Rep. Michele Bachmann
WASHINGTON — The stark divisions among Minnesota lawmakers over a new $700 million St. Croix River bridge were on stark display during a House debate on Wednesday night, all while their Wisconsin colleagues presented unified support for the project.
The House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill authorizing the construction of the new bridge on Thursday. The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, said the bridge is one of the most delayed infrastructure projects in the nation and argued its chief opponent, Democrat Betty McCollum, would be solely to blame if it fails now.
“If Rep. McCollum gets her way, she will kill building the bridge over the St. Croix River,” she said. “The responsibility for the increased costs of building this bridge rests on the shoulders of Rep. McCollum and her compatriots who have fought for decades to kill the building of this bridge.”
By “compatriots,” Bachmann was referring to environmental organizations that have opposed building a new bridge because the St. Croix is a federally protected river. A few lawmakers argued against the bridge on those grounds Wednesday night, but McCollum was not one of them: she’s maintained that she supports replacing the 81-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge and would vote for an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for such a project, but the new bridge mandated by the bill is fiscally irresponsible.
“[The bridge project] represents wasteful government spending, bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy,” she said. “What would the Tea Party call an effective, efficient use of taxpayers’ dollars? Would they call this that?”
McCollum’s main argument against the bridge is that it’s too large — a four-lane bridge to support only 16,000 vehicles a day — and too costly — $700 million. She called the bill an earmark, a maneuver that is banned by House rules, because it mandates spending at a certain level for a specific project, all while carving out an exemption for the project in federal law.
McCollum said the money set aside to build the bridge could be better spent on other transportation projects throughout the state, as DFL Gov. Mark Dayton (a bridge supporter himself) said will happen if Congress can’t approve the Stillwater project. Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison backed her up on that point, arguing that some of the money set aside for the St. Croix project could be better spent on a pair of new bridge projects in Minneapolis alone.
“I am incredibly sensitive to the need to fix our state’s bridges, our nation’s bridges,” he said, invoking the 2007 collapse of the Interstate-35W bridge in downtown Minneapolis. “A $700 million bridge, when we have structurally deficit bridges all over the state of Minnesota, all over the United States. This is not a good use of taxpayer money.”
Support from Wisconsin lawmakers
While Minnesota’s lawmakers are conflicted, Wisconsin Democrats and Republicans both took the floor Wednesday to support the project.
“I am convinced that this legislation is necessary, reasonable and time-sensitive,” said Tammy Baldwin, a liberal Democrat from Madison who is running for U.S. Senate.
Rep. Betty McCollum
Sean Duffy, a conservative first-term Republican, argued that the unusual bipartisan support the bill has received — from Democrats like Dayton and Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken to Republicans like Bachmann and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — should be enough to convince the rest of the House to support the project.
“This is a pretty special day; it’s Leap Day. It comes around only once every four years. … Bipartisanship doesn’t come around that often, but it is here tonight on the House floor,” he said, adding: “You have Vikings and Packers supporting this bill! This is a remarkable day.”
Bachmann alluded to the same thing.
“We have a historic opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime magic moment when we have governors that are Republican and Democrat, senators that are Republican and Democrat, representatives that are Republican and Democrat saying, ‘For once, let’s come together and do what the people expect,’” she said. “Let’s do what should have been done decades ago, and let’s build this commonsense bridge.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Comments (22)
Follow the money
Since when has Betty McCollum ever opposed spending other people's money, especially one that means union construction jobs? Bachmann wouldn't say it but I will ... McCollum's opposition doesn't pass the smell test.
Stop implying impropriety
Unless you have evidence to back it up.
What?
What nefarious motive does Rep. McCollum have for opposing the bridge? I should think that her opposition to the bridge, and what you call her opposition to "spending other people's money, especially one [?] that means union construction jobs" would hint at some good reason for her to be against it.
I know you hate and despise all things liberal, but do you have any reason other than that for what you posted?
