Enlighten New Brighton

2011 New Brighton City Elections

2011-11-07T22:29:00.005-06:00

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

2011-11-04T21:49:00.010-05:00

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

2011-11-02T21:19:00.005-05:00

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

2011-11-01T18:37:00.009-05:00

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

2011-10-22T08:57:00.003-05:00

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!

2011-09-17T11:31:00.001-05:00

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

2011-03-13T13:05:00.013-05:00

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.

A Rebuttal to Some Liberal Nonsense from 50A

2011-03-09T17:21:00.003-06:00

Fridley resident John Haluska's recent letter to the editor in the Fridley Patch is a great example of why a free and productive society cannot afford to have liberals, socialists, and/or statists in positions of political power. He and his fellow left-wingers obviously either do not understand basic economics and the role of government in a free society as envisioned by the founding fathers or just choose to ignore them for political gain.

The main theme of the piece revolves around the tried and true liberal quest to acquire and maintain political power through the promotion and exploitation of class envy and the promise to "correct" the situation by the redistribution of wealth through the power of government. These Marxist principles have never led to the prosperity they promise, but have invariably resulted in a degradation of liberty and economic prosperity.

Mr. Haluska accuses those of us on the right of embracing "greed" as a virtue and implies that anyone who is well off likely achieved their status at the expense of others. He apparently doesn't consider the possibility that a well-off person may have engaged in hard work, personal sacrifice, and wise asset management, with maybe enjoyed a little good fortune. The liberal notion that hard work and personal sacrifice that results in financial reward is the cause of poverty for others is laughable. It seems that liberals like Haluska believe that poverty, either real or perceived, is virtuous in-and-of-itself.

Liberals and socialists like Haluska obviously don't understand that economic prosperity is created and maintained by the growth and voluntary redistribution of wealth in a climate of personal liberty and a free market. People become wealthy when they produce goods or services that their fellow citizens want or need and voluntarily trade for with their wealth or labor. Jobs are created when the demand for these products and services becomes great enough that the producers need to hire others to meet the demand. Is it greedy for someone to make enough money to finance the production of goods and services and the resulting jobs that are created? Isn't such activity worthy of financial reward? How does taxing the so-called "rich", who produce the majority of private sector jobs and pay the bulk of the tab run up by the government, even more encourage them to keep producing?

In contrast, government spending is largely economic overhead. It does not create wealth, but consumes and redistributes it. Legitimate government services (i.e. those that the government has a legal and constitutional duty or obligation to provide) are both desirable and necessary - the free market could not exist without a clean, safe, and lawful society with essential public infrastructure. These services, however essential, do not produce the wealth needed to maintain them and must be financed through the wealth created by the private sector. This symbiotic relationship between the government and private sectors works as long as enough wealth produced by the private sector to support it. This balance is upset when government spending becomes a parasite that threatens the viability of its host.

The current economic problems we are experiencing are largely because the government has far exceeded its legitimate bounds and consumes too much of the wealth produced by the private sector. Government does not spend money efficiently because it is not subject to market discipline. If a private sector enterprise spends too much money, produces goods or services that are not wanted or needed, or does not efficiently use available resources it goes out of business. Any remaining demand for the goods or services the company produced presents an opportunity for others to fulfill. Businesses can, and often do, fail if too much operating capital is consumed through over-taxation and regulation.

Unions in the private sector have a vested interested in negotiating reasonable contracts in that they will suffer the economic consequences if the company or industry their workers are engaged in ceases to exist. There is no equivalent natural regulation mechanism in the monopolistic environment of the public sector. There is also a systemic problem with public unions in that they provide a lot of funding to the liberal politicians who assist in getting their lucrative contracts through the government bureaucracy. This largess is financed by the taxpayers who have no voice or advocate at the negotiation table.

Mr. Haluska's contention that all that is good will cease to exist if government does not provide it is laughable as, with very few exceptions, the private sector can produce most goods and services much more efficiently than the government due to the natural checks and balances inherent in the free market.

The very thought that government can create real jobs, or even an economy (green or otherwise) is just plain silly - it can create employment but very few, if any, jobs that increase the wealth of society. Theoretically the government could employ a lot of people by paying them to dig holes and paying others to fill them in. These employees would get paychecks, but what wealth would be produced? In addition to the false belief that government spending creates jobs, Mr. Haluska ignores the fact that many private sector jobs are lost or relocated out of the state because of the high taxes and business operating costs that are a direct consequence of excessive government spending and/or regulation.

The size and scope of government could easily be cut (and the tax revenue used to fund it left in the private sector where it will spur real economic growth) without the loss of legitimate and essential services. Yes, government jobs would be lost, but the vast majority of the displaced workers would find employment within the resulting growth of the private sector.

So-called "radical right-wing" beliefs of limited government, keeping more of what one earns, and personal responsibility are not a threat to our district or state, but the truly radical left wing policies of Senator Goodwin, Representative Knuth, and Representative Laine are largely responsible for the problems our state is currently having to deal with.

We as voters will have the chance to deal with it accordingly at the next election.

Please Vote for Gina Bauman for District 50 Senate on Tuesday, November 2

2010-11-01T10:51:00.007-05:00

Reposted from my State Senate Campaign blog
http://www.ginabauman.com/blog

We are coming to the end of a long and hard fought campaign. On Tuesday November 2 we the voters will make the decision on how we want to be governed and who we want representing us in the government. There are clear and significant differences between where my opponent and I stand on the important issues in this campaign and I humbly ask for your vote to be your State Senator as I believe I am far better qualified to effectively represent our common interests.

Our district and state faces many problems, most of which having been caused by government either not fulfilling its core responsibilities or getting involved in areas where it should not be. Most definitely, our problems are not due to we the people paying too little in taxes or not relinquishing enough of our liberties to government. It is time to make a stand and take back control of our government, and it starts on Tuesday at your polling place.

Below is a summary of my positions versus those of my opponent:

I advocate policies that strengthen the private sector and reduce the interference of government into our daily lives and our businesses. As in the past, if government gets out of the way the private sector will provide economic growth and associated creation of jobs to bring us out of the current recession. This includes a move to zero-based budgeting, lower taxes, and reducing government spending to within its means. My opponent has stated on several occasions that tax increases are inevitable and a belief in the failed practice of base-line budgeting where most budget items get an automatic increase each biennium. The policies of her party transformed a $2 billion state budget surplus into a $6-8 billion deficit since they assumed power in 2006.

I oppose any Obama-care style government imposed health insurance requirements and/or move to socialized medicine. We have the best health care in the world, but the system is encumbered by unwise tax policies and unnecessary regulations on the insurance and health care delivery industries that drive up costs and bureaucracy. A huge improvement can be made simply by allowing health care consumers to shop for their insurance across state lines and giving individuals the same tax breaks as employers when purchasing insurance. My opponent has stated that our health care lags behind much of the world and is in favor of Obama-care style government policies that will negatively impact the availability and quality of care at any price.

I support our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for the protection of our selves, our property, and for all legal purposes of our choosing. I am an NRA member and proudly carry the NRA endorsement in this election. I support maintaining and strengthening the "shall issue" policy when it comes to carry permits. I oppose any direct as well as back-door gun control legislation to restrict access to firearms to law-abiding citizens or attempt to tax or regulate ammunition or sport activities out of existence. My opponent voted against carry reform and has an "F" rating from the NRA. Before the primary the NRA sent out one of their "orange card" alerts urging a vote against her because of her voting record in the legislature against the interests of NRA members. These alerts are not issued frequently and are generally reserved for the most flagrantly undesirable candidates.

I support photo voter id and other safeguards to protect the accuracy and integrity of our elections. As a member of the Minnesota House, my opponent voted against requiring photo id as a condition to voting.

I believe that the right to life is the most fundamental of all of our God-given rights and am strongly pro-life and pro-family. Government policies should not hinder the ability of people to support their families and raise their children according to their values and beliefs. I oppose state funding of abortions and of organizations that promote abortion. I will also do all in my power to allow the people to vote for constitutional protection of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. My opponent advocates very liberal so-called "pro-choice" policies on abortion and for several years has had a 100% rating from NARAL, a leading pro-abortion advocacy organization. The leadership of her party has also actively blocked the right of the people to vote on constitutionally protecting traditional marriage, and I see no reason to believe that she will deviate from her past record of voting with her party’s leadership.

I urge you to take some time between now and Tuesday to carefully look over both my website (http://www.ginabauman.com) as well as that of my opponent (http://www.barbgoodwin.com) and decide for yourself whose ideas and qualifications will better represent your interests as well as those of our district at large. Feel free to contact me per the information on my web site if you have any questions or concerns.

Mention also needs to be made of the other candidate in this race, Rae Hart Anderson. Anderson competed with me and one other candidate for the GOP endorsement, which I won with 90% of the vote. Since then Rae has been thrown out of the Republican Party largely for her unwillingness to abide by party rules, inappropriate public behavior, and a refusal to work constructively with others. She is running without any endorsement by any party and has run a very disjointed and misrepresentative campaign (see this prior post on Enlighten New Brighton for more on this). Her flagship issue is pro-life, but her abrasive demeanor and inability to work within conventional channels will not help advance the pro-life cause. As an independent, Rae would have few if any legislative allies to caucus with and has demonstrated that she will more than likely drive away people who may be leaning toward a pro-life way of thinking. Check out her web site (http://www.hartanderson.org) for yourself. Other than being pro-life, there is little in the way of consistent or coherent policy positions or political philosophy. Realistically, the only role Rae Anderson has in this election is that of a spoiler. A vote for Anderson with the intent of promoting the pro-life agenda will have the exact opposite effect if it ends up tilting the election to my hard-core pro-abortion opponent.

I am confident that I and my fellow conservative candidates are on the right side of the issues and we will win this election if all of us who believe in personal liberty and limited government get out and vote on Tuesday. In the past two elections far too many of us like-minded people stayed at home and we ended up with elected officials who have not represented our best interests. 2011 can be the year where we start undoing the damage that has been caused by four years of liberal dominance in the state legislature. It all starts with your vote for conservative candidates this Tuesday.

Thank you for all of your support and encouragement throughout this long election season. The finish line is in sight and the race is ours to be won if we have the resolve to do so. Once again, I encourage you to get out and vote on Tuesday and ask for the honor and privilege of representing you in the Minnesota Senate.

Gina Bauman
GOP Endorsed Candidate for District 50 Senate

Citizen Bye's Annual Political Survey

2010-11-01T08:25:00.003-05:00

For several election cycles New Brighton resident Roger Bye has done a lot of research into the candidates participating in the upcoming election. This is an old-school, lots of phone and legwork type of effort - no fancy graphics or glitzy animation here, just the cold hard data.

You can download the 2010 edition in PDF format here.

The Rae Hart Anderson Campaign: Time to Lay the Cards on the Table

2010-10-24T22:05:00.007-05:00

Up to this point Rae Hart Anderson, the District 50 Senate candidate without any political party endorsement or affiliation, has been able to do or say pretty much anything she wants without challenge from either of the two endorsed candidates. This is understandable to a point as realistically Rae has absolutely no chance in this election and the endorsed candidates do not want to be distracted from getting their message out to distinguish themselves from their real competition.

This dynamic is generally understood and adhered to in most elections by the mainstream candidates with a real chance at winning as well as by conventional "alternative" candidate who are running either to call attention to a single issue that neither mainstream candidate is addressing or to build a foundation for future political aspirations.

Rae Hart Anderson in no way can be described as "conventional" and the same can be said about the campaign she is running. Unlike a conventional "alternative" candidate, she knows no bounds as to what is proper and acceptable conduct in a political campaign. During good times and a "ho-hum" election climate this could be viewed as a distraction or minor irritation for the competitive candidates. However, this election takes place in serious times. The two mainstream candidates have distinctly different views on what is needed to address the serious issues our state and country face and if the people choose the wrong one there will be real and long term consequences. From what I am hearing in the course of door knocking and talking to voters, the unconventional and often unethical way Rae is running her campaign is causing confusion, misconceptions, and a general disdain for paying attention to what is at stake in this election.

Rae has the right, even without the good judgment, to run in this election. But we the people have the right to know who it is that is running to represent us.

Just who is Rae Hart Anderson? The more one looks into this the murkier the picture becomes.

Rae makes a lot of lofty claims about her background and qualifications. On her web site she lists her major credentials as "RN, ARNP, Educator, Business owner and administrator, Health Care Provider-direct care". She also cites some very impressive educational credentials: "Bachelors degree: University of MN in Public Address and Education; the Humanities, Journalism; Graduate School: University of MN, School of Public Health, Maternal Child Health emphasis, including health care administration, biostatistics, statistics, research, addictions, drugs, child development, community health project at Minneapolis under Margaret Hewitt, CNP, family counseling, public health clinical trials, research 'Parenting Children with Disabilities' with 60 graduate credits in education and public health".

Obviously someone with these kind of credentials would make an impact and one would expect there to be a voluminous electronic and paper trail of achievements, awards, and accolades. But a Google search on "Rae Hart Anderson" yields mostly items related to her recent political activities, many of them highlighting outrageous actions and erratic public behavior. Similar searches on many variations of "Rae Hart Anderson" to various licensing bodies come up empty.

These are just my observations - I make no accusations and you can draw your own conclusions. I do not have access to the search and employment verification tools that professional journalists and HR professionals have at their disposal. It would be interesting to see the results if someone with such resources did a little investigating.

As a final point to ponder regarding Rae's educational claims, take a close look at her web site (http://www.hartanderson.org). Setting aside the aesthetics and the technical implementation, it appears that the content reflects the views and personality of the candidate as she has presented herself in public, but does it look like the work of a person with the educational level she claims? In my view it appears to be aimless rambling in a desperate search for a coherent thought, just like Rae's performances in the candidate forums.

Setting her resume aside, there even seems to be a question of where she lives. She gives no address on the "Sun Focus" voter guide. Her official candidate filing lists her address as "1769 N Lexington Ave #180, Roseville, MN 55113". This is not hard to verify as a UPS Store that is not in District 50, and is obviously just a mail drop. She apparently is a resident of Fridley but that address does not appear on any of her campaign literature that I have seen. In the course of door knocking for Gina's campaign I have run across several anecdotes from people in the district where Rae has door knocked that relate conflicting information. A friend of mine in Columbia Heights said that Rae told him she lived in New Brighton when she knocked on his door and gave her pitch, yet in a recent opinion piece she submitted to the Northeaster she identifies herself as a Shoreview resident. As far as I can recollect she did not state her residence in her appearances at the various candidate forums as all of the other candidates did.

While the preceding information may raise some eyebrows and red flags, the crux of the problem with Rae Hart Anderson as a candidate revolves around her character, honesty, and fitness for the job.

Important Information Regarding the MCCL Candidate Survey

2010-10-19T22:27:00.004-05:00

Reposted from my State Senate Campaign blog
http://www.ginabauman.com/blog

It has come to my attention that I am categorized as a "non responder" in the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) 2010 Voter's Guide - General Election. I know that I completed the survey when I received it (as I remember it was a while ago) and believe that I returned it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the MCCL did not receive it. I have notified the MCCL of the situation and requested that the guide be updated to reflect my positions (although this may not be possible this late in the campaign).

Whether or not the guide gets updated, you can view the survey questions along with my responses below:

Abortion
Many women, especially young women, feel coerced into having an abortion due to pressure from a boyfriend, parent or other person. Often it is these women who suffer the long-lasting psychological impacts of abortion the most, because they did not want the abortion themselves. According to the Elliot Institute, 64% of all abortions involve some form of coercion.

1. Will you vote for legislation that would make it a crime to use coercion or the threat of physical harm to pressure someone into having an abortion?
X yes  __no

To use abortion as a method of birth control means to use it for the same reasons as one would employ any method of birth control, such as contraceptives or natural family planning. People use birth control to space children, to avoid interference with a career or education, or for a variety of other motivations that all have one thing in common: the desire to avoid having any child at the current time.

There are other categories of abortions that might be sought: (1) abortions performed to prevent death to the mother, (2) abortions performed to prevent serious physical health problems to the mother, (3) in cases of rape and (4) incest, or (5) in cases in which the unborn child has a fetal abnormality incompatible with life. For purposes of clarity and enforceability, a law preventing the use of abortions as a means of birth control would defne such abortions as covering abortion other than those in the five categories described above.

2. Will you vote for legislation that would prevent the use of abortion as a means of birth control?
X yes  __no

New non-invasive technology allows expectant parents to identify the sex of their unborn child as early as six weeks into pregnancy. This ability makes it easy for sex-selection abortions to occur even before others are aware of the pregnancy.

3. Will you vote for legislation to ban sex-selection abortions?
X yes  __no

Currently the state of Minnesota neither licenses nor inspects most abortion facilities, even though they complete thousands of surgical abortions every year. Many other medical facilities are required to be licensed and/ or inspected by the government.

4. Will you vote for legislation that would require abortion facilities to be licensed and inspected by the state?
X yes  __no

According to a November 2009 CNN/Opinion Research poll, only 37% of registered voters nationwide indicated that they were in favor of using public funding for abortions when the woman cannot afford it.

5. Will you vote against the use of government funding for abortion other than to prevent the death of the mother, when the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape (reported to law enforcement agencies within two days), or when the pregnancy of a minor is the result of incest (with the perpetrator reported to law enforcement agencies)?
X yes  __no

Human cloning
Human cloning, also referred to as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer or Transplantation (SCNT), is a process in which genetic material from one person would be artifcially transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human individual who is virtually genetically identical to the parent. MCCL believes that human life at every stage of biological development is deserving of respect and protection, regardless of the circumstances under which the human life was created. Some scientists propose creating human life through cloning (SCNT) for the purpose of destructive experiments on those human beings, and for the purpose of scavenging the bodies of those human beings to obtain cells, tissues or organs. Both purposes result in the death of newly formed human beings.

6. Will you vote for a legal prohibition on all human cloning (ScnT), including the cloning of human embryos for research (sometimes called "therapeutic" cloning)?
X yes  __no

Health Care Rationing
MCCL respects the right of patients and/or their proxies to make medical decisions. Additionally, MCCL is opposed to any efforts that seek to force medical decisions on others which are based on quality of life criteria. The "quality of life" debate is really a debate about values: Whose lives are worth preserving? Whose lives are not? Minnesota law bases "cost effective health care" on "quality of life" measures such as ability to function and return to work (62J.03, subd. 7). This defnition means that older people and people with disabilities are in danger of being denied life-preserving health care simply because an insurance review agent or medical personnel doesn't think the patient's life is worth saving. Unfortunately, we have seen government attempts to involve itself in such quality of life scenarios, including the following situations:

Mandated denial of nutrition and/or hydration to patients when the patient's wishes are unknown;

Creation of evidence-based/best practices guidelines;

Rationing proposals like the so-called "Oregon plan" based on diagnosis and treatment pairings; and

General cost-effectiveness programs which attempt to limit expensive care.

7. Will you vote against legislation that removes a patient (or proxy) from decision-making?
X yes  __no

8. Will you vote against legislation that allows for rationing of care based on quality of life criteria?
X yes  __no

Political Free Speech
MCCL is strongly opposed to any legislation that would infringe on the right of groups to disseminate printed or broadcast issue advocacy communications that comment on candidates' positions and voting records, including any restrictions on the timing, amount or funding sources for such speech, or any requirement that the names of their donors be reported to the government.

9. Will you vote against any legislation that would restrict or regulate the right of nonproft corporations (not PAcs) to engage in unrestricted commentary (issue advocacy) on the positions and voting records of specifc offce holders and offce seekers, such as publication of voting scorecards and voter guides, or any legislation that would require that names of citizens who fund such communications be reported to the government?
X yes  __no

I assure you that I am, and always have been, very strongly pro-life. For a detailed discussion of my beliefs andpositions on this important issue please see the "Life, Marriage, and Family Issues" post on my campaign blog, which is actually a transcription of the first position paper I wrote at the start of this campaign and did not yet have a web site.

If you have any questions about this or any other issues please don't hesitate to contact me at gina@ginabauman.com or give me a call at 763-250-3628.

We Can and Must Cut State Spending

2010-10-16T11:40:00.001-05:00

Reposted from my State Senate Campaign blog
http://www.ginabauman.com/blog

With under three weeks to go until the election I think it’s time to start pointing out specific areas where my opponent and I have significantly different ideas and why I believe my ideas are more in line with the needs of the voters of District 50. There is definitely no shortage of topics to examine.

A good place to start is on the topic of cutting the state budget. I believe that the root cause of our economic problems is that government spends far too much. If we cut spending we can lower taxes, which will leave more wealth and capital in the private sector to fuel an economic recovery.

The first thing to come to grips with is that the budget is nothing more than a plan (or maybe actually a wish list) for what lawmakers want to spend. A budget "shortfall" is not a negative account balance as a lot of liberal rhetoric strongly implies, but rather the difference between how much money the state anticipates taking in from taxpayers and how much lawmakers want to spend. It’s really pretty simple - if the state spends no more than the considerable amount it takes in, the shortfall goes away.

My opponent has stated several times that a significant portion of our projected budget shortfall cannot be overcome by budget cuts. In other words, she is not willing to pare back her spending wish list as long as she can tap the taxpayers to give more. The stock mantra she works into every forum she has spoken at is nothing short of laughable and is pretty much the same as this statement from the Issues page of her campaign site:

We could shut down all of state government: let all the prisoners out of prisons, stop inspecting restaurants, fire all forensic scientists plus all fire and health inspectors, eliminate environmental protection and conservation activities, stop collecting taxes (which would put us further in debt), stop funding all bus service and other transit, close down all of the drivers' license and testing stations, end upkeep and public use of all state parks and trails, stop testing and trying to improve drinking water, river and lake quality, end all occupational licensing, reviewal and training activities, stop auditing city and state agencies, end all renters and homeowners credit, fire all state troopers and eliminate all the other things state government does and still not have enough money to balance the budget. That's because the overwhelming majority of our budget goes to education, health care for seniors and others, and local government aid to help keep down property taxes in property-poor cities. Those whose total solution is to just cut state government are wrong.

As those of us who have observed her during this campaign have come to expect, she once again found a way to work it into her pitch at the recent LWV forum. The shallowness of thought here was mildly amusing at first, but it’s really starting to wear thin and is an insult to the intelligence of the people of District 50. There are various budget figures making the rounds but, in general, the projected shortfall is projected to be about $6 - 7 billion of about a $37 - 38 billion budget. Can any thinking person believe that the total amount budgeted for all the items in the above laundry list adds up to less than the even the most pessimistic shortfall projection? Do the math...my opponent obviously didn’t.

This isn’t rocket science. The state allocates nearly 70% of the budget to HHS (Health and Human Services) and Education. It appears that my opponent is trying to make the case that the only portion of the budget that can be scrutinized for cuts is the 30% or so that makes up the non-HHS/Education part of the budget. This assertion makes about as much sense as looking in the kitchen for a coin that was dropped in the basement because the lighting is better in the kitchen. Since the majority of the money is being spent in HHS/Education it stands to reason that this is also where some of cuts will need to come from. There cannot be "sacred cows" any more.

A major logical fallacy in the argument for excluding HHS/Education from cuts is the implication that such spending is virtually free from waste and cannot be reduced without catastrophic consequences. Does anyone with any real life experience actually believe this? Is every bit of administrative activity that occurs within the walls of the opulent structures that house the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services waste free and absolutely essential to the education of our children and the well-being of our citizens?

It's pretty obvious that the goal of my opponent's argument is to provide political cover for her party's desire to raise taxes, which she and the other big spending liberals euphemistically refer to as "increasing revenues". They attempt to soften this patently socialist idea a bit by assuring us that that process will be "fair and equitable" and based on the "ability to pay". Isn't it convenient that the same people who advocate raising your taxes are also the ones who will determine what's "fair and equitable" and whether of not you have the ability to pay. It pretty much comes down to using the money of those who work for it to buy the votes of those who don't.

Since when did government bureaucrats become endowed with the insight and wisdom to determine how much individual citizens need for their uniquely individual situations? Guess what? If you work harder than your neighbors and put away more money, you have the ability to pay more. Are you willing to work harder to qualify to pay more taxes? My opponent seems to think so.

I, of course, do not advocate cutting legitimate and essential government spending, but there is so much wasteful and pork barrel spending than can and should be cut. The state takes in over $30 billion each year, which is more than many states of similar size spend and manage to make ends meet. If we don’t spend any more than what we take in, the budget will balance or actually show a surplus, as it did before the DFL came into power in 2006.

Gina Bauman for District 50 Senate

2010-10-10T13:56:00.002-05:00

Is it not time to put a fiscally responsible candidate into office to represent the tax payer and their families?

In candidate Barb Goodwin’s campaign literature she states that by just pulling back all the "outsourcing" in Minnesota State contracts will make a big dent in our budget problem. By my calculations, in the last 6 years, .2%. (yes, that's point 2% or .002) of State money was spent on contracts to private contractors went to labor outside U.S. borders. The fact is if we cut out absolutely all outsourcing, it would make almost no difference to the budget. I am very tired of this political rhetoric and the "tax and spend" attitudes that has been forced upon the tax payers of this State.

As a City Council member for the City of New Brighton, Gina Bauman proved her ability to keep services while getting a zero-increase in the New Brighton levy two cycles in a row and nobody’s losing police and fire protection. Gina held the line on spending!

Dennis M. Flahave
New Brighton Resident

Gina Bauman Interviewed by Sue Jeffers

2010-09-11T15:05:00.002-05:00

Gina discusses the issues in the District 50 Senate Race with KTLK-FM 100.3 radio personality Sue Jeffers.

This interview is from the "Constitutional Candidates" series Sue hosted this past spring.

We Have a Lot of Work to Do Between Now and the Election

2010-09-09T17:42:00.004-05:00

The other day I received an e-mail sent to my City Council address rebutting my views on taxes and the size and cost of government. It probably should have been sent to my senate campaign e-mail address (gina@ginabauman.com) as it was from a Fridley resident who looks to be a supporter of my opponent, but I think it is instructive to publish it here with the identity of the sender removed:

Council Member Bauman:

I am trying to determine why you are so against government. If you believe in democracy, then you know we ARE the government. Can you honestly say you have not benefited from government funding?

After all, your city council salary is paid by whom? Government. Your health care is paid by whom? Government (at least in part). Your grant or loan for your business was paid by whom? Federal government? Your mother's health care is paid by whom? At least in part by government. Let's at least admit that government can do some good things, and if the state budet is cut, what will happen to your mother, you, your family, your city? If Republicans have their way, you and your mother's health care will be the first to go! Are you ready for that?

If you or your children went to public schools, didn't you benefit by government spending? If your mother was in a nursing home, didn't you benefit by not having to pay all her medical costs out of your own pocket? If you went to college, didn't you beneift by student loans and/or grants? If you use libraries, roads, buses, police or fire services, don't you benefit from government?

Government should not control everything, and we need to watch taxpayers' dollars. But at least admit those areas where you and others have benifited from government and stop acting like all government is wrong and only you are right.

I replied to the sender as follows:

From the points you make it seems that we have some fundamental disagreement as to the proper role of government in a representative republic. You also apparently have misinterpreted some of my views.

I am not against government, but I believe that good government should be limited to its constitutionally defined bounds. When government starts interfering in areas and spending money where it has not been empowered to by the people our liberty and prosperity are eroded. Can you name one instance in history where a society taxed and regulated itself to prosperity? Is an ever growing segment of the population dependent on government for their most basic needs a desirable condition?

My city council salary (actually it is more of a stipend) is paid by the taxpayers, not "the government". An important concept you don't seem to take into account is that the government cannot create wealth or money - all government can do is redistribute or consume wealth. All money that any level of government spends has to be acquired through taxation of the people who earned it through their skill and labor. The purpose of our tax system is to equitably acquire the funding necessary for the legitimate functions of government. These funds should be spent on the infrastructure and services government is authorized to deliver. It should not be used for social engineering purposes, or to satisfy the needs of special interests in return for political influence and power as is too often the case.

Not all, but many of the wonderful things you associate with government spending could and should be provided by the free market. For example, a big reason health care costs are so high is that government has interfered in and over regulated both the health care delivery and insurance markets with unreasonable mandates and regulatory compliance costs. Government cannot provide health care - that comes from doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other free market providers who will gladly provide it if they can make a reasonable living doing it, and the insurance industry will provide affordable financing if they are also allowed to do it and make a reasonable return. Government has also run up the cost of education through the creation of a huge, bloated bureaucracy that has become a lucrative industry for several special interests and political careers that often seems to have little regard to the cost and quality of educational product that is delivered.

It is true that we all have benefited from government spending on the legitimate functions for which it was established. It is also true that many people have been harmed as the result of government overreach and interference in our daily lives. How many people have lost their jobs or had their businesses go under due to the poor economy? How many of those jobs and businesses would still exist if the government had operated within its proper scope and means and not consumed an excessive amount of the investment capital market, taxed many private enterprises out of existence, or created a business climate not conducive to operating a profitable enterprise?

It comes down to a question of balance, and currently the scale has clearly tipped toward excessive government spending and regulation at the expense of our personal and collective wealth and liberty. I merely am looking to bring things back into proper balance.

Thank you for expressing your views and concerns.

Gina Bauman
City Council Member

Unfortunately there many other voters with the same misconceptions as the author of the above e-mail when it comes to economics and the proper role of government as envisioned by our founders. This is why we need to work hard to educate those who may not have not paid much attention to such things in the past.

Welcome to Decision 2010

2010-09-07T17:51:00.001-05:00

Reposted from my State Senate Campaign blog
http://www.ginabauman.com/blog

The State Fair is over, the kids are back in school, and we've started our yearly transition from Summer into Fall. This year we also have some serious choices to make at the ballot box. Decisions made by our elected representatives will have long lasting ramifications not only on our day to day lives, but also on those of our children and grandchildren.

My opponent advocates more of the same failed ideas and policies that are largely responsible for our current problems. Her government-centric approach to virtually all issues has always led an ever growing government that consumes more and more our freedoms and wealth to feed its insatiable need to grow. This situation is not sustainable and has reached critical mass as evidenced by our current economic and societal problems.

Government growth and the related cost and influence must be reigned in. It can be if we have the political will and courage to do so, and I believe that I can and will be an effective voice for the people of our district in the Minnesota Senate that has been lacking for many years. The concept is actually pretty easy to grasp: No society has ever taxed and regulated itself to prosperity. It is clearly time for a new approach.

Prosperity grows when people are free to pursue their best interests without undue government interference and are allowed to keep most of what they earn. This is not a "Republican" or "Democrat" idea, but one that follows from the principles on which this great nation was founded. As a diverse society we will have different ideas and vigorous debate over many issues, but without liberty and prosperity most other issues become inconsequential.

If you elect me to be your senator I will promote and advance policies that promote the growth of the private sector and return to a limited government whose primary purpose is to promote liberty, prosperity, and public safety. I'm looking to return to the true "public-private partnership" vision of our founders that is in stark contrast to the current government-driven situation that has unfortunately evolved over years of DFL control in the State Legislature, particularly in the Senate.

I intend to run a clean and energetic campaign that focuses on ideas and qualifications. Although my opponent did successfully challenge the questionable ethics and self-serving demeanor of the incumbent to earn her place on the ballot for her party, her ideas and policies differ very little from his and are largely responsible for many of our current problems. I look forward to many public discussions and debates and am confident that the voters will make the right decision after getting to know both of us.

Over the course of the campaign I will be going into detail about my ideas and contrasting them with those of my opponent. I look forward to frequently meeting as many of you as possible and discussing ideas, concerns, and solutions.

Let's Keep Things Clean

2010-08-21T08:12:00.002-05:00

Reposted from my State Senate Campaign blog
http://www.ginabauman.com/blog

It has come to my attention that there has been an inquiry at City Hall regarding utility payments for my retail business going back to 2007, and that copies of the bills have been requested. Given the history and political affiliations of the person making the inquiry, I believe that I need to put out the facts before mud gets slung.

Like many other small business owners in these hard economic times I recently had to make a hard decision regarding my business and was forced to close CuppaChiodos, the coffee shop and restaurant of my restaurant and catering business. The value of the business had dropped substantially below the current market and my bank made a bid for the property greater than my remaining mortgage amount. With the sagging economy the coffee shop and restaurant operation just did not produce adequate revenue for me to match their bid and the property went back to the bank. With their full assumption of the remaining mortgage the bank has been fully paid.

With regard to my utility bills, there were times when they were applied to my property taxes, and when the taxes were paid so were the utility bills. My utility bill payments are now up to date and paid in full.

Even though I am still engaged in the catering business, closing my coffee shop in this way was one of the saddest and hardest things I've ever had to do. Over my six years of operation many of my customers became close friends and I already miss seeing them on a regular basis. But I believe, as stated by Alexander Graham Bell:

When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one that has
opened for us.

Over the next few months I will dedicate the majority of my time and effort to this campaign for the state senate with the hope that a new door opening for me will be the honor and privilege of representing the people of District 50. I intend to run a clean campaign that focuses on issues, ideas, and record of public service and I sincerely hope my opposition will do the same.

I sincerely thank my customers and all who have supported me in my past campaigns for City Council and humbly ask for your support once more. Together we can bring integrity and effective representation of our district to the Minnesota Senate.

Pass the Word - Gina Bauman is the only Conservative in the SD50 Contest

2010-07-27T17:56:00.008-05:00

Full disclosure - I am a supporter of Gina Bauman for District 50 Senate and Chair of her campaign committee.

That being said...

There’s less than 100 days until the election and I know that many people don’t really start to pay attention until it gets down to the last week or so. But judging from some questions and comments I’ve heard while door-knocking there seems to be some misconceptions about the District 50 Senate contest that need to be cleared up post-haste.

Gina Bauman is the GOP endorsed candidate and is the only true conservative in the race. Gina earned the endorsement at the SD50 GOP Endorsement Convention with about 90% of the vote. She has solid conservative credentials as a twice-elected member of the New Brighton City Council where she has diligently advanced fiscally responsible, limited government policies. While she is best known for her demonstrated knowledge of fiscal matters, she also impressed convention delegates with her strong stands on the need for government accountability, personal responsibility, and pro-family values that resulted in the impressive show of support for endorsement.

Rae Hart Anderson no longer has any affiliation with the GOP and is not a candidate in the upcoming primary election. She was the endorsed candidate in the last election four years ago where she had to struggle to barely get the required percentage of votes for endorsement after multiple ballots. Back then many of the delegates did not feel that any of the candidates were worthy of endorsement and were leaning toward not making an endorsement at all. Anderson sought the SD50 GOP endorsement again this year and, as noted above, was soundly rejected in favor of Gina Bauman.

It should be noted that the SD50 GOP endorsement committee required all candidates seeking the endorsement to sign a pledge before the endorsement vote to abide by the endorsement process and not run against the endorsed candidate in a GOP primary election. Rae Anderson, along with Gina Bauman and one other candidate, signed the pledge as a condition for consideration of the GOP endorsement. All three candidates had equal time and opportunity to make their case for the endorsement and the convention delegates overwhelming chose Gina as their endorsed candidate.

Anderson apparently intends to run as an independent (i.e. no endorsement by any party - not to be confused with the Independence Party) in the general election this fall. While the pledge she signed is admittedly not legally binding (and, technically, she is not competing in a primary) her continued campaign shows a lack of respect for the endorsement process that she had actively pursued and lost in a fair contest, as well as a lack of appreciation for those of us who work hard at the grass-roots level to support candidates.

Personally, as someone who worked very hard in support of Rae Anderson as the endorsed GOP candidate four years ago, I’m disappointed both in her decision to continue her campaign as well as in the way in which she has been running it. But I feel obligated to call attention to the tactics she is employing as there is simply too much at stake in this election to just sit back and let things ride.

It appears that Rae is exploiting the fact that the majority of the mainstream media coverage of this race has been on Senator Chaudhary’s ethical and internal DFL political problems, with little substantive coverage of the actual campaigns. From what I’ve heard and observed, Rae is aggressively door-knocking, putting up the same yard signs she used four years ago, and apparently is not going out of her way to dispel the mistaken perception of some people that she is once again the endorsed GOP candidate in a "Chaudhary vs. Anderson II" rematch in the general election. Anderson is also “recycling” some endorsements from four years ago on her web site from people who now actively support Gina Bauman as the legitimately endorsed GOP candidate without noting when the “endorsements” were made.

While Rae Anderson’s 2006 campaign for the most part advocated conservative principles, the 2010 edition appears to have no focus, substance, or coherent direction. She now advocates a lot of feel-good populist nonsense about health care being a "right" and asserts that she can be a champion for her constituents to get their "fair share" from government, topped off with a disjointed hodge-podge of out of context quotes culled from the Internet and some fire and brimstone evangelizing.

I am not claiming that Rae Anderson does not have the right to run as an unendorsed candidate - she clearly does. I do, however, question her judgment and motivation to exercise that right in light of how she would expect the support of those of us on the political right had she won the GOP endorsement, especially when what is at stake is considered.

Rae has the faith, drive, energy, and just plain "good heart" to be a very effective social worker, "social justice" advocate, or community activist. But after two disastrous elections that have put liberals and socialists in control of the state legislature we desperately need to elect an effective senator who truly believes in limited government and can and will effectively advance conservative ideals. We do not need yet another activist or social worker.

Gina Bauman is clearly the only true conservative in this race and has the track record that shows she can defeat Chaudhary in the general election. Vote totals are a zero-sum game, and well-intentioned but uninformed votes for a candidate that does not have the real support to win the general election plays to the advantage of the incumbent.

It is important that conservative voters do not merely cast a vote against Chaudhary in favor of a familiar sounding name in the mistaken belief that they are supporting a true conservative. Gina Bauman is the only conservative in the race, and the only candidate who stands a real chance of providing Senator Chaudhary the opportunity to spend more time hunting and fishing rather than spending our money and advancing his liberal agenda.

Go Gina!

Update - since this post was originally written Barb Goodwin has decisively defeated Senator Chaudhary in the DFL primary with about 70% of the vote. The margin of Goodwin's victory suggests it is now even more important that conservatives get out to the polls in November and make an informed vote for Gina Bauman, the only true conservative in this race.

Now I wish I would have waited with my last post...

2010-05-20T18:34:00.005-05:00

Senator Satveer Chaudhary has made the news with reports of his stealthy and self-serving last minute legislation he convinced a member of the Minnesota House to put in on his behalf as reported in today's Strib.

The obvious apppearance of impropriety in the way he got the legislation enacted is bad enough (apparently he didn't feel any public hearings and other such formalities were necessary). It would be a refreshing change for a politician, especially a liberal Democrat, to quit digging the hole deeper and just own up and take responsibility and apologize for his lapse in judgment. Chaudhary's weak claims of "getting bad information" are just lame and do little to excuse his actions.

