidates in District 21 oppose North American High Speed Rail project

Does a private, short-line high-speed rail line between Rochester and MSP make good sense?

Image: Goodhue County is fly-over country for the as-yet imaginary elevated high speed rail line. This map from the NAHSRG website illustrates where the rails might run over the county.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Metro Mark, Mpls Paul & Big City Smith savor rural broadband funding more than Dale Lueck

These are the times that try poor country bloggers' souls, especially the moments of nincompoopery that Representative Dale Lueck, R-Aitkin, dropped in a debate this week..

In District 10B candidates share positions, Chelsey Perkins' coverage for the Brainerd Dispatch of a candidate forum between Lueck and DFL challenger Erin Wagner, we read this passage:

 . . . Funding for broadband internet expansion in rural areas, was also a success, he said, adding metro legislators don't understand those needs.

"Frankly, they just don't know what you're talking about when we're talking about no coverage or spotty coverage," Lueck said.

Everybody knows "metro legislators" is Republican code for "DFL." But as the infographic at the top of this page illustrates, those God-awful metro-centric Democrats stated the digital divide quite clearly when they posted the image to the Minnesota House DFL Caucus Facebook page on January 21, 2016.

That damn metro Minority Leader Paul Thissen and his crew, spreading those facts before the session started. We gather Lueck missed that part about his "metro" colleagues knowing what talk about "no coverage or spotty coverage" means.

The Aitkin Republican must have missed another image posted that same day:

Indeed, that inglorious metro bastard Thissen, who represents Minneapolis for cats' sakes, had been rattling on for months--months! we tell you!--about such matters. Witness his October 7, 2015 column in the Grand Forks Herald, GOP leaves communities disconnected by underfunding broadband:

At a recent forum about the lack of high-speed Internet access in greater Minnesota, a woman from Aitkin, Minn., told us, "this isn't just a need—it's a necessity."

I agree. The availability of high-speed Internet has become a critical issue of economic vitality and quality of life for all Minnesotans. Unfortunately, House Republicans ignored this critical priority for greater Minnesota and halted our momentum to ensure all Minnesotans have access to high-speed Internet.

Broadband infrastructure—the means in which we provide high-speed Internet access across our state—got its first significant investment in 2014 by our DFL-led Legislature. But we knew this was only a down-payment. In fact, the Governor's Broadband Task Force has recommended a $100 million per year investment in our state's Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant program.

Many people in greater Minnesota began this year with high hopes, given the promises Republican legislators made on the campaign trail. But despite a $2 billion surplus, the Republican-led House did not continue this commitment to rural broadband access in 2015. They initially zeroed-out our state's broadband investment and ended up putting just $10 million into our broadband program.

They also proposed to eliminate the Office of Broadband Development. That's because their top priority last session was massive tax breaks that benefit large corporations and businesses that predominantly reside in the metro area.

We knew that $10 million for broadband was inadequate then, and we have now confirmed it. This past week, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development released their list of communities that applied for broadband grants. The resources passed by the Republican-led House will only cover about one-third of the requests, leaving dozens of Minnesota communities disconnected.

And as noted at the meetings, the skimpy Republican commitment probably discouraged a lot of communities from applying.

Consider what is happening in Pine City, Minn., and in many rural areas across the state. After closing time at the local library, you can see people huddled in their cars with their laptops, struggling to maintain a connection on the library WI-FI so that they can complete homework or send an e-mail.

We must do better—for a student who can't log on to the Internet to complete a research paper, for a small business owner trying to stay competitive with the metro area, and for a parent who wants to connect online with a son or daughter at college.

We hear a lot of happy talk from Republican legislators about broadband. But talk won't build a single mile of broadband infrastructure.

Before next session, I urge Herald readers to contact their legislators and urge them to put their money where their mouths are in support of broadband infrastructure funding.

Indeed, the Republicans ended up taking Thissen's advice--though with only one-third of what that equally-metro governor wanted for broadband.

Perhaps Lueck was talking about "metro" lawmakers in the state senate? Alas, no, since the Senate DFL's 2016 supplemental budget target for broadband was $85 million.

No wonder Lueck is reduced to placebaiting of the lowest sort. The fact is that "metro" legislators--like the leader of the Minnesota House DFL Caucus--fully understand the problem, as does the DFL governor and Lt. Gov. Tina "Bright Lights, Big City" Smith.

Indeed, the urbane Smith was on it, according to an April 2016 article in the Brainerd paper, Kresha, Lueck support broadband funding; Lt. Gov. says it's not enough:

However, Lt. Gov. Tina Smith said in a statement that the Republican broadband proposal wasn't enough, and pointed out that Gov. Mark Dayton proposed $100 million in grant funding.

"The governor and I welcome the work of House Republicans on broadband," Smith said. "Their proposals, however, barely make a dent in the need for high-speed, affordable broadband access in greater Minnesota. At the level of investment they are proposing, the 244,000 households in greater Minnesota without broadband connections will wait decades to get up to speed. This is bad for our economy, bad for greater Minnesota, and we need to do better."