Traffic counts
The estimated traffic volume on MN36 in 10 to 15 years is equal to current levels of I94. Betty McCollum is simply representing her district against a possible catastrophic effect to neighborhoods and cities adjacent to TH36. What's good for the exurbs is not always good for the core or suburbs. Perhaps the people in Lake Elmo are correct about development. Not all "progress" is good or necessary.
conservative hypocrisy
Our thoughtlessly overbuilt and sprawling road and bridge infrastructure is a huge ball and chain on our state finances at a time when we're being forced to short-change everything else. That our supposedly "fiscally conservative" state Republicans support a $700M bridge six miles north of an existing freeway bridge only emphasizes their self-serving hypocrisy.
It's not about Bachmann or McCollum really
It's about replacing a bridge that's needed replacing for over 30 years. That's why you also have Governor Dayton and Senators Kloubachar and Franken supporting an exemption that passed with unanimous consent in the Senate already.
Actually...
It's about a huge government subsidy to real estate developers in western Wisconsin.
Why I as a Minnesota tax payer should pay to make it easier for Minnesotans to move to another state while still working here is beyond me. Is Washington County so dense and over-developed that housing prices are out of reach for all but the wealthiest?
I'd much rather build a cheaper bridge and spend the balance on other deteriorating bridges that benefit Minnesota citizens and bridges?
How much of that windfall will those real estate developers spend in Minnesota?
How much of the increased tax base will St. Croix County return to the Minnesota state treasury?
And now tell me again how this is in my interest?
So many misconceptions, so little time
Pete, there's plenty of land available for development in Washington County, but the fact is that the zoning in places like Grant, Lake Elmo and Afton is very restrictive and favors large lot sizes, which makes them very expensive. And Lake Elmo is already on record as not wanting any housing that's affordable. That's why you're seeing people looking for homes across the river already.
Regarding the tax base, if you work in Minnesota you pay Minnesota state income taxes. The property taxes you pay in Wisconsin go to paying for local schools and services there. So what's there to complain about from a tax perspective?
So then, fix the problem
If there's a problem with zoning laws, work on changing the laws. I don't see how this justifies another bridge. It's one thing to subsidize smart development. This is subsidizing moronic, sprawling development.
If you want change
Then you will agree that the Metropolitan Council should be able to order Lake Elmo to build more affordable housing units. Otherwise, what's the incentive for Lake Elmo to change?
Lake Elmo is overly specific
I don't see what this has to do with Lake Elmo, like there's some sort of necessity for people to move there. We already have relatively low-density core cities, surrounded by lower-density inner ring suburbs, surrounded by even lower-density outer ring suburbs, surrounded by even *lower* density exurbs. Sure, I suppose making Lake Elmo add some dense housing would be better then developing in Wisconsin, but it only goes to emphasize how much we think of perpetual development out, out, out, when we have so much infilling to do.
I should care about Lake Elmo?
So we need to spend a huge amount of money on a bridge so Lake Elmo doesn't have to change? Then those who want the more affordable housing in Wisconsin (think those land values won't rise with a new bridge?) can pay for it. Or the good citizens of Lake Elmo can pay for it.
How many millions do I need to spend to subsidize what you admit are the high property values of Afton and Grant?
700M is ridiculous
McCollum and many of us aren't opposed to a bridge, it is a 700 million dollar bridge we are opposed to. That part makes no sense. What makes sense is something closer to the scale of the lift bridge down close to the river. That said I don't like the proposed alternative that got a lot of press, the bridge witht he reverseable lane. The purpose of the bridge is not just as a commuter path. I would think that in the summer traffic is going back and forth in close to equal measure. Poster two is right about the hypocrisy because the cost is way beyond what is justified. Poster one is, as usual, distorting the facts in order to attack a democrat.
Bipartisan irresponsibility
McCollum and Ellison appear to be the only ones in favor of protecting taxpayers' interests, perhaps because they are in safe districts while the others are concerned about reelection. Some of the people in favor of this bridge are the same who promote a Vikings stadium funded by taxpayers to further enrich the corporate elite.