What really irks me is his casual statement that he is thinking about taking action to repeal the legislation next year when the senate re-convenes. He obviously thinks he is a shoo-in for re-election. Minnesota faces some very serious budget problems over the next few years, many of which were caused or exacerbated by long time political careerists like Chaudhary. As I expressed in my previous post, clearly change is needed to sweep out elected officials who seem to have lost sight of why they are in the legislature.

I'm going to work hard for the Gina Bauman campaign to try and run this self-centered careerist out of office. Chaudhary is well funded with a lot of liberal special interest support from both inside and outside of Minnesota, so Gina can use all of the help she can get if you feel like helping out. I'm sure she would be more than happy to introduce the repeal of Senator Chaudhary's self-serving legislation if the voters decide to give him the opportunity to seek a private sector employment opportunity.

Since this little ol' blog doesn't get the traffic the big guys get we probably won't get a lot of comments, but here are some submitted in response to the Pioneer Press coverage of the story, many of which I think reflect the sentiments of many of us in District 50.

Time for a Good House (and Senate) Cleaning

2010-05-18T22:39:00.000-05:00

The 2010 Minnesota Legislative Session has finally ended and, as usual, it wasn’t pretty. Our elected public servants once again put off their constitutional duty of passing a balanced budget until the very end of the session.The DFL majority puttered away the last hours of the session voting on inane resolutions and stuffing some final morsels of pork into the usual end of session omnibus legislation.

As ugly as this session was, the outcome was probably the best we could hope for with the hapless leadership in control at the legislature. Other than being forced by the calendar to accept the governor’s unallotments they had incessantly demagoged, the only other way the DFL majority appeared to be willing to balance the budget was to raise our already outrageously high taxes, which the governor was not going to allow. The next legislature and governor will now have to deal with a daunting $5-7 billion deficit.

When DFLers Representative Kate Knuth and Senator Satveer Chaudhary were seated after the 2006 election the state had a projected $2-3 billion surplus that the DFL quickly transformed into a huge deficit through irresponsible spending and growth of government. And, to add insult to economic injury, the deficit has continued to balloon in spite of job killing tax increases and a modicum of fiscal sanity applied by Governor Pawlenty via his veto pen.

Enough is enough! The state is clearly long overdue for a thorough House (and Senate) cleaning this November.

An Open Letter to Representative Kate Knuth

2010-04-18T08:45:00.011-05:00

What is your position on HF 3709 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF3709&ssn=0&y=2010), a bill that essentially incorporates the recently enacted federal health care legislation into Minnesota law?

In my view your oath of office obligates you to oppose this legislation. This should not be difficult as the federal "ObamaCare" legislation is unconstitutional on several grounds starting with, but not limited to, a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10) in that the US Congress does not even have the authority to enact this legislation. It was also opposed by the vast majority of US citizens, and was quickly rammed through the US House and Senate through use of some very ethically and legally questionable tactics.

As one of your constituents who follows these things closely, I urge you to do all you can to assure that this legislation is defeated in the Minnesota House as quickly as possible and would like a confirmation of your position. If you must support any part of it, the verbiage in the summary that reads "MinnesotaCare program and related taxes repealed" would be fine as long as the rest of the bill is completely thrown out. If you need some additional perspective into the many shortcomings of the proposed legislation, the Citizens’ Council on Health Care (http://www.cchconline.org) provides a detailed analysis and critique at http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/minnesota-petition-against-conforming-minnesota-law-to-obamacare.

Other than the elimination of the failed MinnesotaCare program, passage of HF3709 would be a gross disservice, as well as a violation of your oath of office, to your constituents and to the rest of the residents of Minnesota. We do not need to compound the many other problems facing the State of Minnesota by adopting such blatantly unconstitutional and common-sense repugnant provisions into state law.

Please let me and the rest of your constituents know where you stand on this issue and what you base your position on as it will be an important part of the our decision as to whether you retain your position as our representative or are replaced with someone who will uphold their oath of office and support our interests.

Respectfully,

Steve Taylor
New Brighton, MN

Outrageous spending by State Senator Satveer Chaudhary and State Representative Kate Knuth

2010-04-15T18:18:00.000-05:00

Be aware of some of the frivolous spending these two "servants of the people" voted for at a time when those of use who work and pay taxes are struggling to make ends meet:

A bonding bill that included over $300+ million in pork barrel projects when we face a $6 billion shortfall.

A senate $3billion tax increase on all taxpayers (not just "the rich") . A similar proposal in the house was held to "only" $2.5 billion.

A $32.75 million bailout for St. Paul.

A shift of $20 million in "environment" funds to pet projects.

Increased government funding of Health and Human Services while cutting hospital, doctor and provider reimbursements.

A law to allow local governments to increase sales tax and unelected local governments to issue debt.

$87.5 million for arts and entertainment pork projects of questionable value, especially at a time of economic troubles.

This outrageous spending comes at a time when the rest of us are trying to keep our jobs and reduce our personal spending. This has got to stop!

Fortunately, I have been privileged to meet and hear two exceptional individuals discuss how to get the state of of our wallets: Gina Bauman (candidate to replace Satveer Chaudhary in Senate District 50) and Russell Bertsch (candidate ro replace Kate Knuth in Minnesota House District 50B).

Both Russ and Gina are small business owners and have actually balanced budgets! In addition, Gina is a city council member in New Brighton and successfully led the charge for no property tax increases this year by the city for the first time in recent memory.

We can oust our out of control incumbent spenders this fall in favor of quality people with a track record of fiscal responsibility like Gina Bauman and Russell Bertsch. Please get out and do whatever you can to help them win, neighbors! Party lines don't matter anymore. What matters now is keeping our money in our pockets.

A Resident of Fridley Who Has Had Enough!

Chaudhary's thinly-veiled call for tax increases

2010-01-25T19:01:00.000-06:00

State Senator Satveer Chaudhary's recent press release attempts a tone of fiscal tough-mindeness, but it's amusingly short on any plan. He acknowledges that the "experts" have all said "structural" changes in spending and revenue must be made to Minnesota's budget process and calls on Governor Pawlenty to "come to the table" and eschew "budget trickery and gimmicks."

Okay, Senator Chaudhary -- how's this for transparency? I'll be happy to acquiesce in your thinly-veiled call for tax increases if you and your DFL partners implement an across the board 30% redution in spending.

No? Well, I for one am not willing to trust the DFL by giving them the tax increases first. Last year, they opposed every effort Governor Pawlenty made to cut spending, thinking it more politically expedient to push the blame onto him for unallotting spending through the executive budget process. If you look at Senator Chaudhary's "chief author list" of bills in last year's session, one sees mainly a pathetic docket of opaque do-nothing special-exception backroom deals (e.g. SF871 "Columbia-Heights tax increment financing district duration extension") and money contributions, mostly to the environmental special interests (e.g. SF883 "Lets go fishing promotion grant appropriation").

The State of Minnesota is in desperate straits. These times call for a budget visionary with a backbone of steel. It was blazingly obvious during last year's session that now is not the time for fishing promotion grants funded by the State, but all Senator Chaudhary has to offer us is marshmallow cliches to cover his intention to keep up the political pandering to the last.

Dennis M. Flahave
New Brighton Resident

The 2009 local elections were a good start...

2010-01-24T09:35:00.000-06:00

...but we have a lot more work to do in order to take our government back from the control of self-serving bureaucrats and return it to the people who make the country work.

This year is an important year at both the state and federal level. Here in New Brighton we have been misrepresented for a long time by three hard-core left-wingers who are clearly intent on becoming or retaining their status as career politicians.

Betty McCollum - Minnesota 4th District Representative

Satveer Chaudhary - State Senator from District 50

Kate Knuth - State Representative from District 50B

It should be noted that these people are not evil, but rather dangerously wrong in their radical left-wing thinking and policy making. The net effect on us, the people who make the country work by running our businesses or going to our jobs, is that the policies promoted by these political careerists are just as damaging to our society as if they had been intentionally and maliciously designed to cause harm. It is therefore in our best interests to oust these people from office and let them return, and in some cases enter into, the private sector where they can join the rest of us in making a living by producing goods and services our society wants, needs, and seeks voluntarily.

Yesterday I attended a town hall meeting that featured State Representative Knuth and US Representative McCollum. To me and several other people who listened to and asked questions of the representatives it is clear that both of the women have got to go for the good of our community, state, and country. It is clear that both focus on catering to their constituency that looks to government to solve their problems and provide for their wants and needs by using the force of law to transfer the wealth of people who produce it to them. Obviously neither see the ethical, moral, and practical problems of this sort of government. Both seem to be oblivious to the damage their policies and positions cause, through a combination of intellectual incapacity or laziness, political "correctness", and a near theological view of the virtue of big government. Whether my perception of the reasons for their harmful actions in office are correct or not, the bottom line is that, for whatever reason, they are not fit to represent us and need to be voted out of office.

In the upcoming weeks and months leading to the November elections those of us on this site will post our thoughts in making the case against these politicians and promoting the case of the right-thinking people who will hopefully step forward and run against them.

We cannot depend on the local or national media to get the word out as they are clearly both actively and passively for the incumbent liberal office holders. It's great if those of us in opposition can occasionally get a letter to the editor published (and I will continue to submit them), but we can't count on it happen. In addition to the bias of the traditional mainstream media, the editorial policy and space limitations often make it difficult to thoroughly express our view even if we are published. I encourage all who agree that this left wing trio has got to go to submit letters to the editor as well as submitting them to this site as some did during the 2009 local election.

More to come. Hang in there and help make 2010 a year of real change for the better.

A New Beginning for New Brighton

2009-11-05T17:00:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to our new Mayor-elect Dave Jacobsen and to Council Member Gina Bauman on her re-election. By finally ending the long Benke-Larson era the city stands a much better chance to become the vibrant city it has the potential to be.

Also a heartfelt "thank you" to Sharon Doffing for six years of excellent service to the people of New Brighton. She really started the long tedious process of turning around city government by standing alone against the majority when they were engaged in the abuse of eminent domain to acquire the Northwest Quadrant property. Her actions were largely responsible for the city eventually passing one of the strongest measures to prevent eminent domain abuse in the country. She has served as our nation's founders intended - get elected to office, serve with distinction and integrity, and return to the private sector having left her successor a better situation than she had started with.

Char Samuelson, who originally was a member of past city government that created the problems the current council will have to deal with, was not high on my list of preferences to replace Sharon on the council. But the people of New Brighton voted her in and I hope she will take heed of what Sharon accomplished and do her best to work with the new leadership and serve with comparable integrity.

New Brighton still has a long way to go, but the election results on Tuesday is a great first step to start along the journey.

Some misconceptions that need to be addressed before you vote on Tuesday

2009-11-02T01:05:00.000-06:00

Door knocking the city with Dave Jacobsen, who I hope will be our next mayor, has been an eye-opening experience. I have been hearing some misleading and downright false statements being made about what I have said, done, or will do if I am re-elected to the council. So as the campaign draws to a close I would like to make some clarifications to set the record straight before you go to the polls this Tuesday to place your vote.

I have never proposed to sell or develop the golf course. Council member Doffing was the only representative that I recall to ever bring that up in a work session with no other support from any one.

The average salary for city employees (not including public safety) is approximately $90K a year based on full time equivalents. Mayor Larson is playing fast and loose with numbers, counting job-sharing and part time positions separately and telling people that the average is about $65K a year. My calculations come from the city employee salary and benefit summary, which shows that approximately 49 FTE employees make approximately $4.4 million a year before benefits. Salaries and benefits for ALL employees is $9 million a year out of a $13 million dollar city budget. The reason this has become an issue is that for the last two years the 3.9% city tax levy increase was used for salaries and benefits only for all city employees while expenditures were covered by reserve funds. This prompted me into asking for a salary and benefit breakdown for all employees, which is I believe the first time any council member or mayor has asked for this information. While our staff does a great job, I feel they are very fairly paid for a city of our size, so I championed a 2010 freeze on salaries. This is contrary to what you will read on another council candidate's (Graeme Allen) handout, which implies that it was the employees who voluntarily made the sacrifice to freeze their salaries.

As to council and mayor having paid health benefits available to us, I understand to a point that this could be controversial. During the League of Women Voters forum on October 19th the question on rescinding this benefit was asked. I explained that the mayor and another council member take the health insurance - this is a true statement. While Mayor Larson voted against the resolution in a 4-1 vote, he still chose to drop the state-run health insurance in which he was previously enrolled in favor of the city sponsored plan. In fairness to Mayor Larson it should be noted that he does pay the employee contribution portion of the premium himself, which has led to the "does he take it or not" controversy. Council member Phillips is the only other council member currently taking the benefit with an approximate cost of $6000 per year. Because of health issues both of them are difficult to insure. Since this has become such a hot button issue, council member Phillips brought forward in our recent work session that he will bring this issue up for discussion in the next council meeting on Tuesday, November 10th for a vote to rescind the benefits. In that same work session I posed the question to the mayor that since he did not vote for the resolution in the first place, why did he enroll in the plan? After his numerous public proclamations on how he was the only one who voted against the benefit he probably should not have, on principle, taken it regardless of whether or not he pays the employee contribution. I am curious to see how he votes when the question comes up at the next council meeting as he said he was going to talk with his lawyer when council member Phillips brought up not offering health benefits to the mayor and council regardless of who pays the employee contribution of the premium.

I have heard from many people around town that there is a council candidate (Paul Jacobsen) and/or some of his supporters knocking on your doors and implying that although he differs with me on some issues he believes in the same fiscal responsibilities that I do as part of his request to put a sign in your yard. I want to make it clear that I am not endorsing any other council candidate, as you can see from the signs I display in front of my business.

The next rumor I need to address made my jaw drop when I first heard it tonight (11/1). Did any of you know that I purportedly, single handedly mind you, drove out the hotel from wanting to build on the Quadrant with my stalling tactics? This is certainly news to me. I didn't realize I had such power. This ridiculous and mean-spirited rumor is being spread by none other than Bob Benke, who in the worst way needs Mayor Larson re-elected to retain his membership in the the "good old boys" network behind the scenes. And where is Benke getting this so-called information from? He knows that I no longer want the city taxpayers to pay the $10,500 per year it takes for Mayor Larson to belong to the North Metro Mayors Association. This organization is nothing more than a lobbyist group that is very self-serving to its members. Although there is no real benefit for the city of New Brighton to belong, there is a definite benefit to Mr. Benke as he receives payment as a lobbyist for that association that depends on how many cities belong to it.‭

I would also like to address some of the statements and/or responses that other candidates made at the two candidate forums.

One candidate (Paul Jacobsen) stated that the city is short two police officers and a deputy director. The city is NOT short two police officers. The city has one police officer who is serving in Iraq until February 2010 (who we should all thank for his service and pray for his safe return). The second police officer would be a 29th police officer. A few years ago, there were two different occasions when the police department did try hire for that NEW position, that did not work out either time. Recently New Brighton put in an application for not one, but two, more officers under a federally funded program grant that would have paid for the two new officers for three years, bringing the count to 30 officers (which we never have had). The city was turned down for the grant based on our low crime rate and no new population growth. We don't meet the criteria for federal funding and I don't believe we meet the criteria to have the citizens of New Brighton pay for the additional officers either. We have some great police officers and I support them wholeheartedly, but at this time it is my opinion that we do not have a public safety need to add any more officers. Regarding the deputy director, that position was vacated due to early retirement offered to all employees by the city. This was a $98,000 a year position that may possibly be filled sometime next year, possibly by promotion within the department. When the time comes then I will support hiring a police officer to fill any vacancy created by a promotion.

The candidate who made these erroneous statements about public safety staffing is being coached behind the scenes by an outgoing council member who sometimes focuses on Public Safety as if it is the only department in the city. Council candidate Paul Jacobsen needs to inform himself better on this issue before running on it. And please do not buy into the innuendo that some are spreading that I am anti public safety. I have a brother who is a member of the St. Paul Fire Department while his wife is a sergeant with the Minneapolis Police Department. I know first hand how critical their responsibilities are. I also have a family, business and a home in this community, all of which would be negatively impacted without the top-notch Public Safety department New Brighton is fortunate to have.

I have just seen the campaign handouts that are were delivered bundled together this weekend for Steve Larson, Char Samuelson and Graeme Allen. I found them fascinating to read since many of their "solutions" to the issues are not what they have expressed before (at least in the cases of Larson and Samuelson who have current or past council experience). Larson and Samuelson have been like-minded for many years, going back to when they served on the council together and have been on what has proven to be the wrong side of many issues that led to several of the problems the city currently faces. Something that also surprises me is that the mayor is backing Allen, who has only lived in his apartment in the city for the last year and half. I find this curious because when it comes to commissioner appointments, Mayor Larson, as a matter of principle, will not vote for anyone who has lived in the city for such a short period of time.

The bottom line is this is a very important election for New Brighton. We need our elected officials to put the interests of the people and the city first. It seems that some people run for office without a good understanding of the issues involved or fully appreciative of the privilege and responsibility that goes with the position. Others appear to just want to extend their careers and keep in lock-step with the past.

I believe that if you re-elect me as your council member and elect Dave Jacobsen as your new mayor, along with one of the current council members we will have the three votes it takes on the council to represent you with the financial responsibility, good judgment, and accountability needed to move New Brighton forward to a better future.

Please vote on November 3rd for Gina Bauman for City Council and Dave Jacobsen for Mayor.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of New Brighton

2009-10-25T09:59:00.000-05:00

Dear Fellow New Brighton Residents:

During these past month’s Mayor Steve Larson has been doing his "dog and pony" show at neighborhood meetings and at meet the candidates forums. When the question is raised as to possible property tax increases as these taxes relate to the debt load of the Northwest Quadrant Development Project, his response to the citizens is that with the special legislation New Brighton has received for the pooling of our funds from three profitable TIF Districts, we will have our debt service on the bonds covered until the year 2025 and therefore we will not have any increases in property taxes.

What Mayor Larson has failed to disclose are the assumptions that would have to be made for this statement to have any validity or any degree of accuracy.

These assumptions are as follows:The tax rate for the City of New Brighton would have to stay the same and not increase through the year 2025.

The market valuation for the commercial property in the three profitable TIF Districts would have to remain the same or increase until the year 2025.

The City of New Brighton would have to spend NO NEW DOLLARS on the Northwest Quadrant Development Project through the year 2025.
I am tired of the political spin coming from our elected officials. What are the odds of not having a tax increase in the next 15 years, and what is currently happening to real estate property values?

Dennis M. Flahave
New Brighton Resident

It's Time for a New Mayor in New Brighton

2009-10-21T20:55:00.000-05:00

Under the leadership of our current Mayor Steve Larson, the City of New Brighton has spent a staggering $85-plus million for the Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) debacle. This is an unthinkable level of debt for a city of well under 25,000 with a declining population over recent years.

An unabashed supporter of eminent domain, Larson drove taxpaying businesses and homeowners off of their property. Incompetence prevailed every step of the way, and the unrealistically rosy development and financial projections fell woefully short. The harsh reality is that the project, as well as the promised more than doubling of the city property tax base, never materialized and any significant development of this bulldozed land isn't expected for at least 15 years, according to the Collier study commissioned by the City Council.

Larson played a leading role in the NWQ disaster, operating as failed real-estate speculator using our tax dollars. As the person primarily responsible for gambling on this fiasco, Larson has clearly shown he is incapable and cannot be trusted to rescue citizens from the costliest blunder in New Brighton's history. He should not be re-elected Mayor.

