Robbinsdale gets Met Council Assistance

February 5, 2013 at 1:38 pm 5 comments

By Andrew Richter

Here is an interesting story from the Sun Post;

The City of Robbinsdale received a $25,900 clean-up grant from the Metropolitan Council, awarded under the Tax Base Revitalization Grant.

Now you may ask “what is a Tax Base Revitalization Grant?”

Well here is how it is defined by the unconstitutional Met Council;

The Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) helps cities clean up contaminated urban land for subsequent commercial and industrial development, thus restoring tax base and jobs near existing housing and services. This program is conducted in coordination with the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development.

In other words, this money is being used to increase the tax base of a city so they can increase city spending.

The amount will help assist in asbestos abatement for property sites at 4122-28 West Broadway in downtown.

“It has to do with a redevelopment project with Travail Restaurant,” City Manager Marcia Glick, said. “Travail is going to be redeveloping, clearing and building a new one [restaurant].” As part of the prep work for construction of a new building, Glick said a lot of asbestos needs to be removed from the existing buildings. Asbestos removal is common among older buildings and needs to be handled properly so particles do not get into the air and lungs, Glick said.

Well the city of Robbinsdale chose to go ahead with this project knowing asbestos was going to be there didn’t they?

“It was perfect timing to apply for a Met Council grant to pay for the cost of removing the asbestos,” she said. The buildings scheduled for a spring demolition lay near Pawn America. Residents may remember the building when it housed Kathy’s Gingerbread House and, later, Merritt Tax.

So Mrs. Glick you’re happy that instead of Robbinsdale paying for its own project, you pawned the cost on to someone else.

Glick said Travail has two separate building concepts and is scheduled to open in the summer. The new location of the popular dining spot will accommodate more diners. “The older buildings will be torn down and a new building will be constructed,” Glick said. “They will be of more value than those there now.” Robbinsdale Economic Authority is funding the cost of the demolition and Glick said they will be reimbursed because the new building will be of higher value.

And what is the difference between Robbinsdale’s city council and their Economic Development Authority? Oh, that’s right they are one in the same!

“Our conservative calculations are we should see our investments returned to us,” she said. “Redevelopment is expensive and we appreciate funding help from the Met Council the helps pay for unexpected costs.”

Yes government spending is always a great investment….why should we ever doubt you. So let’s see; We pay taxes to the state of Minnesota, then they send money to the Met Council, then they send money to a city under the guise of a grant. No wasted money there right? Why don’t we just get rid of the Met Council and end this money-merry-go-round?

Full Article

Entry filed under: Agenda 21, City Government, Met Council, Robbinsdale.

Minnesota GreenStep’s Real Agenda Part 3; Brooklyn Park Gives Chickens the Axe

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Michael C. Libby  |  February 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    The Met Council is unconstitutional? Which constitution would that be?

    The MN State Constitution specifically grants the State the power to “provide by law for the creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive officers including qualifications for office and for the transfer of county seats.” (art. XII, sec. 4). The Met Council’s powers are described in MSS 473.129 (, which law was passed legally and signed by the governor according to the Constitution.

    If that Met Council is unconstitutional, I’m surprised that this unit of the state government has managed to persist for 45 years. In fact, the case of City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, (A03-458) should clearly put this issue to rest. If the MN Supreme Court can decide that the Council has authority to force a city to comply with a regional planning policy, as it did, it certainly stands to reason that the majority of the Court considered the Council itself to be constitutional.

  • 2. communitysolutionsmn  |  February 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    The Met Council is Minnesota’s version of communism; appoint central planners to control every aspect of our lives from transit, to sewers, to parks, to economic development, to housing and they are completely unaccountable to citizens and taxpayers! It should be eliminated!!!!!!!!!

  • 3. Michael C. Libby  |  February 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    I understand that you prefer to decentralize the functions of the met council, but that’s a far cry from the council being unconstitutional.

  • 4. communitysolutionsmn  |  February 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    So you agree with every court decision???? How about citizens united which you just railed against?? I guess I’m not allowed to disagree but you are.

    Unelected people shoudln’t have the power to force local elected officials into doing something they don’t want to do. There’s nothing the Met Council can’t stick their nose into. Is that good or bad?

    They are MAKING laws and policy which was never the intent of the Met Council. The constitution of Minnesota says that the legislature is supposed to do that with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of our nation.

  • 5. Michael C. Libby  |  February 5, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    I wish the court had decided Citizens United differently. And it was a very close case. But I don’t recall saying anything about anonymous corporate campaign donations being unconstitutional.

    In any case, the Met Council is not unconstitutional by a long shot. That’s the point I’m making here. And from what I read of Chapter 473 of the MN statutes, the Met Council is doing exactly what the Legislature set up the council to do. And nothing in the MN constitution suggests to me that the Met Council is not a valid government agency. And while I don’t agree with every court decision, I see no reason to disagree with this one, especially since as far as I can tell, the court was unanimous in its decision.

    But even so, none of this means I agree that the Met Council should exist (although I would agree that something like it should exist). And certainly doesn’t mean I agree with this aspect of the council’s existence.

    Indeed I don’t want the government to come in and clean up the mess of some private entity like this. Who ever owns that building ought to clean up the asbestos, in my opinion. Just as who ever owns the land where Surly Brewing is going in Minneapolis should pay to clean that up. Or the people who made the mess (or benefitted financially from the mess being made) should clean it up.

    Seems to be we’re socializing costs with programs like these and privatizing profits. Which I don’t like. I wrote about the Surly issue a few weeks ago . I have never received any response to my inquiries to the Met Council about that one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.


%d bloggers like this: