2011 New Brighton City Elections

I realize that I should have written a post long before now and am hopeful it is not too late to get out the truth about some statements Mr. Benke has made in his campaign mailer and during the campaign.

Under the "Economic Development" heading in his mailer he claims he will work to "Aggressively seek investments in NW Quadrant (Exchange)".

This is laughable since it was Mr. Benke who was the catalyst for wanting a change for "investment" in the NWQ. As mayor he and the council commissioned two different studies for what I would call "Stepford"izing New Brighton. The first in 1986 "City of New Brighton Highway Eight Corridor Plan" prepared by Gair and Associates and the second in 1997 "City of New Brighton, Old Highway 8 Corridor Study, A vision for the Heart of New Brighton" prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group. The second was a major study involving different plans and phases for Old Highway 8 from Highway 96 down to County Road D.

As stated in the report by Hoisington Koegler:

Question: Will the current market support the proposed plan for the NWQ? Answer: Probably not. This is a vision that may not be realized for 10-15 years and market changes will change dramatically during that time. Both deficient accessibility and the presence of obtrusive heavy industrial uses will dampen the potential for the immediate actualization of the vision.

The City of New Brighton today would not be looking at a $50+ million worth of general obligation bonding debt if Mr. Benke and the mayor after him would have taken heed from the study that suggested not pursuing the plan and wait until 2007-2012 to re-address development.

Our current mayor, council and staff have contracted a developer and a contractor who are seeking out potential development for the The New Brighton Exchange (NWQ).

"Identify and remove barriers to business success"

Mr. Benke did not mind when businesses on the NWQ were "identified" and/or "removed" by the threat or actual use of eminent domain, because they were not part of the vision.

"Provide housing choices for citizen of all ages"

As far as I know there are currently PLENTY of housing choices in New Brighton for all ages, but I do know that Mr. Benke has no problem with additional low income housing being built.

Under the section labeled "Fiscal Responsibility" Mr. Benke promises he will "Change budget process to provide early, meaningful citizen input" and "Work with the Council and staff to identify creative ways to reduce costs".

With the leadership of Mayor Jacobsen and the fiscal responsibility of Council Member Phillips and myself, we voted for a zero levy for 2010 and 2011. Mr. Benke stated in a candidate debate that he did not approve of Mayor Jacobsen and council setting the 2012 levy at less than zero and does not rule out raising taxes if he becomes mayor (it should also be noted that council member Burg also stated she did not approve of the less than zero levy).

If we learned anything from the past history of when Mr. Benke was mayor, it would be that we do not need more of his "creativity" when it comes to making budgeting decisions for the City.

Another of Mr. Benke’s statements made during a debate and in an e-mail needs to be debunked:

"They also voted to reduce the tax levy in an election year while they agreed to issue debt certificates "aka" bonding with issuing costs and future interest costs to fund the capital equipment account. That is not fiscal responsibility. Isn't that what we all call "kicking the can down the street" to our children?". [In the debate he said $600+ thousand was needed].

This statement is simply FALSE! Mr. Benke sat in on a budget work session when it was stated by our Finance Director that he believed if we lowered the levy to less than zero, that we could be looking at issuing bonds for capital equipment. I reminded those present that the budget is looked at every year and we do not need to purchase everything WANTED as opposed to only things that are NEEDED. For example: I ask for any resident to comment in favor of buying two new fire trucks to the tune of $1 million in the near future.

Mr. Benke clearly did not understand the budget discussion or was trying to manipulate what was discussed for political gain. It should also be noted that the mayor and council last year transferred $1.1 million dollars into capital equipment.

We all know how ugly politics can get and this election has been no different. Behind the scenes Mr. Benke and his minions have been relentless in personally demeaning any candidate they disagree with. They argue that character matters. I agree, but if they believe the only way to win is to spew their hate instead of honestly running on issues, who is really without character? How big is their glass house?

This election should not be about the need of a "take back", but who best can move the City forward.

It is crucial that we vote for the most qualified candidates with proven records of looking out for and serving the residents and City of New Brighton. I believe Mayor Jacobsen and Council Member Phillips are those candidates.

New Brighton Mayoral Race Part 3 - The Conclusion

A common question one hears around New Brighton these days is why is Bob Benke running for public office again? Good question.

One would think that 22 years as a councilman and mayor, followed by years of influencing city government from appointed positions on city commissions and boards would be more than adequate to satisfy any legitimate sense of civic duty as well as a normal ego. Apparently this is not the case.

