January 15-17, 2015
Jan 15 00:57 Environmentalists, Franken & Klobuchar Jan 15 07:39 SCSU's annual audit Jan 15 08:57 The environmentalists' catechism Jan 15 13:26 Ruy Teixeira and the politics of destiny Jan 16 15:29 Faux outrage isn't convincing Jan 16 19:14 Hillary and the illusion of winning Jan 17 01:36 Factchecking Cyson's hit piece Jan 17 03:07 Dayton, DFL and "La-La Land" Jan 17 19:17 DFL deserves this headache
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Environmentalists, Franken & Klobuchar
This editorial by the Mesabi Daily News' Editorial Board beautifully defines who's fighting against the Keystone XL Pipeline project:
So why should the Barack Obama administration continue to drag this 'good for the USA' project out after six years of review and a recent Nebraska Supreme Court ruling paving the way on a local level for the pipeline?
We see no reason other than the president being controlled by the far-left environmental wing of the Democratic Party that is so far out of step with the vast majority of Americans that you need some powerful binoculars to even find its members.
Let's be blunt. The environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party isn't just out of step with "the vast majority of Americans." It isn't that you'd "need powerful binoculars" to see these activists from America's political mainstream.
It's that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party isn't interested in anyone's opinions. They're like crazed cult members. Though these environmental activists don't respect other people's opinions, that doesn't mean they'll pick fights with the people that support their agenda:
And we would also like to hear what both Sens. Klobuchar and Franken think about what the anti-Keystone zealots say about the thousands and thousands of construction jobs that would be created by the pipeline.
The people that make up the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party will never get asked difficult questions by politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken. That's because politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken know that environmentalists are significantly more reliable Democrat votes than construction union members are.
Members of the local pipefitters or other unions sometimes meander away from the Democratic Party. Politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken know that. They also know that environmental activists vote for Democrats almost as reliably as journalists or trial attorneys. Private sector union workers don't.
That's why Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken voted against cloture on S.1, the bill that would force the Obama administration to permit construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline:
The motion passed with strong bipartisan support by a 63-32 margin. Five senators didn't vote. Democrats mocked Republicans for coming up with slogans like "Drill, baby, drill" and "Drill here, drill now, pay less":
It isn't that Democrats are stupid when it comes to energy policy. It's that they're that beholden to those crazed cult members known as environmental activists. You know the type. They're the wing of the Democratic Party that's "so far out of step with the vast majority of Americans that you need some powerful binoculars to even find its members."
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:57 AM
No comments.
SCSU's annual audit
Are Annual Audit Reports Important?
by Silence Dogood
If all of the university employees at SCSU were asked to raise their hand if they had ever read an SCSU annual financial report, how many hands would be raised? My guess is that there probably wouldn't be a lot of hands being raised. Most annual reports of audit findings are just not that exciting! However, there is a lot of information, especially when looking at trends, which is at least interesting even if not exciting.
The following figure shows the Total Net Position, which, according to the Annual Report, "represents the residual interest in the University's assets after liabilities are deducted." In other words, it represents the 'value' of the university's operation. The values given in the figure come from SCSU's Annual Reports.
In looking at the graph, you would have to say that there has been a steady growth in the Total Net Position of $77.6 million from FY2008 through FY2013, which amounts to a growth of 55.9%. Clearly, these results are impressive! In FY2014, there was a loss of $7.5 million in the Total Net Position, which represents a decline of 3.5%. If this was a one-year 'blip' in the system, it might not be a big deal. However, if it was the beginning of a trend, it might be a bit more ominous.
When you try to understand these kinds of numbers, it is often helpful to look at the individual components, which make up a university's budget. One of the revenue components is the state appropriation. The following figure shows the state appropriation from FY2008 through FY2014. The values given in the Figure come from SCSU's Annual Reports.
The figure shows that, although decreasing from its high in FY2009 to FY2012, funding actually increased in FY2013 and again in FY2014. However, it is important to note that the increase in state appropriations for FY14 is the result of the state appropriation making up the difference because tuition was being held constant. Essentially, the increase in the state appropriation was intended to make up for the money that was 'lost' as a result of tuition being held constant.
Over the past several years, state appropriations have not kept up with tuition increases or inflation and as a result have become an increasingly smaller component of a university's funding making tuition and fees a larger percentage of its revenue stream.
