Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 4 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Editorial: For governor, vote no to metro
Published Monday, June 8, 2009
There are many politicians considering throwing their hats in the ring in the race for Minnesota governor.
Let’s just say this right from the start: No matter the party, the next governor should come from Greater Minnesota.
The past three governors have come from the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Republican Tim Pawlenty is from Eagan. Jesse Ventura is from Brooklyn Park. Arne Carlson hails from Minneapolis.
It has been since Jan. 7, 1991, when Rudy Perpich of Hibbing left office, that the governor Minnesota was from outside of the metro. That was 18 years ago, and, if an outstate man or woman wins, it will have been 20 years ago by the time a new governor takes the oath of office on Jan. 4, 2011.
Being from Greater Minnesota gives a governor a better idea of the struggles that cities, counties and schools in the outstate have gone through and a better idea of the whether those residents are getting back the taxes they are paying to the state. And it gives an idea of the increased property taxes they have had to pay because of lacking state returns to local governments. (“Returns” seems to be a better term than local government “aid.”)
Here’s another political reality: The legislators in the metro area find ways to come together for the good of the metro; whereas the outstate legislators tow party lines even to the disadvantage of the outstate. In other words, it is easy for the metro area to divide the outstate lawmakers with ideology.
Having a governor from Greater Minnesota offsets this metro advantage.
Plus, outstate legislators seem to favor a strong Twin Cities, thinking it is good for all Minnesotans; whereas metro legislators tend to complain about any outstate advantages.
Being from Greater Minnesota thus gives a governor a better understanding of being a regional center — such as Albert Lea or Bemidji — and having to battle against the political and economic advantages of the Twin Cities area.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Mike_Dean (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that I'd want another metro gov. or one with metro interests. The great thing about being ignored by the gov. is that it leaves more personal responsibility and centralizes any events to the local infrastructure. Let the city implode itself or whatever while the people here in Albert Lea and the country run themselves. It creates a little relief from the hazards of a big web of gov. in a state. Look to states that are flailing, they have an interlinked state. Idaho, Oregon, California, Illinois, etc. they struggle because they rely on the big central gov. while states like Minn. have little communities that ban together with little government involvement.
Posted by cabinman (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah every where is so successful that doesn't have bigger government and that is the only reason why those states are failing.
Posted by gone (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure that Albert Lea or Bemidji qualify as 'regional centers'. Both are very economically depressed. OK, they qualify as economically depressed regional centers...exactly what does that bring to the table? Perpich worked hard but he did represent without fail the regional mining interests. After watching much of this recent session's live coverage I'm challenged to identify someone who had Perpich's ability to cross party lines, someone who has any sense of the economics of the state (or the nation) or who has the charismatic leadership skills that we need. Ventura might still be the guy.
Enough metro bashing, already. Where else can you find a job?
Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on June 9, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again somehow the idea that a transfer of money, as in LGA, being decreased leads to increased property taxes shows the tunnel vision that is the real problem. Spending leads to the financial problems, not the lack of tax revenue. How about we get rid of LGA, welfare for cities, and just live within our means?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)