Perhaps Lueck simply imagines that since so much of rural Minnesota is still left without reliable high-speed broadband, no one's going to fact check the complete blither that escapes from his mouth into the world as he placebaits his metro colleagues.

Learn More

For more on this issue and Rep. Lueck, we recommend our post County commish factchecks what Dale Lueck talks about when he talks about broadband love and Fact Check: did #mnleg 2015 state broadband funding attract Connect America Fund dollars?. (Connect America Fund is a federal program--read the posts to learn why they're not adequate to serve Greater Minnesota's need for broadband speed.

Images: Infographics released by the Minnesota House DFL Caucus. Via Facebook.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

 

 

 

Fact check: Did Andrew Falk never author legislation related to Appleton private prison?

Bluestem is no friend of private prisons, so this fact check relates only to a claim made about legislation related to the Appleton prison in a lit piece Representative Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, has been distributing in doorknocks and lit drops in Minnesota House District 17A.

As the photo above shows, the lit piece states that Andrew Falk "Never proposed or offered a bill addressing the Appleton prison closure." The prison closed in February 2010, according to a report by Minnesota Public Radio.

Falk maintains otherwise, stating that he worked with the late State Senator Gary Kubly, DFL-Granite Falls, on language that would require the Department of Correction to house prisoners in the Appleton prison.

Kubly, who died in of ALS in March 2016, represented the old Senate District 20 prior to redistricting in 2012. Then-state representative Lyle Koenen, DFL-Clara City, won the special election to fill the vacant Kubly seat, then secured the SD17 seat in the 2012 general election by defeating state senator Joe Gimse (old SD 13), R-Willmar, when redistricting landed both men in the same new district.

Miller's claim that Falk "never" proposed or offered a bill addressing the Appleton prison is false.

On March 4, 2010, Falk introduced HF3375, which would have shifted control of a portion of the Moose Lake Correctional facility from the commissioner of corrections to the commissioner of human services, and transferring offenders who had been incarcerated to private prisons.

 

In Minnesota, that would be the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton.

 

The language is here.

 

Relevant text: "requiring the commissioner of corrections to incarcerate offenders from the transferred portion [of Moose Lake] in private prisons" and "appropriating money for costs incurred by the Department of Corrections to incarcerate the offenders transferred to private prisons."

 

This is unlike Miller's proposed bill (HF3223), which did not appropriate funds for operating the Appleton facility. Read the Fiscal Note  on  HF3223 for an idea of what the nonpartisan staff at the Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department estimated running the prison would cost.

 

And there's this in the Falk bill:

No later than December 31, 2010, the commissioner of corrections shall transfer 50 percent of the offenders incarcerated at the Minnesota  Correctional Facility-Moose Lake to a privately owned and operated medium security correctional facility within the state if the commissioner is able to negotiate an agreement  to do so with the facility. If the commissioner is unable to successfully negotiate an agreement with the facility, the commissioner shall transfer the offenders to other state or locally operated correctional facilities or to privately owned correctional facilities  in other states.

We're guessing CCA would have wanted the facility to be generating revenue, rather than sitting idle.

 

Kubly was the chief author of the state senate companion bill, SF2876. While Falk's bill had no co-authors, Kubly was joined by four colleagues from both sides of the aisle:

• Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria
• Dan Sparks, DFL-Austin
• Steve Murphy, DFL Red Wing
• Joe Gimse, R-Willmar

While not being accurate about Falk's record, Miller has been successful in making the closed prison more of an issue for the district. Koenen had served in the House until the special election in 2012, but didn't sign on to the 2010 Falk-Kubly bill, and still beat Gimse in the 2012 special election.

In 2016, however, Koenen is the chief author of the senate companion bill, SF3192. Falk, on the other hand, now proposes buying the prison for its assessed tax value and re-purposing it as a mental health and substance abuse treatment center.

Photo: The Miller lit piece with the claim about Falk's inaction on the Appleton prison.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

 

North American High Speed Rail CEO Wang shocked USA had no high speed rail in 1991; claim of 1991 Chinese system bigger shocker

Joseph Wang, CEO of the North American High Speed Group, tells Heather Carlson at the Rochester Post Bulletin that he was "shocked" that America had no high speed rail system when he moved to the United State in 1991.

Bluestem thinks the bigger shocker here is Wang's claim that the Chinese high-speed rail system was built and operational when he lived in China until 1991.

It wasn't.

Carlson reports in Chinese rail leaders to talk high-speed rail in Rochester:

In an interview, Wang said he understands that many Americans are skeptical of high-speed rail. But he said he has seen firsthand the benefit of such projects. Wang was born in Taizhou, China. He worked for China National Technical Import and Export Corp., overseeing construction of massive infrastructure projects financed with foreign dollars. He also did a lot of traveling in China, Japan and Taiwan and saw the impact high-speed rail projects had a region.

"I saw how high-speed rail changed the human beings' lives. How high-speed rail improved the economy and created jobs," he said.