The largest single source of revenue for SCSU is Tuition and Fees. The following figure shows the Tuition and Fees from FY09 through FY14. The values given in the figure come from SCSU's Annual Reports.
The figure shows steady growth from FY2009 to its peak in FY2011 followed by steady decline through FY2014. Some of the decline in tuition and fees was offset by an increase in the state appropriation for FY14. However, tuition and fees normally track very closely to enrollments. If enrollment is growing, tuition and fee revenue increases. If enrollment is decreasing, tuition and fees decrease concomitantly.
The following figure shows the FYE enrollment (the enrollment upon which state allocations are based) from FY2009 through FY2014. The values given in the figure come from the website of SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness.
From its peak in FY2010, enrollment has dropped 2,761 FYE, which is a decrease of 18.3%. If each FYE represents an average of $11,500 in tuition, fees and state allocation, this decrease in enrollment converts into a loss of approximately $31,800,000.
Most of this data is not all that important on a day-to-day basis. However, it is most useful in recognizing trends. There are also other measures of a university's financial health. One such measure is the Composite Financial Index (CFI). For SCSU, the CFI clearly shows that SCSU is not in a good place financially. For FY14, SCSU's CFI is 0.07. Of the MnSCU universities, between FY 2008 and FY 2014, only Southwest Minnesota State University has had a CFI less than 1.00. In FY 2009, Southwest had the lowest CFI of 0.37 until SCSU took the title of the lowest CFI in MnSCU with its 0.07 in FY14. Some have even commented that SCSU's CFI is "in the toilet." However, no matter how SCSU's CFI is described the trend is certainly headed in the wrong direction.
Another important measure of a university's financial health is the amount of "Unrestricted Cash" it has on hand. The "Unrestricted Cash" is captured in the CFI but it may be masked by other measures, which make up the CFI. The following figure shows the amount of "Unrestricted Cash" as listed in SCSU's Annual Reports from FY2008 through FY2014.
From FY2008 through FY2012, the "Unrestricted Cash" grew by $25,000,000, which represents a growth of nearly 350%! From FY2012 through FY2014, the "Unrestricted Cash" dropped by $16,900,000, which is a decrease of 52.3%!
The "Unrestricted Cash" is a significant way of looking at the health of a university. If a university takes in more money than it spends, it can usually increase the amount of "Unrestricted Cash" it has. On the other hand, if a university is spending more money than it is taking in, it has to take money out of its "Unrestricted Cash" or cut its budget. It is also possible for a university's Unrestricted Cash to decrease because of "strategic investments."
From FY2013 to FY2014, the SCSU's Total Net Position decreased by $7,464,000. Since the "Unrestricted Cash" dropped by $13,000,000, clearly SCSU had to drawn down its "Unrestricted Cash" by $5,535,000 to cover its operating deficit in FY2014. Additionally, an annual $13,000,000 decrease in "Unrestricted Cash" is something that cannot be sustained over the long-term!
Given a CFI in FY2014 of 0.07 (by far the lowest value ever listed by MnSCU for a university), enrollment declines of 6.9%, 6.4%, and 5.1% from FY2012 through FY2014, a projected enrollment decline of 5% or more for FY2015, and a projected budget deficit of $9,542,000 for FY2015, it is clear that SCSU is in deep financial trouble.
Unlike the H.M.S. Titanic, MnSCU is not likely to allow SCSU to 'sink.' The question is how far down does SCSU have to go before the legislature or the administration recognize that there is a problem and step in?
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2015 7:39 AM
No comments.
The environmentalists' catechism
For years, Democrats have said that we can't drill our way to cheap oil prices . That's part of the Democrats' catechism . Today's cheap oil prices are forcing Democrats to eat their words:
In 2012, President Obama called it "a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker ... not a strategy. They were waving their three-point plans for $2-a-gallon gas," Obama told a laughing audience during an energy speech in Washington. "You remember that? Drill, baby, drill. We were going through all that. And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem."
"'Drill, baby, drill' won't lower gas prices today or tomorrow," Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif., echoed on the floor of Congress in 2012. "But it will fuel our addiction to fossil fuel."
Here in St. Cloud, the cheapest gas I've seen this month is $1.91/gallon. I remember August, 2008 because the know-it-alls in the DFL were criticizing Michele Bachmann for saying that lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling would lead to $2.00/gallon gasoline if the Democrats would just let it happen. FYI- Gas was at $4.11/gallon at the time.
Naturally, the DFL accused Michele of being insane or of not knowing what she was talking about. On Jan. 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama was sworn in as our 44th president, gas was $1.78/gallon. Nobody in the DFL admitted that Michele was right. The conservative blogosphere, however, was 'admitting' it frequently.
Then President Obama's policies took over and gas prices started increasing. Intentionally.
President Obama is now attempting to claim credit for the latest dramatic drop in oil prices. He shouldn't. Here's why:
Oil production on federal lands, those under the president's control, fell 6 percent since 2009, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, while production on private lands increased 61 percent.
Let's restate that with different wording. Where President Obama can obstruct the flow of oil, production has dropped by 6% since 2009. Where President Obama can't obstruct oil production because oil is discovered oil on private lands or under state-owned lands, production has grown by 61% since 2009.
A simple tongue-in-cheek observation is in order. If God is going to create oil, He should create it where the government can't stop production. Here's a different observation worth appreciating:
America built the Empire State Building, then the world's tallest office building, in 410 days during the Depression. We built the Pentagon, still the world's largest low-rise office building, in 16 months while waging a war across two oceans. Keystone has been studied for more than six years. And Obama considers this insufficient?
Actually, there no longer is any reason to think he has ever reasoned about this. He said he would not make up his mind until the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled. It ruled to permit construction , so he promptly vowed to veto authorization of construction.
After reading all of this information, a person might believe that Democrats are stupid when it comes to the rules of supply and demand. They aren't, though they frequently sound like it. It's that Democrats are willing to say anything to appease the environment activist wing of the Democratic Party rather than doing the right thing.
This is instructive:
Appearing on 'Fox News Sunday,' Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) objected that if Congress authorizes construction of Keystone this 'would take consideration out of the hands of the administration ,' and 'out of the current administration process.'
The reason why Republicans want this taken "out of the current administration process" is because the process is the fast track to nowhere, which is the Democrats' goal.
Simply put, it's time to tell the Democrats to sit down and shut up when it comes to setting energy policy. Thanks to the work done at the state level and by private landowners, the US is on the cusp of regaining its status of being the world's energy superpower.
It's instructive that Democrats are attempting to obstruct that progress for the American people.
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2015 8:57 AM
No comments.
Ruy Teixeira and the politics of destiny
This article highlights how badly wrong Ruy Teixeira was when he wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority . A dozen years after co-writing The Emerging Democratic Majority with John Judis, it's clear that proof is piling up that they were wrong:
In the November elections, Democrats lost their eight-year Senate majority, and saw their House numbers fall to the lowest level in seven decades.
In the states, Republicans will hold 31 governorships, and more state legislative seats than they've had since 1928. It especially vexes Democrats to see Republicans dominate the U.S. House delegations and the state governments in several states that President Barack Obama won, including huge legislative majorities in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Democrats that think things will improve soon are wrong. Here's why:
"We believe we're on the right side of the issues, and all we can do is keeping making the case," Yarmuth said. "Hopefully we'll get better at that." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Tuesday announced a new messaging team led by Steve Israel, D-N.Y. "We need a message," Israel said. "An effective message doesn't tell voters what to think. It builds on what they feel."
A majority of House and Senate Democrats vehemently oppose building the Keystone XL Pipeline. The vast majority of House and Senate Democrats oppose major tinkering with the ACA.
According to the American people, Democrats are on the wrong side of both issues. By a wide margin.
Then there's the belief that Democrats oppose a robust all-of-the-above energy plan. Actually, it isn't just a belief. It's that there's plentiful proof that Democrats vehemently oppose fossil fuels. They even oppose natural gas, which is pretty foolish.
The other thing that's holding Democrats down is their honesty deficit. This quote is the perfect illustration of that deficit:
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Democrats must do a better job of highlighting economic improvements and a dramatic increase in energy production under Obama's watch.
I wrote here that the Obama administration is an impediment to increased energy production:
Oil production on federal lands, those under the president's control, fell 6 percent since 2009, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, while production on private lands increased 61 percent.