Benke's quest to return to elected office goes far beyond political tone-deafness considering his pathetic record of support for policies and decisions that have led to almost all of the serious problems the city has faced over the last several years. Many of these problems originated on his watch as mayor (bloated budgets, significant annual levy increases, excessive staffing at city hall, eminent domain abuse, and the seriously flawed redevelopment vision for the Northwest Quadrant immediately come to mind). Even after his departure from office he has often fought against efforts to clean up the mess he left from his positions as a professional lobbyist and appointed positions on city commissions.

Bob Benke has no substantive issues to run on. He throws out a few vague and nebulous platitudes about city government needing more "openness" and "vision", yet cannot state any credible specifics as to where Mayor Jacobsen falls short. In the candidate forums Benke begrudgingly admitted that the city is in pretty good financial shape under two years of Jacobsen's leadership, although he did not elaborate on how remarkable a feat this was considering the mess he and his politically allied successor had left after their terms in office.

Benke's implication that Mayor Jacobsen lacks openness is laughable, especially considering that it is coming from a long time professional lobbyist (it’s interesting to note that he euphemistically refers to this activity as "consulting"). The influence of lobbyists on public policy is the antithesis of open government. Deals are cut at private meetings and behind closed doors where political favors and influence are bought, sold, and bartered with little, if any, tangible accountability. Are we to believe that, if elected Mayor, Mr. Benke is just going to abandon his vast store of political capital and connections he has built up over his many years of lobbying and political activism? The huge potential conflicts of interest alone qualify as a major deal breaker as far as I’m concerned.

As far as Benke’s "vision" for the city is concerned, all one has to do is look at the vast wasteland of the Northwest Quadrant and compare it to what was sold to the public (see the link in Part 2.). Benke’s policies led to the destruction of the area tax base instead of the significant financial benefits that were promised. Although there are still lots of problems to deal with, the area is finally starting to show signs of financial viability after only two years of responsible management by Mayor Jacobsen and his allies on the council.

The bottom line for this election is pretty simple: in his two years as Mayor, Dave Jacobsen has delivered on his campaign promises of effectively addressing the difficult issues the city faces, many of which were caused by the policies of the Benke years of city government. He clearly has earned the chance for a second term. In contrast, Bob Benke has a very tangible record of failure with respect to running city government and cannot make a credible case that Mayor Jacobsen needs to be replaced or that he is even capable of doing a better job for the people of New Brighton.

It seems to me that if Mr. Benke could not get his ideas implemented to his satisfaction after 22 years in office it indicates that he is either very ineffective as a leader or that his ideas do not reflect the views of the people. In either case he is the wrong man for the job, especially during difficult times. On the other hand Dave Jacobsen’s record of quiet competence, kept promises, and successful results indicates the he is the right man at the right time for this important position.

Please join me in voting for Dave Jacobsen for New Brighton Mayor on next Tuesday.

New Brighton‭ ‬2011‭ ‬Election Choices

New Brighton area conservatives are dedicated to making our city a better place to live, work and play by following a strategy that embraces personal freedom, individual initiative and fiscally responsible financial management. Led by Mayor David Jacobson, council members Gina Bauman and David Phillips the city has held the line on expenditures the last three years. This year, it is crucial that Mayor Jacobson and council member Phillips are re-elected in order to continue a conservative financial agenda.

The following are some key differences between the candidates: Mayor Jacobsen is a retired executive from Onan Corporation. He has no ties to any business, outside government organizations, or any other public or private entities. His focus is the City of New Brighton. In contrast, Mr. Benke is an employee of Ewald Consulting, a lobbying firm which consults, advises and lobbies for a variety of public and private organizations. In addition, Mr. Benke is a member of the Ramsey County Charter Commission. Mr. Benke's full-time and part-time jobs are huge potential conflicts of interest for an elected official. Electing Mr. Benke mayor is akin to hiring the fox to guard the henhouse.

Mayor Jacobsen and Councilman Philips believe that New Brighton should not put taxpayers at risk in the real estate development business. Mr. Benke proudly takes credit for setting New Brighton on the course to borrow money to fund the debacle now known as the New Brighton Exchange. This has resulted in an outstanding debt of more than $50M, or more than $3,100 for each of the approximately 16,000 adult residents of New Brighton. Mayor Jacobsen and council member Phillips have taken decisive action to mitigate taxpayer exposure initiated by Benke and past councils by hiring a new marketing and development team. This has resulted in a new $18M development which is now underway.

Phillips is an experienced architect, real estate developer and small businessman. Additionally, he has four years hands-on experience as your councilman. Contrast his background with those of the other council candidates (Source: http://onyourballot2.vote411.org): A hunting magazine publisher, a former Parks and Recreation employee at another city and current Mental Health Employment Specialist Case Manager, a retired Minnesota Air National Guard Lt. Colonel and current website implementation project manager. It's also interesting to note that there are other candidates who did not bother to submit profiles to the League of Women Voters site linked above.

