minneapolis

Regulation of the Day 178: Helping Tornado Victims

by Ryan Young on June 3, 2011

in Features, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Post image for Regulation of the Day 178: Helping Tornado Victims

Mike Haege owns a tree-trimming business in Hastings, Minnesota. After a tornado hit northern Minneapolis, he decided to help out. On May 23, the day after the tornado, he signed up as a volunteer and brought some equipment to help people without insurance to dig out from the damage. Mike and his fellow volunteers removed fallen or damaged trees from driveways and doorways, all free of charge. He probably made a lot of friends that day.

Regulators were not among them. While he is licensed to work in many Minneapolis-area cities, he isn’t licensed in Minneapolis proper. So they kicked him out of the city. The Hastings Star Gazette reports:

The inspector told him to get out of the city, so Haege left with the volunteer. As they were on their way back to the volunteer area, residents waved down Haege, pleading for help. He pulled over and helped get a tree out of the way for them.

Haege had no idea police officers were behind him in a sort of unofficial escort out of town. He said they stopped traffic for about two hours while they figured out what to do with him. At one point, officers threatened to throw him in jail, he said.

All the while, residents continued defending him, screaming in his defense.

Officers told him to leave. They told him he was going to receive a “hefty fine” in the mail, and that if he stopped on the way out, the fine would be doubled.

True to their word, Mike later received a $275 fine in the mail. Keep that in mind next time you want to do a good deed.

In Other TSA News…

by Ryan Young on May 19, 2011

in Mobility, Personal Liberty

TSA officials recently performed a bomb drill at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and didn’t tell anyone about it in advance. Local police surrounded a TSA-employed “bomber” with guns drawn before someone finally told them it was only a drill. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

A spokeswoman says that TSA will “ensure the correct procedures will be followed in the future.”

Time will tell.

Marketing and Transit Shelters

by Kathryn Ciano on January 27, 2011

in Mobility, Odds & Ends

Here’s a great example of private entrepreneurship making public life a little sweeter. Caribou Coffee has launched a new campaign in Minnesota, touting warmed sandwiches with the illustrative warmed bus shelters.

Such a great idea, in fact, that I’m happy to give my breakfast dollars to any private companies that improve or replace aging public works!

Smart Growth Decreases Housing Affordability

by Marc Scribner on November 5, 2010 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Property Rights, Regulation

Wendell Cox had an interesting article this week on his new findings on land-use regulation and housing prices. Long a critic of smart-growth planning, Cox’s new study puts a quantitative face on what excessive land-use regulations do to housing prices:

The overwhelming majority of new housing in the United States continues to be detached and is built near or on the urban fringe (Note 2). For new detached homes, the Index is 1.0 in six metropolitan markets (Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham and St. Louis). This indicates that land use regulation is less restrictive and does not add more than normal to the price of new homes (Note 3).

In the other five metropolitan markets, the land and regulation cost ratio has risen above 20%, resulting in a higher Index. The Index is 2.4 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, 3.9 in Seattle, 4.5 in Portland, 5.7 in Washington-Baltimore and 13.2 in San Diego. It is estimated that more restrictive land use regulation raises the price of the least expensive detached houses from nearly $30,000 (in Minneapolis-St. Paul) to more than $220,000 (in San Diego) than would be expected if these metropolitan markets had retained less restrictive land use regulation (Figure 2).

Ironically, smart-growth proponents are still peddling the myth that “sprawl” is the main problem, rather than their misguided central planning. Take this new report from left-wing environmentalist and “[un]affordable housing” advocates, which claims that any of the benefits of cheaper housing on Virginia urban peripheries are outweighed by increases in transportation spending.

Of course, their analysis doesn’t consider the fact that the vast majority of Americans prefer to live in detached single-family homes on larger lots, as opposed to apartments in dense urban areas. This is particularly true of families with children. While demonizing cars, the report’s author fails to note that car ownership significantly increases employment opportunities and pay (and that this is particularly significant for lower-income minorities). His solution? Continuing the same aggressive central planning that made housing too expensive in the first place, that disproportionately harms the poor, and that likely helped drive the housing crisis.

Minneapolis’ Block E: The Failure Continues

by Marc Scribner on August 3, 2010 · 2 comments

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

The Twin Cities have a long history of expensive, poorly planned development projects. Notable cases include the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis’ Downtown East neighborhood, St. Paul’s downtown revitalization efforts, and various aborted urban renewal projects in impoverished north Minneapolis. The Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is home to approximately 2.87 million people, with less than a quarter of them residing in Minneapolis and St. Paul proper. City officials see this as a problem, and have launched several development public-private partnerships designed to attract new residents, businesses, and retail customers from the suburbs as well as from other regions.

Downtown Minneapolis’ Block E remains one of the most controversial projects ever undertaken by the city. In 1987, the city council voted to condemn the entire block, after years of redevelopment saber rattling. Prior to its razing, the block was dominated by adult-oriented businesses which attracted a clientele that city officials found undesirable. And nearly overnight, Block E went from a somewhat seedy business district to full-blown urban wasteland, complete with gang-controlled open-air drug markets. The neighborhood’s astronomically high crime rates (according to police statistics, about 25 percent of all downtown crime took place on Block E in the late 1980s) likely led to local residents dubbing the city “Murderapolis.”