If Democratic politicians like Sen. Kaine keep peddling the notion that the energy boom is the result of the Democrats' advocacy for increased fossil fuel production, people won't take them seriously.
That's what's led to a shrinking Democratic minority. It hasn't led to an "emerging Democratic majority.
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:26 PM
No comments.
Faux outrage isn't convincing
David Dill's faux outrage isn't convincing:
Dill said the DNR was doing an 'extremely conservative' job of wolf management. And he believes the wolf numbers in the state are more than officials had anticipated.
'I was quite shocked we reached the (hunt) quota quite quickly. Seems to me there are more wolves out there than we think. 'I never found them to be that dumb ... they're survivors. And now this ruling lets a very narrow group of opponents decide the issue,' Dill said.
That "narrow group of opponents" are the same people who oppose opening PolyMet and Twin Metals North. Technically, they're from different organizations but they're the same people with the same agenda. The different organizations passionately oppose climate change, depletion of the ozone layer and changes in the status of animals once they're put on the endangered species list.
The timberwolf population in northern Minnesota isn't just stable. Had I written about timberwolves when I started blogging in November, 2004, I would've written that sentence differently. I would've talked about the timberwolf population in northeastern Minnesota.
The point is that timberwolves have expanded their territory exponentially. Twenty years ago, it would've been rare to see a timberwolf south of Hinckley, MN. Though timberwolf sightings south of Hinckley still aren't common, they aren't rare, either.
What Representative Dill isn't saying is what's needed to be said. What needs to be said is that the ESA (Endangered Species Act) should be dramatically rewritten. Most of the species on the ESA's list of endangered species should be regulated by the states' DNR, not by federal bureaucrats.
The simple fact is that the ESA shouldn't dictate policy except if the species frequently migrates between states. While it's indisputable that timberwolf packs are capable of travelling significant distances in a week, it's rare that they cross from Minnesota into Wisconsin.
If Rep. Dill wants to fight the environmental activists that filed, then won, this lawsuit, he's in the wrong party. The DFL won't support him. The environmental activists that form the dominant wing of the DFL won't change. The only way they'll break these activists' stranglehold on environmental policy is by switching parties.
Rep. Dill and the other DFL legislators that make up the Iron Range delegation aren't courageous enough to switch. That's the dirty little secret that the DFL wants to keep hidden.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2015 3:29 PM
No comments.
Hillary and the illusion of winning
Hillary and Jeb Bush need each other politically. Hillary can't win the 2016 presidential campaign if Jeb isn't the GOP nominee. She could defeat Mitt Romney or Chris Christie, too, but the only people taking them seriously work at East Coast newspapers.
Wes Pruden's column hits on a point that the DC media hasn't written about:
Hillary can't win, and that's why she won't run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she's all they've got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she's the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year.
I don't agree with Mr. Pruden's opinion that she won't run. Hillary's ego is too big to admit that she isn't presidential material. She's lived her life with the belief that she's entitled to the job. She's put up with Bill's affairs, which she thinks, again, entitles her to her own presidential administration.
The point that I agree with Mr. Pruden on is that she's the best the Democrats have to offer at this point. She's mediocre but she's at the top of the Democrats' list. There aren't any talented Democratic governors out there. On the Republican side, there's an embarrassment of riches in terms of talented Republican governors. The top tier of Republican governors is filled with Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Mike Pence.
The next tier is still pretty talented. Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and Rick Perry inhabit that tier. Each these governors have a substantial list of accomplishments.
By comparison, Hillary's top accomplishments are that she a) was a US senator from a state so blue that toxic waste would get elected if they had a D behind their name and b) did more travelling as the US Secretary of State than any other US Secretary of State. People can't look at her and say what her defining policy accomplishment was. They certainly can't identify something she did as Secretary of State that protected the US from terrorists or that helped defeat the terrorists.
In short, Hillary checked off the appropriate boxes, which qualifies her to get thumped in a presidential election.
Successful men and women are born with an instinct for politics, or they never have it. Bubba was born with it, along with the ability to change convictions like changing his pants. The politicians who have it have no shame exploiting it. If they have the ability to wink, smile and say the right thing they can get by with anything short of murder, and maybe that, too. What can you do with a good ol' boy like Bubba? He only rarely hit a false note. Hillary never hits anything but.