Wang moved to the U.S. in 1991 and became a U.S. citizen. He said he was shocked when he moved to America that there was no high-speed rail. [emphasis added]

That's a charming tale. But Bluestem struggles to understand how Wang could have been shocked at the absence of high-speed rail in the United States when at the time, high-speed rail in the People's Republic of China was only a glimmer in party officials' eyes.

A well-documented Wikipedia entry on High-speed rail in China includes the following timeline:

State planning for China's current high-speed railway network began in the early 1990s. In December 1990, the Ministry of Railways (MOR) submitted a proposal to build a high-speed railway between Beijing and Shanghai to the National People's Congress.^[9] At the time, the Beijing–Shanghai Railway was already at capacity, and the proposal was jointly studied by the Science & Technology Commission, State Planning Commission, State Economic & Trade Commission, and the MOR.^[9] In December 1994, the State Council commissioned a feasibility study for the line.^[9]

Policy planners debated the necessity and economic viability of high-speed rail service. Supporters argued that high-speed rail would boost future economic growth. Opponents noted that high-speed rail in other countries were expensive and mostly unprofitable^{[citation needed]}. Overcrowding on existing rail lines, they said, could be solved by expanding capacity through higher speed and frequency of service. In 1995, Premier Li Peng announced that preparatory work on the Beijing Shanghai HSR would begin in the 9th Five Year Plan (1996–2000), but construction was not scheduled until the first decade of the 21st century.

According to the entry, high-speed rail was launched in China in 2007.  What Wang saw there in 1991 is anyone's guess, but whatever he and Carlson were smoking during that interview, they should learn to share.

The 2007 date is mentioned in Tom Zoellner's une 14, 2016 article in Foreign Affairs, China's High-Speed Rail Diplomacy. It's an interesting read, and includes news of the American regulation ( "a federal mandate that high-speed rail train sets must be manufactured domestically") that shut down the Xpress West proect from Vegas to Southern California. (North American High Speed Rail once claimed to be negotiating to operate that line).

Taiwan's high speed rail line dates from the same year. Time reported in A Brief History of High-Speed Rail that Japan built its first bullet train for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics; by 2009, 1,500 miles of high speed rail lines had been built on the island nation. The article noted:

The sobering expense of high-speed train travel has tempered the expectations of even the strongest rail advocates. "It sounds like a lot of money to Americans, but it's really just a start," James P. RePass of the National Corridors Initiative told the Washington Post. Some critics also predict a massive price tag to operate new rail lines, pointing to Amtrak's perennial shortfalls, and a proposed link between Anaheim and Las Vegas (in the home state of Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid) sparked outrage and derision among many Republicans.

In the seven years since, little headway has been made.

Zoellner observes:

There also exists the strong possibility of a political backlash to the idea of Chinese-financed high-speed rail projects. In 2005, fears of growing Chinese influence—stoked by U.S. politicians and pundits—helped doom a bid by CNOOC, a Chinese firm, to acquire the U.S. oil producer Unocal. Today, anti-Chinese sentiment is running even higher than it was then, thanks in no small part the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who regularly berates Washington elites for not taking a tougher line on Beijing. And critics of Chinese involvement in U.S. rail will no doubt exploit public concerns over safety. In 2011, a malfunctioning signal box caused the collision of two Chinese-built high-speed rail trains near the city of Wenzhou, killing 40 and injuring almost 200 more. The Chinese government moved to squelch criticism, even though investigations found that the rail line had been built hastily with substandard materials amid an atmosphere of official corruption.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an arm of the Treasury Department designed to protect the nation from financial threats to its national security, would presumably review any large-scale involvement by Beijing in a critical piece of U.S. infrastructure. But the CFIUS approval process is somewhat opaque, and the committee’s decisions can apparently be swayed by high-priced lobbyists. When asked about their review process, a U.S. Treasury spokesman responded in email that the committee “does not comment on information relating to specific CFIUS cases, including whether or not certain parties have filed notices for review.”

Details, details.

Whatever the case, Bluestem thinks it's safe to bet that Wang, North American High Speed Rail Group's strategic communicator Wend Meadley and the rest of the gang are full capable of building the high speed rail that flourished in China and Taiwan over 25 years ago.

Perhaps they'll offer Mayor Brede a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge next or market vaporware to the DMC.

Photo: Maybe Wang was thinking of "the Asia Express steam locomotive, which operated commercially from 1934 to 1943 in Manchuria could reach 130 km/h (81 mph) and was one of the fastest trains in Asia" (Amtrak's Acela Express on the east coast can reach 150 mph). Photo credits: This photographic image was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan. Thus this photographic image is considered to be public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan (English translation) and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.

Related articles

Will Steve Drazkowski's constituents get on board with Zip Rail if it's a private railroad?

Who's got a ticket to ride on private Zip Rail?

Letters: CCARL leader sees NAHSR's finger in the wind; bullet train becomes issue in SD21 race

Did talk of a special session put the stake in Minnesota's zombie ziprail stakeholders?

CCARL leader letter in Post Bulletin: High-speed rail proposal needs more public engagement

MN high speed rail group failed to deliver on "planned public meetings" before go-ahead