This morning
Rep. Bachmann ripped into McCollum on the radio, reminding people that 1/2 of the cost of the bridge reflects the tab McCollum and her leftist ilk rang up in court.
Nice way to intorduce yourself to your new constituency, Betty!
MnDOT owes $400M in legal fees? Good one.
Mr Swift, with your public policy acuity, can you articulate any rationale whatsoever for spending hundreds of millions of Minnesota dollars on a new bridge, as opposed to simply closing the lift bridge to motorized traffic and calling it done? Certainly neither Ms Bachmann nor any of her odd DFL bedfellows has ever done so.
OMG!
Anything Rep. Bachmann says is a compelling argument! The Easter Bunny told me so.
could you please explain
Could you *please* explain to me why all of MinnPost's resident conservatives, being paragons of fiscal responsibility, are universally *for* building a $700 million bridge six miles north of an existing freeway bridge? It would make my day.
Why?
Two reasons: 1. The tree-hugging liberals oppose it; 2. Michelle Bachmann favors it.
Now that you know, it doesn't really make your day, does it?
With the new agreement
With the new agreement between Minnesota and Wisconsin about reciprocity in taxation either in effect or about to go into effect, making commuting in from western Wisconsin where zoning is not so careful that much easier, that simply enables another method of exporting taxation on the good jobs available in and around the Twin Cities metropolitan area to out of state.
There is no good reason to further subsidize longer commutes either, considering the expense of gasoline and the increased pollution that would result.
I definitely agree with McCollum that something must be done about that bridge but this proposal is purely wasteful of public moneys and definitely not in the best interests of the Twin Cities area. No question that some Republican big donors stand to make big bills off this either.
Republican tax and spend for sure, which they do all the time when their big contributors stand to make out like bandits. They are the ones who spent this country broke and are showing no end in sight.
A few interesting factoids...
1. The $700 Million cost is split between Wisconsin and Minnesota.
2. Betty has never visited Stillwater, and I doubt Ellison has either, or they would have no doubt about why the bridge is needed.
3. The I94 Bridge is already almost at full capacity.
4. The old bridge is falling apart and is a fracture-critical bridge much like the I35 bridge in downtown Minneapolis was when it went down,
5. Highways on both sides are 4 lane leading to the river valley. That is why a 4 lane bridge is needed. Also each side the river has a highway running along it North and South, and these feed also into the bridge. We do not need that sort of fewer lane bottle neck built into a new bridge that would last hopefully for at least 35 years or more. Not sure the federal transportation requirements would even allow it.
The new bridge is located downstream in an area with such amenities as a water treatment plant - and was accepted by all groups involved as the best suited and least disruptive to views. For anyone who has enjoyed visiting Stillwater in the past, the current backups are a nightmare, and a waste of expensive gas spent idling in a major traffic jam.
Anyone who has issues with this should visit and cross this bridge at rush hour someday, or at least try.
Unprovable factoids
"Betty has never visited Stillwater, and I doubt Ellison has either"
Um - unless you have:
1) Followed both of them everywhere they go
or
2) Attached GPS tracking devices to their cars
or
3) Hired private investigators to tail them and report on their every movement
or
4) Some combination of the above
your statement about neither of them ever driving out to Stillwater for a visit is unverifiable.
Now perhaps you meant to say that neither of them has paid an OFFICIAL visit. I don't know if either of them has or has not, but that - at least - would be in the public record.
But I seriously doubt you have any way of knowing whether either or both of them have ever hopped in their car for a Stillwater outing. And considering McCollum's time spent living in the East metro, I'd venture there's a pretty good chance that at some point during her life, she's driven out that way for dinner or shopping or even just a Saturday picnic - just like lots of other folks who live towards that end of the metro area.
So I find it pretty easy to believe she's seen the bridge . . . . . . .