New Brighton's population is 21,541. The city is spending approximately $4.99M per year on Public Safety, which includes the Police Department. Rather than creating their own police infrastructure, neighboring cities Shoreview and Arden Hills contract with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department. New Brighton cost per person is $232. Average cost per person in Shoreview and Arden Hills is $131 (Source: MN State Auditor). In other words, NB could save 44% of the budget ($2.2M) by following the same course as Shoreview and Arden Hills. When asked about this idea as a means to save money during the League of Women Voters Candidate's Forum in October, Mr. Benke stated that he is in favor of keeping the structure of the New Brighton Police Department as is. Mayor Jacobsen stated that he was open to making this change if it was what the voters desired.

Working together, Mayor Jacobsen and Council Member Phillips have reduced the annual operating budget by more than $639,000, held the tax levy flat in 2010 and 2011, and reduced the tax levy for 2012.

Please vote for Dave Jacobsen for Mayor and vote ONLY for David Phillips for City Council. The City Council race is a contest for two seats. It is important to vote only for David Phillips to avoid effectively canceling out your own vote by voting for a second choice for council.

Bruce Knight
New Brighton

New Brighton Mayoral Race - Part 2

In Part 1 we looked at the New Brighton mayoral race from a liberal/conservative perspective. In these complicated times, however, many voters are looking to make their decision based on broader criteria than just general political philosophy. Some major issues the city faces are finances and the associated burden on taxpayers, salvaging the largely failed Northwest Quadrant (now officially called the New Brighton Exchange) redevelopment project, and the size and administration of city government at a time of a very poor national economy.

This race has a unique dynamic that, to me, makes the decision very clear: the accomplishments of Dave Jacobsen in his first term as mayor are largely attributable to how he is cleaning up the mess Bob Benke is largely responsible for in his over quarter century tenure as a council member, mayor, commission member, and professional lobbyist.

As a council member and mayor, Bob Benke built a consistent record of growing government and increasing spending to pay for it. The modus operandi of the Benke era city council was to propose an unrealistically high levy increase late in the year that taxpayers would not stand for and then go through the motions of cutting it significantly and claiming victory in standing up for the taxpayers. The resulting levies were still high enough to cover the excessive spending of the council but were passed off as a bargain for the taxpayer only due to the ridiculously high-ball initial proposal.

In contrast, under Dave Jacobsen's tenure as mayor the budgeting process has started early in the year with department heads required to prioritize and justify their budget requests. Council work sessions and meetings held throughout the year integrate input from the citizens with the assessments of city staff to come up with a responsible budget. In each year of Mayor Jacobsen's term the levy has been held to a zero or lower increase. During this same time the city has not cut any essential services and has implemented long term financial planning to assure that future needs are covered without gouging the taxpayers.

During Benke's tenure as a council member and mayor we saw the construction of the Family Service Center against the will of the voters. Over the years the maintenance and operation this building has been a financial drain on the city and has had problems attracting and retaining paying tenants. Finally, in an effort championed by Mayor Jacobsen and the current city council, an agreement was reached to re-locate the Arden Hills branch of the Ramsey County library into the building in a win-win situation for both New Brighton and Ramsey County.

Also under Bob Benke's watch as mayor the city began an aggressive abuse of eminent domain. Over time, the growth of this ill-advised and unethical policy (which was continued by Benke's politically allied successor with the support of Benke from his appointed positions on city commissions) tarnished the reputation of New Brighton as "second only to the City of Richfield as the worst abuser of eminent domain in Minnesota", according the the Castle Coalition. Tax-paying businesses and home owners were forced out of their businesses and off of their property using the full power and resources of city government. After payments for the properties and legal expenses, New Brighton taxpayers ended up paying premium price for largely contaminated land that private sector experts (and anyone with common sense) deemed undesirable for the proposed type of development. The Benke era "vision" of the project was obviously highly flawed as can be confirmed by comparing the grandiose depiction in the linked document to the largely undeveloped dirt fields that cover most of the area. It should also be pointed out that failure of the project occurred during a period of a relative boom in the real estate and re-development market. Benke is currently trying to re-write history and blame the failure of the project on the current depressed economy, but his pathetic efforts to deflect the blame from himself and his political cronies will not stand up to honest scrutiny.

