St Paul | Bill Roehl

Archive for the ‘St Paul’

Should the Met Council Control Transit?

Published April 24th, 2012 in Metro, South Metro, St Paul | 19 Comments »

According to this editorial in SunThisweek, the Scott County Board of Commissioners is not happy with the way the Met Council handles transportation issues. Instead of allowing a body of commissioners who are appointed by the governor, instead of elected by the people, to make these decisions, one State Representative is suggesting the entire system be changed.

From the article:

There is a bill authored by Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, that would do away with the 33-member board and replace it with a 24-member regional transportation governance planning board, independent of the Metro Council.

Beard’s idea also is to have the transit system operations and planning removed from the Metropolitan Council and run by a new transportation commission. Transportation planning would be done by the new regional transportation governance board with two county commissioners from each of the seven counties, 16 elected township and city officials and some citizen members.

While this is nothing more than an idea at this point, Rep. Beard feels it is something that the legislature should seriously consider in order to reign in the power of the Met Council and hopefully allow for better representation from the counties and cities which feel that they do not receive fair benefit from the Council’s decisions. The editorial’s author then suggests this is not the time when the Met Council’s actions should be altered and/or modified and that maybe instead it should come in another year.

What do you think about dismantling the Met Council’s transit authority and replacing it mainly with elected members and interested citizens? Do you disagree with any of the Met Council’s decisions and do you think that a newly created, cross-functional group will be able to make better and more informed choices about transit than the Met Council has? Being that this is only in the planning stages, is this something that you believe will really come before the legislature in the future or is it simply an attempt to get the Met Council to shift their behaviors and better support Scott County and the constituents of Rep. Beard before their power is affected?

Whatever you have to say about this one, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Minnesota May Allow Aerial Fireworks?!

Published April 19th, 2012 in Metro, St Paul | 23 Comments »

Fireworks in Viana originally uploaded by Angela.

According to this WCCO article, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill which partially paves the way for Minnesotans to finally join their Upper Midwestern brethren in the purchase and launch of aerial fireworks. While the bill would still have to pass the House to become law, many believe this is a step in the right direction.

From the article:

The Minnesota Senate approved a bill 41-22 Tuesday to make aerial fireworks legal in the state. Current law limits consumers to sparklers and other toys low in explosives. The House version of the bill is awaiting a floor vote.

Supporters say Minnesotans already buy larger fireworks in Wisconsin and North and South Dakota. They say allowing such fireworks within the borders would generate money from sales taxes and eliminate a barely enforced law.

But critics point out that hospitals, law enforcement and fire chiefs organizations are opposed to a looser law. They say it will cause more injuries and property damage.

What do you think about the possibility of Minnesotans being able to legally obtain and launch fireworks in our fine state? Do you agree that the laws are rarely enforced and thus it’s pointless to have the rules on the books? Are you one of those individuals who crosses the border and buys them anyway? Is this more or less important than Sunday alcohol sales? Do you worry that passage would mean more injuries and fires?

Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Are Racinos the Panacea Their Supporters Claim?

Published April 11th, 2012 in Metro, South Metro, St Paul | 19 Comments »

Last week in a SunThisweek Letter to the Editor, the President of the Minnesota Quarter Horse Racing Association offered his full support for racinos as a way to raise funds for education and create “tens of thousands of jobs,” in a variety of other industries.

From the letter to the editor:

Although this district has a large agricultural demographic, Thompson is choosing not to support education, jobs and the district’s important agriculture roots with his no vote. The same old chicanery was used to defeat the racino bill and protect the tribal casino cartel’s monopoly on slot machines.

What businesses in Thompson’s district would benefit from a Minnesota racino? Who in District 36 is affected by the racino bill that would grow not only the race horse but horse industry?

Veterinary clinics, trailer, tractor and equipment dealers, feed stores, hay farmers, horse farms and boarding facilities, truck and tractor dealers and repair facilities, farriers, lumber stores, fleet and farm stores, grocery, insurance, banks and more.

Fourteen states have proven that racinos provide jobs and millions in revenue – two things that most lawmakers can agree would be good for Minnesota, especially when we are in debt to our public education system.

While there is little doubt that racinos add big dollars to local economies, the letter writer’s “save the children” rhetoric appears to be little more than an attempt to get more popular support for something which will largely benefit his own association and its members.

We certainly need to pay back the education debt but should be right a wrong with what some may believe is just another wrong? Are we really going to break down “the tribal casino cartel’s monopoly on slot machines”? Are you for or against racinos and why? Will this really solve all of the economic woes or is this simply an attempt by an organization looking to benefit from public policy decisions? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Schools to be Required to Teach Digital Technology

Published April 5th, 2012 in Burnsville, Metro, South Metro, St Paul | 18 Comments »

A recent bill introduced by Burnsville Representative Pam Myhra looks to change school curriculums of the future to include a mandate that high school seniors will need to have taken one course which includes a “digital technology component”. This mandate would go into place for those graduating in 2017 but debate erupted over the achievement gap between schools which may not have the resources available to handle such a requirement.

From a recent SunThisweek article about the bill:

When Rep. Pam Myhra watches pre-kindergartners methodically working with their parents’ iPads or smart phones, she sees possibilities.

[...]

This could mean “blended” coursework involving digital and more traditional forms of education.

“It doesn’t have to be a virtual course,” said Myhra, referring to online learning.

[...]

“You’re basically setting up another achievement gap,” said Rep. Michael Nelson, DFL-Brooklyn Park.

But other lawmakers, such as Rep. Gene Pelowski Jr., DFL-Winona, holding aloft a smart phone on the House floor, argued the digital revolution could not possibly be ignored.

While the intentions of Rep. Myhra are noble, some may wonder if her and Rep. Pelowski’s supposed examples show just how little they understand about what they are proposing. With children already adopting, integrating and utilizing technology in their daily lives from a young age, is it really necessary for educators, who are likely to be totally unprepared and certainly less familiar with technology are going to awkwardly thrust it upon their students?

Technology is an important part of the education system to be sure, however, these sorts of mandates are not always thought out in the best way. Simply put, this sort of mandate is ridiculous for a 5 year roadmap. Technology is already a matter of life for everyone in the United States and requiring high school seniors take one class before graduation does absolutely nothing positive for anyone involved. This is simply a poorly thought out mandate which sounds good on paper but in reality is nothing more than a warm and fuzzy which should never have passed.

What do you think about requiring high school seniors graduating in 2017 to take a course with a digital technology component? Do you think this mandate is a worthwhile one? Do you really believe that teachers are better equipped to teach students to integrate technology into their lives than they already are–generally from birth? Will a single course really make any real, positive impact on the lives of those seniors completing it? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.