Not getting a “fair share” popped up twice in the STRIB today and both caught my eye. See what you think:
First, the James Lilek column was dedicated to the MOA expansion. His vision of what was to come was humorous, but hidden within he emphasized Bloomington whining about not being on the RECEIVING END of the Fiscal Disparities Program.
FYI, that is a program that uses non-residential tax receipts to assist communities that do not have a strong tax base. Hard to believe Bloomington feels they should be on the RECEIVING end of that aid…didn’t we just read another article lauding the economic BOOM in this first ring ‘burb?
Somehow with logic that escapes me, Bloomington and the Minnesota Legislature feel justified in setting this unheard-of precedent to build a bigger MOA than the original – right next to the existing one. Not only will it focus on luxury stores but will greatly expand itself as an amusement park which includes, by the way, a new waterpark that will compete with the one that already exists in Bloomington – across the street!
What you may not have picked up is that $250 million granted for MOA expansion came from that Fiscal Disparities fund! Yes, from a fund designed to help the have-nots, we will build a massive complex that targets those that are looking for the luxury market. I am not sure what about the inability of Bloomies to thrive at the MOA these people do not understand.
And not only that, this is the FIRST TIME funds have ever been diverted from its original purpose – but of course, for a good cause like MOA , why not?
The winning reasoning: Bloomington (Not MOA) as a whole apparently is a big giver to the fund (obviously supporting the fact that they are not among the HAVE-NOTS – but I digress)…”money is redistributed to everyone else but us”. Sounds like a grade school kid arguing with his mother, doesn’t it?
Apparently the mom was tired and for a little peace and quiet, she gave in to the irritating child. That does not make it right.
The second example had a different ending – at least temporarily.
The Minnesota Legislature also voted to divert grant money provided by the Minnesota Legacy Amendment to habitat projects in the metro parks.
The proposed use for prairie restoration efforts to provide habitat for waterfowl and animals is a worthwhile one, as the prairie that originally made up Minnesota is being destroyed, but Dayton vetoed the investment based on the recommendation of the council appointed by the legislature to administer the funds created by the 2008 Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment designated for outdoors and arts initiatives.
However, at the same time, Dayton asked that this request be considered by the council in their next round of funding considerations that begin in June. Although disappointed it was not approved immediately, there was some acknowledgement that those asking for the funds need to regroup and do a better job of illustrating why their mission parallels the goals of the outdoor heritage council and should be considered in sanctioned funding.
To me, the first example is playground bullying, the second is reasonable citizens of the state trying to reach agreement through collaborating and sharing – for the ultimate good of all.