Here are just some of the blunders that Larson and his associates at City Hall should have foreseen, most, if not all of which were predicted at the time by critics of the project:

Counting on a $200 million addition to the tax base and 700+ housing units by 2009 from land in close proximity to two noisy freeways with no direct access to them. It was the height of arrogance and incompetence to not even have a contingency plan in the event of the failure of the housing project, which ultimately did happen.

Committing to build houses on what turned out to be structurally unsuitable soil (described as "muck") that would require considerable extra expense to correct even before the additional environmental cleanup costs are fully known.

Installing streets, lighting, curbing, sewers, etc. suitable only for the intended residential use with no legal guarantee or financial obligation by the housing developer to go through with the planned development. When the developer walked away the city was stuck with the infrastructure which may have to be demolished at city expense if the land is ever used for anything but the original intent, which has been proven not to be economically viable.

Buying land at a price far above market value in addition to expensive eminent domain litigation without even the due diligence of invasive testing for pollutants. This resulted in the prospect of at least $20 million in immediate cleanup costs before anything useful can be done with the land as well as possibly an unlimited future cleanup liability.

Demolishing a perfectly adequate post office that was locked into a long term very favorable lease situation at a cost of $4.5 million under the unwarranted optimism that the land would generate more tax revenue.

These ill-fated moves show a considerable lack of business judgment and an arrogant refusal to listen to the advice of industry experts and ordinary citizens who foresaw many of the problems. It's time for a change and a fresh set of eyes with a different skill set. Mayor Larson, the staunchest project proponent from the outset, should not be the person we depend on to lead us out of this disaster.

Voters have the opportunity to elect Dave Jacobsen and his nearly 40 years of business and managerial experience as the next Mayor of New Brighton. Hopefully this will be the case as Mayor Larson has proven that he is not up to the job.

"On the Right"
New Brighton Resident

Time for voters to dismiss Mayor Larson

2009-10-09T18:53:00.000-05:00

Last week the New Brighton Bulletin and the Sun Focus published a Letter to the Editor I submitted that advocated the ouster of New Brighton mayor Steve Larson in favor of Dave Jacobsen:

Letter: Backing Jacobsen
To the editor:

In the last election 55 percent of New Brighton voters voted for someone other than Steve Larson to be our mayor. Larson held on to his office in spite of garnering only 45 percent of the vote in the three candidate race. Unfortunately Larson, whose record of accomplishment in city government is far less than stellar, has chosen to run for yet another term as mayor.

Larson has been in city government for 22 years, with the last 10 as mayor. One would think this would be more than adequate time for this career politician to get his ideas implemented. He certainly has left his mark on the city: as a prime driver of the failed Northwest Quadrant project, a vocal advocate of the city's shameful abuse of eminent domain, promoter of an excessive and irresponsible use of TIF, and unwavering supporter of an out of control city budget and yearly tax increases to fund it, his tenure has coincided with a stagnant business climate, a ticking property tax time bomb, a declining tax base, and a general malaise of mediocrity for the city.

Fortunately the election this fall will offer voters the opportunity to replace the ineffective Larson with Dave Jacobsen, an accomplished businessman with many years of private sector experience. Dave has a proven track record of successfully dealing with difficult environmental and management problems while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Let's replace mediocrity with thoughtfulness, intelligence, and responsibility by electing Dave Jacobsen as New Brighton's next mayor.

Steve Taylor
New Brighton

Apparently my letter touched a nerve and appears to have inspired the following rebuttal this week in both papers:

Letter: Larson is no slacker
To the editor:

Some criticize the redevelopment efforts that the city has initiated, describing them as failed and fraught with mediocrity. Obviously, those folks who are critical have not worked with businesses long enough to know that private/public economic partnerships take time to develop, especially in difficult economic times. Nor are they interested in contacting neighboring communities to find out that some of their economic development efforts have taken upwards of 20 years to complete; that their commercial areas have suffered also from the latest economic downturn; and that 40 percent to 50 percent of their commercial and industrial spaces are vacant.

Mayor Steve Larson has 22 years of experience working with various developers (business people), trying to bring viable, stable and profitable businesses to our community that would offer livable wage jobs, longevity to our commercial and industrial districts and a solid tax base that would offer property tax relief to residential property owners, who since 1999 have been shouldering more and more of that tax burden. While the Northwest Quadrant has been victimized by the economy, construction activity is evident, providing jobs and moving forward with projects that are poised to take off as the economy continues to improve. Also, voters also need to look to the redeveloped commercial area along 694 and Silver Lake Road and the industrial area along 1st Street NW, County Road E2 and 5th Avenue NW to see that Larson and the council have worked hard and tirelessly for the economic benefit of residents. Vote to keep Larson as mayor; he is the one with the proven track record of working for us.

Chris and Kim Sykes
New Brighton

I find the arguments in the rebuttal letter to be as weak as the record of the candidate they support. The ironic thing is that an honest addressing of the points Chris and Kim make tend to make my case for the ouster of Mayor Larson stronger.

I can't say I have any disagreement with the first sentence as that is the view of much of the crowd I hang with. After this things start getting a little logically weak.

Various incarnations of what is now known as the NWQ Project has been talked about at City Hall for going on twenty years now. During this time there have been multiple periods of rapid redevelopment by the private sector where commercially viable land was quickly acquired and built up. If the NWQ had true market value for redevelopment there would have been competition in the private sector to acquire and develop it.

Mr. Larson, as first a member of the city council and later as mayor, took the arrogant view that city government could dictate an economic outcome that the free market didn't support (to be fair, he was joined in this view by several others, including former mayor Bob Benke). This was obviously not the case, but the city decided to go into the redevelopment business and start up a "private/public partnership" instead of listening to the marketplace. These types of arrangements are almost always a boondoggle for taxpayers and the NWQ project is no exception.

To make matters even worse, the city aggressively abused eminent domain to acquire the land (the second worst offender in the state according to the watchdog group Castle Coalition). Taxpaying businesses and home owners were forced to sell their property under the threat of legal action. The warning of an attorney for one of the victimized business owners made to the New Brighton City Council turned out to be prophetic [paraphrasing]: those who believe aggressive use of eminent domain is an economical way to facilitate redevelopment are badly mistaken.

Even setting the morality of abusive eminent domain aside, in their zeal to acquire the land of the NWQ the city of New Brighton paid far more than the market rate when actual purchase costs, legal fees, and potential environmental liability are considered. Mayor Larson was at the forefront of, and was a vocal advocate for, this policy. The crew at the Boots On blog (www.bootsonblog.com) covered this subject pretty thoroughly over the last few years.

As far as other redevelopment "accomplishments" goes, Brighton Village took nearly 10 years to get redeveloped after several false starts. One might also look into why Lunds moved out in the first place. The letter writers state that "Mayor Steve Larson has 22 years of experience working with various developers (business people), trying to bring viable, stable and profitable businesses...". Larson and his cronies may well have been "trying" but, based on results, were obviously not too successful.

Blaming the current bad economy for the failure of the project seems more than just a little disingenuous by those responsible for the mess. The NWQ was moribund during an extended period of economic boom in the late 1990's, well before the current economic downturn started. Take a look around neighboring communities and compare recent development (for example, the Apache Plaza site in St. Anthony). The current bad economy has definitely slowed the scope and speed of development all over, but our neighboring communities did not create a vast undeveloped wasteland with expensive roads, street lights, and other infrastructure that will probably never be used for the intended purpose and may well have to be torn out to salvage some economically beneficial use for the land.

Speaking of those responsible for the mess, the "Kim" part of the duo appears to be none other than Kim Moore-Sykes, the former New Brighton Council member who was soundly beaten by Gina Bauman with a 2:1 vote margin four years ago. Moore-Sykes also finished dead last among four candidates two years ago in what appeared to be a half-hearted come-back attempt when she ran with Larson (who was damn lucky to retain his office in the three-way race that split his opposition). During her tenure on the council Moore-Sykes was in lockstep with Larson and the rest of the council other than Doffing (the only competent member of the council at the time) and was responsible for supporting many of the bad decisions that led to the NWQ debacle and out of control spending. If a supporter like this is the best the current mayor can do it may be a sign that the voters of New Brighton will finally make the long overdue change in the Mayor's office.

For the sake of the city, let's hope so.

The Northwest Quadrant - How we got here

2009-09-13T17:09:00.000-05:00

I am writing this as a New Brighton resident with concerns about the Northwest Quadrant redevelopment project. About six years ago when the City's consultants provided "cash flow" projections, I brought two prominent developers to the site to get their opinions of the viability of the project. I told then-city manager Matt Fulton of the developers' opinions: one stated that the project was too dense. The other did not feel that we would receive the high-end dollar projections on the townhomes due to the proximity of the two freeways and the noise associated with these freeways.

Let me make an analogy of the density issue. At The Lakes development in Blaine, the project has a density of approximately 9 units per acre. The density at the Northwest Quadrant is at 15 units per acre. To me this would be like backing out of your garage and into your neighbor's living room. However, the City decided to proceed with these cash flow projections.

The city awarded the initial development agreements to two excellent developers. After 18 months of sales efforts, only 17 units had an indication of interest for pre-sales, therefore, this was not enough in pre-sales for the developers to draw down on their bank financing commitments. In this same time frame the city took $10.7 million out of surplus from other TIF districts and put the money into the Northwest Quadrant in the form of infrastructure such as roads, light poles, curbs, etc.

The City then purchased the Midwest Asphalt property for approximately $19 million on a non-contingent basis. With commercial purchase agreements in Minnesota it is normal to include environmental testing and inspection clauses. Why is this important? Answer, because if a property is found to be environmentally contaminated, the purchaser faces a potential unlimited liability to clean it up. I asked why the City waived its right to test and was told, "if we had done the testing, Midwest Asphalt would not have sold us the property."