She's stiff and wooden as a public speaker, as if trying to prove Dr. Johnson's famous aphorism that a woman preaching is like a dog trying to walk on its hind legs. Hillary is tone-deaf besides. She's always starting on her 'back foot,' as the English say, and she's a mediocre campaigner, too.
Hillary's book tour was a disaster. When Hillary's history is written, most historians will say that Hillary's book tour is when her presidential ambitions essentially died.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2015 7:15 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Jan-15 11:06 AM
Gary:
If she runs, let's hope she doesn't have the common sense to assemble a campaign team different than the 2008 team. Obama's team in 2008 out moved her more than Romney was out moved.
Now lets hope the Republican has a real campaign team for the 2016 campaign.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Jan-15 11:43 AM
Walter, Hillary will have the best of the best of the Democrats if she runs. They'll be irrelevant because she's a disaster.
Factchecking Cyson's hit piece
Karen Cyson's monthly columns are consistently intentionally misleading. This month's column definitely fits that description. Here's proof:
Previous Rep. Michele Bachmann had a 75 percent rating of spewing falsehoods (mostly false, false, or pants-on-fire), according to [Politifact], and missed 10.3 percent of her voting opportunities. The median absence rate in the House of Representatives is 2.5 percent. To represent a group, one of the most basic things a representative can do is show up.
I'm not here to defend Michele Bachmann's statements, though I'll definitely agree with her statements that the Muslim Brotherhood has tried infiltrating the State Department. There's tons of proof of that, including the statement of a former terrorist who is now a Christian.
What I'm here to defend is Ms. Cyson's statement that Michele missed "10.3% of her voting opportunities," that's true but misleading. That statistic is true because she ran for president in 2012. It's inevitable that people running for president miss votes. Ms. Cyson, forever the partisan, intentionally omitted that important fact.
This information is technically accurate and intentionally misleading:
Also of note: The sole piece of legislation introduced by Bachmann that passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by the president was a bill to rename the Cold Spring Post Office.
While Rep. Bachmann's legislation to replace the Stillwater Bridge wasn't signed into law, there's no question that she was the driving force behind getting that bridge built. That project had been stalled for a decade. It was indisputable that the bridge needed to be replaced.
Jim Oberstar didn't get the thing built. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken couldn't be bothered with pushing the project. Gov. Dayton didn't put a priority on the project, either. It wasn't until Michele started pushing the bridge project that Sen. Klobuchar got interested.
This paragraph is stunning:
I am hopeful Emmer takes it upon himself to introduce and support legislation that backs those Minnesota values we support: quality education, safe infrastructure, environmental stewardship, affordable health care, equality under the law for all citizens.
TRANSLATION: I hope Emmer becomes a good liberal.
First, the federal government's involvement in education has been disastrous. They provide a tiny percentage of per-pupil funding but impose the majority of regulations. Next, it's virtually guaranteed that Rep. Emmer will fight hard for transportation funding. That's because expanding highway capacity is one of the top priorities for the district. Third, it isn't likely that Rep. Emmer will fight hard for the excessive federal environmental regulations that President Obama is famous for. Thank God for that. Finally, based on the campaigns that I've watched, social issues aren't a high priority. It isn't that Rep. Emmer doesn't have opinions. It's that increasing economic opportunity within the district is Rep. Emmer's highest priority.
Posted Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:36 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Jan-15 10:29 AM
Who is this "we" that holds these "values," Ms. Cyson? We sound like a nutjob liberal.
Dayton, DFL and "La-La Land"
Last night on Almanac's Political Roundtable, the DFL was represented by Mindy Greiling and Ellen Anderson. That isn't to say that they helped the DFL's cause. The first topic of the political roundtable was transportation.
Greiling tossed the first bombshell when she said that a) finding efficiencies in MnDOT was "La-La Land" and b) Carol Molnau's biggest achievement was having the I-35 bridge collapse because she tried cutting corners. It didn't take long for Amy Koch and Brian McClung to swat that statement down.
McClung noted that "the NTSB found that it was a design flaw from the 1960s so let's just set that one aside."
Next up in the she-didn't-say-that-sweepstakes was Ellen Anderson. Ms. Anderson said that Republicans have to keep their promise to rural Minnesota "and guess what? Rural Minnesota likes transit, too." That's one of the most dishonest statements I've ever heard on a political talk show. Considering the type of BS that I've heard on political talk shows, that's quite the accomplishment.
