Kathy Brynaert and Terry

on the first Greater Mankato Day at the Capitol

MINNESOTA PUBLIC TRANSIT

Needs are much greater than the metro area

The Star Tribune is correct: Public transit demands in the metropolitan area are significant and should be addressed (”A shrinking pot for transportation,” Jan. 30). But Minnesota’s public transit needs do not stop at metropolitan borders. The state’s recently completed State Transit Plan will illuminate the troubling gaps in transit service throughout outstate Minnesota.

Two immediate issues exist. First, the existing standard for measuring transit service in outstate Minnesota is inadequate. State law sets the goal at meeting 80 percent of transit needs outside of the metro area: Metro Transit, by contrast, apparently has a 100 percent service goal. Currently, only about 60 percent of transit needs in outstate Minnesota are being met. We must set a higher standard and treat transit expectations equally throughout our state. Minnesota’s economic development and the aging of Minnesota’s rural population require that we act responsibly and adequately.

Second, the 80 nonmetro counties need an advocate for public transit on par with the Metropolitan Council. On paper, MnDOT is responsible for identifying outstate Minnesota transit needs and requesting state funding. In reality, MnDOT’s role has been uncertain, especially when contrasted with the Metropolitan Council’s advocacy for Met Transit. The State Transit Plan offers hope that a new model of MnDOT transit leadership and coordination with local and regional transit systems will emerge.

Last week’s bonding bill meetings, though, highlighted the current problem. MnDOT recommended improvements to outstate Minnesota transit facilities as its second-highest bonding priority. Unfortunately, the governor did not adopt the recommendation, choosing instead that no money be spent on these bus and transit facilities throughout Minnesota.

A “house divided” approach regarding Minnesota issues is divisive and unproductive. The metropolitan area indeed has transit needs. I only ask that outstate Minnesota’s challenges regarding public transit receive equal attention.

REP. TERRY MORROW, DFL-ST. PETER

Star-Tribune, 2/4/10

Yesterday, Terry visited and had lunch with a group representing Minnesota’s DAV organization.  During the lunch, the group presented a plaque recognizing Terry’s “continued service to Minnesota’s veterans.”

Yesterday’s lunch was a great start to the new year!  I have learned so much from this tremendous group of veterans and leaders.  Hank Sadler has been teaching me about veterans issues and emergency management needs even before I took office.  Sitting next to Lyle Pearson during lunch was so much fun—you can’t visit with Lyle without having a big smile afterwards!  I am honored to have the opportunity to work with the DAV and look forward to contributing to the DAV’s work on behalf of our veterans and their families.

Last week, Terry received the 2009 ‘Friend of Transit’ recognition from the Minnesota Public Transit Association.  In talking with MPTA’s Tony Kellen, Terry outlined the steps the state needs to take to provide reasonable and reliable transit throughout Greater Minnesota:

Now that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has completed its first statewide transit plan, I look forward to working with the great group of public transit advocates here in Minnesota to make the plan a reality.  We need to ensure that people throughout the state can live in the home of their choice and still get to work, school, doctors, grocery stores, church, and more.

2010 will be a challenging year.  Minnesota remains enmeshed in a global economic recession starting to show a few glints of hope.  We face an additional $1.2 billion state deficit as unemployment and underemployment erode previously predicted tax receipts.

Combine these challenges with a looming election year and one might ask whether Minnesota has the foresight and commitment to fundamental principles to see us through the shoals.  Thankfully, we do.

Minnesota can steer through the obstacles and set course for a bright future in 2010: we simply need to listen to our children.  Reading their holiday wishes in Sunday’s Mankato Free Press, I am warmed and energized by our children’s simple articulation of principles all Minnesotans share—and which should serve as our North Star to guide policy and budget decisions in St. Paul.

Education is essential.  Zachary reminds us that we need “books to give knowledge to kids and poor people.”  Payton’s wish for his mother to get her master’s degree reminds us of America’s centuries-old belief that education improves lives.  Payton’s mother “works really hard … [and] usually is in the kitchen working on an assignment” and he hopes that “all her hard work pays off.”  Blake understands that strong schools fuel Minnesota’s research-and-development engine that, in turn, creates jobs. His wish: to be “the smartest person on earth” so that he can “get a good job” and “invent new things … [like] a hover craft.”

Jobs are essential.  William wishes that “people could have a job.”  “Many people are having a hard time with the economy,” Brianna recognizes.  The link between education and our economy, the fundamental partnership of the 20^th century in our state, is clear to our children. If our economy is to rebound and remain competitive—if families are to put food on the table—then Minnesota  fully support education from early childhood through K-12 and to college.

Health care is essential.  Our children’s letters do not resort to rancor: they remind us of the real people in their lives who desperately need medical care.  Katelyn wishes “to make cancer stop so everybody would live.”  Maeslik’s “mommy…is always sick and has to go to the doctor office…all I want is her to feel better again.”

Nine-year-old Abbi offers a simple wish that will stay with me throughout the legislative session in 2010.  She writes, “If I could have one holiday wish, it would be that my brother wouldn’t have cancer anymore….he has been really sick, and it makes me cry sometimes.  I am sad a lot when he looks sick.”

Health care will remain a contentious challenge in 2010.  Our children’s letters offer a reality reminder: siblings, parents, friends bravely face health care crises that are not served by partisan rhetoric.  A serious problem faces us.  We honor the real-life struggles of Maeslik’s mother and Abbi’s brother only by creating serious solutions. (more…)

Dear Commissioners:

As the state representative for District 23A, I represent the community of Lafayette.  You are well aware of the controversy surrounding the proposed placement of wind turbines in this community by the New Ulm Public Utilities Commission (NUPUC).

My conversations with some of the affected landowners convinces me that their opposition is not economic in nature.  These landowners express to me their substantial distress resulting from what they perceive to be threats by the New Ulm utility.  They do not wish to encumber their land, they tell me, in part because of the deep roots that their families have had in this area for generations. Representatives of some who signed the original agreements say they were told they had no choice but to sign.  Some of these points were included in a landowner letter to the utility and the city council.  Landowners submitted comments to the PUC.  Recent items in the New Ulm Journal (e.g., October 29, 2009) reiterate landowner opposition.  In all, this situation has raised significant questions regarding protection of landowner rights and the process and the communication that the public utility appears to have invoked.

Re-opening of Highway 169 in St. Peter

My concerns are not related to the development of wind power in Minnesota: in general, I support the creation of alternative, renewable energy sources.  In the Lafayette Township situation, however, the strong landowner resistance I have heard from my constituents–together with my review of PUC documents and press coverage–leads me to conclude that the draft site permit should not be issued and this project should not go forward without landowner approval.  The September 4, 2009 Office of Energy Security (OES) “Comments and Recommendations” document records the same opposition I am hearing: (more…)