Under the agreement with Midwest Asphalt, Midwest was to stop operations, and they did, and then Midwest proceeded to move a short distance north to Bel Air Properties and again they commenced with operations. Also, within this time frame the State of Minnesota stated that the Midwest Asphalt property was contaminated and had to be cleaned up before any development could take place. In 2008 the City of New Brighton hired Bel Air Excavating to do the cleanup of the Midwest Asphalt property.

The City is recently taking great pride in going to the Legislature to get permission for the pooling of our funds. This simply means being able to co-mingle funds - not a good thing as it makes it easier to obfuscate the performance of the individual Tax Increment Districts, no doubt a goal the City desires particularly as it relates to the Northwest Quadrant.

My question to all our residents is this: "Why did the City ever take on the role of developer and banker, and expose the taxpayer to such a risk?" We have approximately 33 TIF districts in New Brighton and I believe the City of St. Paul has 17.

In conclusion, we are currently $100 million in debt and have sold two commercial lots. We are exposed to an unlimited environmental cleanup liability on contaminated sites. Finally, the City now has permission to co-mingle funds making it harder to track the accounting by project. I feel that this is a total breach of fiduciary responsibility.

Dennis Flahave
New Brighton Resident/Economic Development Commissioner

A Stroll Down Memory Lane

2009-09-03T16:56:00.000-05:00

For this exercise I’d like you to drive down old Highway 8 where the old post office used to be. Take a good look on both sides of the road. What you see is a barren wasteland. This was supposed to be the grand redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant. What went wrong? How did we get here? Why are we as much as $100 Million in debt because of it?

I want to stop here and make a quick comparison to New London, Connecticut. That’s where Susette Kelo sued the city to keep her home and land. That city wanted to throw her and her neighbors out through eminent domain just to give the land to another company who promised more in tax revenue. Kelo ultimately lost her case in the U.S. Supreme Court, with the court saying that in America, a city can toss you out in favor of another owner if it can get more tax money. Our illustrious Mayor, Steve Larson, praised the case at the time. But most homeowners simmered in disgust.

Both New London and New Brighton cases are alike in that the real reason the cities took the course they did was to increase their tax base. Redevelopment was secondary. In other words there was no positive benefit to the average taxpayer. City government just wanted to grow. If it succeeded in bringing more taxes, there’d be no break for current taxpayers. Call it empire building. Call it greed. But don’t call it benign.

The plans in both cities seemed to blow up in the planners faces. Today, the New London site with nary a taxpaying home, is just as barren as the Northwest Quadrant without the taxpaying businesses that used to be there.

If the wind isn’t blowing dust in your face, take a stroll across the road and sit in one of the park benches overlooking the wasteland. Ahhh, the memories come flooding back. Like the time State Senator Satveer Chaudhary wrote a letter to the editor claiming full credit for getting Medtronic to move to New Brighton. That irritated Steve Larson because he wanted the credit for himself. Except credit was premature. Medtronic wanted nothing to do with contamination and cleanup that the New Brighton site had. So they decided to build in Mounds View which already had a clean site.

With Medtronic out of the picture, panic ensued at City Hall. They dusted off an old Bob Benke-era plan for redevelopment. The thinking was "Hey! How about high density housing instead of businesses". Rottlund homes was signed up and they were off to the races, counting their winnings, projecting streams of incoming dollars far into the future. But hardly anyone wanted the new housing. Rottlund pulled out. Suddenly, payment on bonds were coming due. And the tax money they counted on from the housing would not materialize for years, if ever. What to do? What to do?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The build-up to the wasteland had some twists and turns. It’s coming back to me now. After buying the Keys Café and the bowling alley, the city made a special point of letting weeds grow around them. Even though it was their own property, they took photos as proof of “blight” that they could use for redevelopment presentations. An old Grandma and Grandpa were given an offer they couldn’t refuse. The city took their house and land. A quiet taxpaying company with more than 30 employees called Signation was threatened with eminent domain action. The owner begged the council not shut down his business because of the loss of jobs. A dispassionate council member simply said that many jobs are lost for other reasons. So tough luck.

Removing thriving taxpaying businesses was a specialty of New Brighton before reform. No matter though. The thinking was that taxpayers had plenty of money and could be relied on to back up any plan gone bad. Who cares anyway? It wasn’t their money.

When the city finally got around to Midwest Asphalt, the company knew it had an ace up its sleeve. The land had contamination and they did not want to get stuck with the cleanup liability. So they cut a sweet deal with the city paying them millions to move and the city taking on the full liability for the cleanup. That is, the citizens of New Brighton were on the hook for it. Meanwhile, eminent domain reform legislation was passed at the state legislature. City hall and Mayor Larson lobbied hard for delay in the effective date so the last businesses could be bought up and booted out under the old rules.

Some prominent names should be referenced here. In 2003 Sharon Doffing was elected to the council, and right away started fighting the eminent domain mentality. Even though she was often outvoted, Mayor Larson now had a thorn in his side. From that time on, he was not as free to tax, spend and scheme as he wanted. In 2005 Gina Bauman, was elected to the council and since then we had extra sharp eyes on the budget. The accounting lifers at city hall groaned because their old tricks weren’t good anymore. In 2007, Dave Phillips came on board to add a voice of reason to development plans. I want to emphasize that these three people are benefits to the city and should be held harmless regarding any of the current problems of the city such as the NW Quadrant mess.

In early 2008, a humble Dean Lotter, the City Manager, told us in somber tones at the town hall meeting that our household property taxes would be going up $1,000 or more starting in 2010 due to the Rottlund pullout. There were few choices. But then they got a reprieve. Special state legislation was passed to allow New Brighton to pool funds from other TIF districts – Brightondale and Main Street Village I think – to offset the big negatives at NW Quadrant Rottlund site.

Understand that this legislation did save the typical household from unusually large tax increases in the short run. That’s good.

What’s bad is the hubris displayed by Steve Larson and the city manager. Now suddenly they are beating their chests and calling any disagreement or criticism "misinformation". Not only that, they’ve labeled current tax and spending “Smart Taxation.” So that is what the citizens of New Brighton must put up with during this election cycle. Instead of admitting error in handling NW Quadrant, racking up debt with little chance to recoup, and only being saved by new rules at the state, (the debt does not disappear, it still has to be paid, just from a different source) we get boasting and bragging!

The barren wasteland should remind you of the need for vigilance. Steve Larson and his followers – and the friends that he listens to – yearn for the good old days when they were largely unchecked. They want more of your money for the next Taj Mahal, the next decorative fountain, the next bike trail to nowhere, the next monument to themselves, the next stairway to utopian heaven. Any taxes exacted from you is "free" money to them. A New Brighton without Steve Larson is a New Brighton on the way to fiscal sanity and good sense for the long haul.

Welcome to Enlighten New Brighton

2009-08-03T21:11:00.000-05:00

As alluded to in the header and sidebar, the goal of this site is to promote and advocate positive change in local and state government entities to make New Brighton a vibrant suburban community, a safe and clean place to live and raise a family where private property rights are respected and businesses can thrive.

Please do not conclude that I (and, I feel safe in saying, the other contributors to this blog) think New Brighton is a bad place to live. For the most part New Brighton city government has the "safe and clean" objectives pretty much under control, but overall could do much better in the areas of private property rights, business climate, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. New Brighton city government has far too many career politicians, commission members, and staff bureaucrats who have over the years entrenched themselves in a cumbersome bureaucracy built on a foundation of political career aspirations, unnecessary or overreaching ordinances and regulations, personal societal agendas, and unsound fiscal policies and decisions.

Those who currently run city government are for the most part well meaning people, but it does seem that many of them have lost sight (assuming they ever had it) of the concept that the primary function of government is to serve and be accountable to the people, not the other way around. This year is an election year in New Brighton, with the mayor's and two city council seats for the voters to decide how to fill. Elections have consequences. In coming posts we will examine the consequences of previous elections and advocate how we the voters can correct some of the negative ones and build on the positive ones.

Finally, this blog is not intended to be what some voters and elected officials would, rightly or wrongly, term a partisan "attack" site that sometimes pushes the limits of decorum, commentary, and satire up to (and sometimes slightly over) the proverbial line in order to score political points. Not that there is anything wrong with these sort of enterprises. There are some fine blogs and Facebook groups in the Twin Cities area that do raise valid issues and provide thought provoking commentary without regard to political correctness or "appropriateness". I see the role of this blog as a complimentary perspective to the passionately partisan sites that may express similar or contrary views from ours within the arena of political ideas. There is nothing wrong with partisanship, especially when one strongly feels that the opposing view is wrong or harmful to our society.

This blog also should not be viewed as a source of unbiased reporting or equal time coverage. The other contributors and I generally have strong partisan biases toward limited government, personal freedom, traditional values, sound fiscal and economic policy, and holding elected officials accountable for their actions. We may not always agree among ourselves on what is the best way to get there, but we all seek the same goal of a better New Brighton than we have today and encourage you the reader to get active and join us in this pursuit.

Back to most current post...

Comments, Suggestions, Submissions, etc.

2009-01-01T20:50:00.000-06:00

Here at Enlighten New Brighton we will handle reader comments in a different way than most blogs. At least to start out, instead of the usual Blogger comments we have set up a dedicated e-mail for user comments. All contributors to the blog will have access to the comments and will choose how to respond or not respond. Some comments may be addressed in a new post for all readers to see, others may be addressed privately in a return e-mail. Anything deemed abusive, obscene, or otherwise unacceptable will be ignored and deleted. ENB reserves the right not to publish any submission for any reason.

Also feel free to forward any information you may have that is relevant to the goals of this blog. You can also submit a post or ideas for a post. We will also consider publishing Letters to the Editor that the local papers do not see fit to publish.

Please send comments, suggestions, submissions, etc. to ENBComments@gmail.com or, if you don't want start up your e-mail client, send a comment via Contactify. You can choose to remain anonymous to the blog readers if you wish.

Back to most current post...