Having lived my entire life in St. Cloud, which certainly qualifies as outstate Minnesota, though I don't know that people think of it as rural Minnesota, I can state without hesitation that enthusiasm for transit projects in St. Cloud is probably limited to a handful of transportation activists.
That's significant because nobody north or west of St. Cloud is even slightly interested in the type of transit projects that Ms. Anderson is talking about. Alexandria certainly isn't clamoring for light rail. Ditto with Little Falls or Willmar or Dassel or Foley or Brainerd.
Ms. Anderson isn't a ditzy blonde in real life. She just plays one on political talk shows. It's impossible for me to think that the DFL thinks that transit is a priority north of Plymouth. In fact, Plymouth might be a stretch.
McClung made the right statement, too, in highlighting the fact that, though Gov. Dayton "is unbound", Gov. Dayton shouldn't throw one temper tantrum after another if he wants to get things done. Later, Mr. McClung said that Speaker Daudt was willing to work with people so this should get solved by the end of the session.
Clearly, transportation will be a major issue this session. Sen. Koch made a fantastic point of saying that the fight will be over the right balance between roads and bridges vs. transit. If that's how this breaks down, then it's entirely possible that this won't have a happy ending for the metro DFL. It's entirely possible that rural DFL legislators might join Republicans in fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges while putting little into transit.
If that happens, lots of outstate DFL legislators might be more than happy to get their priorities fixed rather than giving Metro DFL legislators what they want while outstate DFL doesn't get what they want.
Finally, don't be surprised if a split develops between outstate DFL legislators and metro DFL legislators. Their priorities aren't that similar.
Posted Saturday, January 17, 2015 3:07 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Jan-15 11:01 AM
Gary:
Just curious how many DFL senators let alone house members are from rural districts? That might be an idea how many can be picked off. depending upon the numbers Dayton and the metro DFL might get shut out.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL deserves this headache
The DFL's most trusted ally, other than Alida Messinger and the public employee unions, are the environmental activists. For all the things that the DFL does to help the DFL environmental activists make life miserable for blue collar workers, you'd think they'd get a pass on things. Apparently, the environmental activist wing of the DFL didn't get the memo:
Adding bird-safe glass to the Minnesota Vikings' new stadium could add as much as $60 million in extra costs and delay construction by six months, the chairwoman of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority said Friday.
Chairwoman Michele Kelm-Helgen gave the estimate in response to complaints that the clear glass planned for the $1 billion downtown Minneapolis stadium would pose a threat to migratory birds, Minnesota Public Radio News reported.
First, this is what environmental activists do. They make things up, then talk about the potential for crisis. This is fiction. Second, if this was a legitimate problem, which it isn't, who cares?
Why should the Vikings have to spend an additional $60,000,000 to prevent birds from flying into the new Vikings stadium? Why should they have to wait an additional year to move into their new home? Most importantly, why didn't these environmental activists mention this when the blueprints were first released in May of 2013 ?
If there was a Republican governor and Republican-picked chair of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, they'd tell these environmental activists to take a hike. What's better is that organizations like Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds wouldn't have standing to proceed with a lawsuit because they can't show how they'd be harmed.
It's poetic justice that the political party that specializes in doing special favors for special interests is getting hassled by their most special of special interest allies.
Posted Saturday, January 17, 2015 7:17 PM
Comment 1 by Sean at 19-Jan-15 07:36 PM
Actually, the environmentalists did bring this up in May 2013.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/stadium-watch/2013/05/17/birders-worry-about-glassy-new-vikings-stadium-design/
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jan-15 08:47 PM
Good catch. It's amazing that they'd use this stunt to stop construction of the stadium. This isn't a good faith effort to protect birds.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-15 06:53 PM
Gary:
Silly question, but aren't the tax payers of Minnesota paying for the stadium and thus the extra $60 million. and since electronic pull tabs don't work won't the smokers have to puff what an extra 1.2 billion extra cigs.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-15 07:48 PM
Actually, it'll come from the Wilfs' pockets because the maximum 'contribution' from taxpayers was part of the agreement. I don't remember what it is but I think that's $400,000,000 or thereabouts.