Benke's failed redevelopment effort resulted in an erosion of the city’s commercial tax base. This, along with the establishment of a ridiculous number (relative to other cities of similar size) of tax increment finance (TIF) districts coupled with the big spending city councils of the Benke era led to significant annual increases in property taxes that provided little, if any, increased benefit to New Brighton residents.

In his two years as mayor, Dave Jacobsen and his allies on the city council have made significant progress in reversing much of the damage initiated by Bob Benke and his political allies in their quarter century plus of government-centric practices and policies.

More in Part 3...

New Brighton Mayoral Race - Part 1

The contest for New Brighton mayor is between two known quantities: Dave Jacobsen, the incumbent mayor with a track record of his positions in the last campaign and his documented performance in office, and Bob Benke, a former council member and mayor with a long public record. A critical examination of this information, in my view, makes the choice for mayor an overwhelmingly easy decision.

There were two candidate forums this week at New Brighton City Hall for the mayoral and council contests. These events were, as usual, not very useful in providing a lot of meaningful information for voters to make an informed decision. This is not the the fault of the candidates. The constraints on time and the shallowness of the questions (at times driven by the political agenda of the sponsoring organization) assure that these events serve as little more than a joint appearance of the candidates where people can associate names with faces and get a feel for the speaking styles of the participants. At best, people who do not pay attention to city government may glean a very broad sense of the general philosophy of the candidates but very little to make an informed decision. Those who do follow this stuff closely can perhaps pick up some information on the campaign strategies, but it is doubtful any minds were changed.

I will first address the New Brighton mayoral race and will do so in multiple posts to keep the reading time reasonable, beginning with general political philosophy and governing style.

First off, let's throw out the notion that this is a non-partisan contest. City elections are officially non-partisan in that there are no reference to party affiliation on the ballot and generally no open endorsement by political parties on yard signs and literature. In this race the political views and general governing philosophy of the candidates are very apparent based on their campaigns, performance in office, and their supporters: Mayor Jacobsen is a solid fiscal and social conservative while former mayor Bob Benke is clearly a hard-left, big government liberal. In other words, essentially polar opposites on the right/left political continuum.

In his short time in office Dave Jacobsen has established a public record of fiscal responsibility, holding the line or lowering taxes, governing in accordance with the will of the people, planning for the long term, and a style of quiet competence. In contrast, Bob Benke has a long documented record of growing the size and scope of government, unashamedly raising taxes (including a city "death tax" that made the national press), abuse of eminent domain, a long tenure as a lobbyist for liberal causes, support of liberal candidates, and generally governing with a style of centralized command-and-control.

It would be difficult to come to any other conclusions by looking at the individual public records of the two candidates, and a side-by-side comparison of the evidence would be of little practical use in determining who is the candidate deserving of your support. If you are a conservative, or even lean conservative, Dave Jacobsen is your candidate. On the other hand, if you are a liberal/socialist/progressive Bob Benke is the logical choice. If general political philosophy is your only criteria in selecting who to vote for your choice should be clear, one way or the other.

To me, as a proud conservative, Dave Jacobsen is clearly the only choice. Returning Bob Benke to power would be a huge step backward the city of New Brighton on several levels.

To be continued...

Bob Benke wants to be our mayor again. Bad Idea!

Just the thought of Bob Benke once again becoming the mayor of New Brighton should outrage citizens into action to assure that it doesn't happen.

The Benke years were characterized by an arrogant central command-and-control style of city government that propagated the irresponsible use of tax increment financing (TIF), annual steep property tax increases, and a shameful abuse of eminent domain that destroyed the commercial tax base and tarnished the reputation of New Brighton nationally. The sweeping eminent domain reform legislation subsequently passed by the state was partially in response to the actions of New Brighton under Benke and his politically allied successor as mayor. The legislation was too late to help New Brighton, and the current barren landscape of the Northwest Quadrant is a fitting metaphor of Benke's toxic legacy.

Under the steady and responsible leadership of Dave Jacobsen as our current mayor and the hard work of some current and past council members city government has begun to undo the failures of the Benke legacy. Over the last few years responsible fiscal and operational policies have been implemented that has resulted in new construction in the area that will help to defuse the bonding time-bomb created by the Benke era policies. This has been accomplished without raising taxes or cutting essential services.

We cannot afford to return the architect of so many of the problems the city is just beginning to recover from back into power. Please join me in supporting the re-election of Dave Jacobsen as our mayor.

