In the process of attempting to sell the notion that deal-making is a legislative virtue, particularly in the current battle over funding for a light rail project, Iric Nathanson (Political fights over light rail projects in Minnesota is nothing new, May 6) tried to recreate the story behind the origin of LRT in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, he relied on too few sources and failed to contact key players, including me.
First of all, there have been a multitude of supporters for mass and rapid transit, dating all the way back to the 1960s when I was on the Minneapolis City Council. But the stumbling block was always costs and the allocation of costs.
When I became Governor in 1991, I inherited a $2.3 billion deficit with virtually all reserves depleted. In addition, our credit rating had been downgraded. My first priority was to stabilize our finances and impose discipline into long-term planning. This meant that any and all programs were examined and evaluated on the basis of need and value as well as affordability. Light rail was no exception.
Yes, there were numerous public officials supporting light rail, but they tended to disappear when the issue of payment arose.
My recollection is that what broke open the door of opportunity was a call from Congressman Marty Sabo who indicated that the Minnesota congressional delegation would support massive federal funding for LRT if I would commit the state’s participation. We examined the numbers and pledged our full support.
It was the $200 million from the federal government that allowed the final financial piece to fall into place. After all, this represented some 5o percent of the Hiawatha Project. Without the help we received from Congressmen Sabo and Jim Oberstar, light rail never would have become a reality. It was the partnership with the federal government that solved the problem of affordability.
Nathanson further suggests that my support for transit was dependent upon legislative support for St. Paul hockey. That has as much truth as a Donald Trump tweet.
The reality is that 1998 represented my last shot at obtaining a meaningful bonding bill and my first priority was full funding for the University of Minnesota and higher education. We held firm and the legislature approved $206 million for University projects including a new molecular and cellular building, the Business school, and major improvements to the medical complex, student union, library, etc. The MNSCU system received a record $155 million for major facility enhancements.
However, as Governor I felt my mission was to shepherd all of our projects through the legislative process and that included a hockey arena in St. Paul, light rail and a host of local improvement projects.
It should also be noted that the Republican caucus was reluctant to accept the bill due to its size. I called in those Republican legislators who had projects in the bill but intended to vote against the whole bill. I made it clear that any legislator voting no on this bill would have his local project subject to my line item veto. Many screamed blackmail but, frankly, I just did not think we needed more hypocrites.
The bill passed.
If I may, I would suggest that Governor Dayton refuse to close the session until the legislature passes a solid bonding bill that includes proper and continuing funding for our infrastructure, an on-going commitment to light rail, and sensible funding that provides properly for our health and safety as well as the appropriate needs of higher education. It is imperative that we move forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Arne H. Carlson
Respectfully read
For what it’s worth. ..
I think you did the best that could be done
Thank you Governor
I Minnesota Standout
I admired Gov. Carlson because he ignored the mold. Broke ranks with Republicans and won his first election after Jon Grunseth’s campaign derailed due to his own poor judgement. Carlson, an avowed and experienced moderate led the state for two terms and consistently put forth doing right was far more important than filling some conservative caricature.
Perhaps most appealing is he has held true to his principles. He ignores party dogma and appreciates the greater good role of governance.
I liked Jesse Ventura for the same reason, that being that politics as usual was dysfunctional and vision was needed to set a more sensible course, independent of either party’s definition. Now Jesse had his issues, but the overriding principle of shedding party dogma to achieve the greater good is his lasting achievement.
Rudy Perpich has to be added to the list as Rudy was a persistent booster of Minnesota. As an economic innovator with a chopstick factory in the 8th district to a thoughtful examination of our predilection to war in Central America. The hallmark of great governors is not popularity or adherence to rigid party prattle, but what lasting good, as the fundamental role of government, can be accomplished.
Finally in my heralded pantheon of great governors I submit Mark Dayton. Dayton has been herding cats in the legislature and seems unwilling to accept the dystopian future the legislators lurch towards.
Perhaps all in the mould of Harry Truman who saw the executive role in government as an activist, not a custodian.
A continued legacy
Good information. Thank you, Governor Arne, for continuing to participate in, and contribute to public affairs.