Over the past few decades, strange crime-fighting and urban development programs have ensued, which include blasting Italian opera music over large speakers on the street corners to annoy drug-dealing gang members, and the construction of a new $148 shopping mall and a hotel—with $39 million in public support—when the entire downtown was watching its retail consumer base dry up.

Predictably, Block E has been a complete failure. On December 31, 2009, McCaffery Interests Inc., the original developer of the retail complex, sold its stake to Union Labor Life Insurance Co. (ULLICO), the notoriously mismanaged union-owned financial services company. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, whose editorial page ranks among the chief cheerleaders for public real estate investment in Minneapolis (due to its editors being stuck in a 1960s Hubert-H.-Humphrey-liberal mindset, like much of the state?), was optimistic about this change in ownership:

The new ownership arrangement at Block E should help the struggling entertainment and retail complex capitalize on two big changes in downtown Minneapolis: the new Twins ballpark opening in April, and a redesigned Hennepin Avenue that includes two-way auto traffic and pedestrian improvements.

However, within four months, ULLICO announced it was selling Block E to Minneapolis developer Bob Lux. The new Minnesota Twins stadium, Target Field, has since opened, but retailers continue to vacate their spaces or file for bankruptcy (the notable exception being Kieran’s Irish Pub, which opened its new location in March).

Why Can’t We Have a “Three Strikes” Policy for Public Financing?

by Marc Scribner on January 12, 2010

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

For residents of Minneapolis, few local policy issues can stir debate like the future of downtown’s Block E. The neighborhood long catered to a not-so-family-friendly clientèle, but it wasn’t until paranoia over punk rock and pornography swept the nation in the 1980s that the city of Minneapolis decided to clean house. This culminated in a 1987 city council decision to condemn the entire block and turn it into one giant open-air parking lot. Nearly overnight, Block E went from seedy business district to full-blown urban wasteland. The neighborhood’s astronomically high crime rates in no doubt helped a witty New York Times reporter famously dub the city “Murderapolis” in 1995.

Over the past few decades, hilarious crime-fighting and urban development programs have ensued, which include blasting Italian opera music over large speakers on the street corners to annoy dope-slinging gang members and building a new mall when the entire downtown was watching its retail consumer base dry up. Thankfully, Minneapolitans now have something to look forward to: the opening of Target Field, the future home of the Minnesota Twins. More than 75 percent of funds required for the $500+ million project come in the form of public subsidies, but at least Minnesotans will finally be able to enjoy the MLB season outdoors again–even though construction of the public-funded, indoor Metrodome was supported by the Twins in part because the owners said it was too cold outside for much of the year.

On December 31, 2009, the primary developer of the Block E retail boondoggle pulled out of the project and transferred ownership to a scandal-ridden union insurance fund. The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial page, which typically goes into a scripted fit of cheerleading whenever the phrase “public-private partnership” appears in a city press release, is optimistic (although, they’re never optimistic about easing red tape and restrictive land-use policies). They quote a city apparatchik saying,

“Target Field presents a huge opportunity,” said Mike Christenson, Minneapolis’ director of Community Planning and Economic Development. “We have to give fans a reason to make multiple stops when they come downtown to a ballgame — to stay in hotels, to eat, drink, shop and walk around. This is our chance to reintroduce ourselves to the rest of the state.”

Of course, the same things were said when the city was busy “developing” the area surrounding the Metrodome. The Downtown East neighborhood only recently began seeing the economic benefits promised nearly three decades earlier, and much of that came at the height of the real estate boom in the form of trendy condo conversions. But don’t worry, Downtown East residents and business owners. You have not been forgotten. A plan is in the works to demolish the 27-year-old Metrodome in order to build a new Vikings stadium. Naturally, this project will go perfectly, and you’ll all get rich! And a pony.

Minneapolis Drops $75k to Defend Stinky Tap Water

by Angela Logomasini on June 23, 2009

in Environment

Cities around the nation are spending thousands in taxpayer dollars to promote tap water because of the alleged environmental problems with bottled water. But these campaigns just go to show how silly the issue has become. Minneapolis recently dropped $75,000 just to build a website encouraging people to drink only tap water. A college kid probably could have put up a site just as useful with a few hundred bucks. But governments are not that efficient! The site is part of a total $180,000 paid to a public relations firm to address this “pressing” issue. Why does Minneapolis need this campaign? Because their tap water stinks—literally! It comes from the Mississippi River and sometimes during the spring, purification techniques are not sufficient to clean out certain odors and flavors probably from algae that grow at that time of year.  City officials say it’s not unsafe, but people surely can tell it doesn’t taste good. And no government taxpayer-dollar funded PR campaign can change that. Why not try a market solution? Let people drink bottled water, and don’t nag them for making that choice. After all, much of the information on government sites complaining about bottled water is simply self-serving propaganda anyway.

For some details watch this news report below.

Photo above: Mississippi River, drinking water source for Minneapolils; source is adamsfelt photostream on Flickr.