More Rebuttal to Further Liberal Nonsense

I don't want to get into an endless back and forth volley of dueling letters with Mr. Haluska in the Fridley Patch, (http://fridley.patch.com/articles/unlike-gov-dayton-local-gop-activists-got-nuthin) but it appears that he and his ilk are the one who are compensating for their lack of substantive ideas with equally vapid and self-serving rhetoric. His last letter tends to support my contention that his crowd does not understand basic economics or the proper role of government in a representative republic. This is not surprising - the candidate he worked for (HD50A Representative Carolyn Laine) actually asserted in a public forum that the Constitution is a "suggestion" and that legislators should not be bound by it. The nut obviously doesn't fall far from the tree.

Although Senator Goodwin, Representative Knuth, and Representative Laine do a very poor job of representing the interests of their constituents and the state, it is the liberal, socialist, and statist policies they support and are attempting to perpetuate that are largely responsible for many of the problems our state and nation are dealing with. They did not invent left-wing ideology and are not the exclusive practitioners of it, but they are the implementers and promulgators that we the citizens (note we are citizens, not subjects) in Senate District 50 have the direct power and civic responsibility to vote out of office.

Note to Mr. Haluska and liberals in general: this meme of blaming President Bush for everything from the current economic troubles to the three month old potato salad in your fridge smelling kind of funky is wearing awfully thin. Bush, a Republican but in no way a Conservative, made many mistakes and implemented some unwise policies, many under the auspices of his "new tone" mantra as "compromise" with liberals and socialists. Get over it! We are now over half-way through the first (and hopefully only) Obama Administration. Obama has doubled-down on many of the mistakes of his predecessor and has introduced new radical left-wing policies that have exacerbated a bad situation into one much worse. Factor in the policy-driven carnage since the Democrat take-over of the House and Senate (check out the economic stats pre vs. post Pelosi/Reid) and there is plenty of blame to go around at the federal level.

There are parallels to this at the state level. Pawlenty, a Republican but hardly a prototype Conservative, did some good things but was also responsible for a lot of bad policy (e.g. going along with the ethanol and green mandate nonsense championed by Knuth and her leftist colleagues) and we on the right have chastised him rather harshly at times. Regardless, the bulk of the blame that can rightfully be attributed to Pawlenty is largely the result of his compromises with the DFL. It is also interesting to take note that prior to the DFL take-over of the legislature in 2006 the state had a $2-3 billion surplus even with Pawlenty as governor. This was transformed into the current shortfall orchestrated by the DFL and their large majority. In any case Pawlenty is gone and his successor appears to be hell-bent on making the situation worse by increasing government spending and intrusion into our daily lives. It's been said that socialism is viable until it runs out of other people's money and folks, the money has run out.

Mr. Haluska accuses those who responded to his letter of not offering any solutions in the way of legislation to help the people. Actually his implied premise that legislation will solve the critical problems our society faces is indicative of the underlying cause of many of the problems. Bad legislation has created the bureaucracy that disproportionately taxes those who produce wealth and earn the money and redistributes to those who do not. Bad legislation has led to economic and liberty strangling regulation that is often very self-serving to political power brokers. Bad legislation is produced by bad legislators, and we have no shortage of that at all levels of government. District 50 is a prime example of this.

As far as solutions offered by the right it's really pretty simple and it works every time it has been implemented. For those like Mr. Haluska who have not yet learned these fundamental concepts, here is the executive summary: limit government to its constitutionally empowered duties and obligations, tax the citizenry only enough to fund the legitimate functions of government and levy the taxes in a way equitable to all citizens, respect and enforce lawful contracts and private property rights, and allow the free market to operate with minimal regulation. Simple, but effective which is exactly why liberals will fight its implementation every step of the way because once implemented the perceived need for liberals, socialists, social engineers, and other governmentally empowered busy-bodies will fade away.

Finally, the age old leftist "Jesus is a liberal" schtick is both amusing and offensive at the same time. There are many interpretations of scripture and history is full of examples of it being twisted to justify any position imaginable as, not coincidentally, is warned of within scripture itself. It should be noted that most religious organizations, Christian or otherwise, accept that 10% of one's income is adequate to support their good works while most governments demand much more. It also comes to mind that Jesus efficiently produced a commodity that contained alcohol that people actually wanted and He did not require a government mandate or subsidy to do it ;).

Mr. Haluska poses the question "What would Jesus cut?". I certainly don't know and, as Jesus is wiser than any of the creations of his Father, I as a Christian would not be so presumptuous as to speak for Him. Maybe Senator Goodwin could arrange another exclusive appearance with the "Atheists for Human Rights" organization and take it up with them.

Under the assumption that Mr. Haluska's question is rhetorical rather that literal, my guess is that the cut would not be to any program or policy per se, but rather to the notion that our rights and well-being come from the whim of government bureaucrats rather than our God-given rights and the liberty to exercise them within the bounds of personal responsibility and accountability.