Yesterday, the Hennepin County Board voted 5 - 1 (with me being the “no” vote) to join a consortium with the Met Council and others requesting a $5 million federal “sustainable communities regional planning grant.”

According to the background material, the grant would be used to support the metro area in planning to “integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation and infrastructure investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of:

(1) economic competitiveness and revitalization;
(2) social equity, inclusion and access to opportunity;
(3) energy use and climate change; and
(4) public health and environmental impact.”

There were several difficult issues yesterday over which I struggled how to vote. This was not one of them.

This is central planning, top-down government control at its very worst. And, while collaboration and coordination between government units is always wise and welcome, this project has little to do with that. This is about “Smart Growth.” It’s about population density and the evils of the automobile. It’s about subsidized housing, subsidized transit, subsidized economic development and subsidized alternative energy.

The expectation of the Feds for those who receive these grants is that they will take action to promote (or possibly mandate?) six “Livability Principles.”

Those “Livability Principles” (with my parenthetical translations):

(1) Provide More Transportation Choices - Develop save, reliable and affordable transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health. (Spend more money on trains)
(2) Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing - Expand location and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. (Spend more money on subsidized housing)
(3) Enhance Economic Competitiveness - Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. (Spend even more money on trains)
(4) Support Existing Communities - Target federal funding toward existing communities - through strategies like transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling - to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. (Subsidize development along transit corridors)
(5) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment - Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy. (Subsidize alternative energy projects such as wind turbines and solar panels)
(6) Value Communities and Neighborhoods - Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods - rural, urban or suburban. (Provide government incentives/mandates for more densely populated communities)

And the Feds intend to exercise more control over local decisions for those who receive these grants:

“HUD anticipates having substantial involvement in the work being conducted to ensure that the purposes of the Sustainable Communities Program are being carried out across the region and that the entities are following through on their commitments to sustainable regional development . . . including projects in participating jurisdictions that are funded through other [federal] programs, so that they are implemented in a manner consistent with the Livability Principles and the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development.”

So, even for federal programs outside of the Sustainable Communities Program, the federal government will expect that Hennepin County and its local cities would actively promote the “Livability Principles” of population density, automobile scarcity and government-subsidized everything.

There might be some positive elements to this program, but overall for me, this was an easy “no” vote against more government authority over how people choose to live and travel and more federal control over local government decisions.

Two weeks ago, the story broke about Minnesota Majority’s investigation alleging that felons, possibly by the hundreds, had illegally voted in Hennepin and Ramsey counties in the 2008 election. Some of the news coverage suggested that the Hennepin County Attorney’s office was not taking the allegations seriously or was dragging its feet in its investigation of the Minnesota Majority’s report.

These allegations are serious - going to the very heart of our democratic process. The integrity of our elections in Minnesota took a big hit already when we learned how inconsistently absentee ballots were counted throughout the state. To suggest that hundreds of felons illegally voted on top of that would seriously damage citizens’ faith in Minnesota’s ability to run fair and clean elections.

Over the course of the past week, I’ve spoken with Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and his Deputy County Attorney who handles election fraud cases several times. Here’s the scoop regarding HennCo’s actions with respect to these allegations:

In February 2010, Minnesota Majority provided to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (”HCAO”) the names of 451 felons suspected of illegally voting in Hennepin County in 2008. That list had been winnowed down from an original list of over 800 names. This list of 451, on its face, was credible and was the result of significant investigative work by Minnesota Majority.

The organization, however, recognized that it did not have the benefit of all of the information that would be available to law enforcement or a county attorney, realizing that some or even many of the names on its list might not represent felons who voted illegally. Minnesota Majority requested that the HCAO investigate the 451 names and prosecute any that proved to be accurate.

As of last week, the HCAO had determined that 235 of the 451 names would not be charged for a variety of reasons. For example, it could have been that the identity of the suspected felon was mistaken or that terms of a correctly identified felon’s probation were changed and he or she was actually eligible to vote on Election Day 2008.

The HCAO is currently investigating the remaining 216 names on the list, mainly by trying to contact and interview the person listed and/or that person’s probation officer.

I have two concerns about the status of this investigation:

1) It needs to get done - soon. It has been nearly two years since the 2008 election and allegations of voter fraud should at the very least be investigated and, if appropriate, charged before Election Day 2010.

County Attorney Freeman has assured me that this investigation will be completed and that any charges of illegal felons voting will be brought BEFORE November 2, 2010. And he does, by the way, expect that charges will result from this investigation.

I understand that the statute of limitations for this particular crime is three years, so that will not be an issue. I’ve heard a concern that state law allows for destruction of voting documents 22 months after an election. I have spoken with Hennepin County’s election administrator and she has confirmed that all voting documentation with respect to the 451 names on the Minnesota Majority list has already been provided to the HCAO. Therefore, destruction of documents should not be an issue in Hennepin County.

2) If most of the names on this list are not charged (which it appears will be the case), I want citizens to be satisfied that the investigation of these allegations was complete and legitimate. While I might trust and respect the work of the HCAO on this particular issue, some will not, which is why verification is crucial.

County Attorney Freeman has agreed to make public a list of each of the 451 names not charged by the HCAO and provide an explanation as to why no charges were brought. That will provide Minnesota Majority, or anyone else for that matter, an opportunity to review the HCAO investigation and make a determination as to its legitimacy.

I am satisfied at this point with the response of the HCAO and look forward to see what comes of this in the coming weeks.

A few fellow Republicans have been critical of me for not making a little more hay out of this issue with the DFL County Attorney. My intent, however, is not to score political points, but to actually see that these serious allegations are fully investigated, that prosecutions result when appropriate and that the process is transparent enough for the citizens of Hennepin County to be satisfied that our justice system works.  I guess we’ll just wait and see.

The kicker: $600,000 of this public money would be spent to help kids plant and maintain 40 gardens in the urban core of Minneapolis and at the Home School. In other words, we would be spending $15,000 each for 40 “community gardens” in the name of environmental education.

As background, the LCCMR is a group of legislators and private citizens appointed to distribute money from the Minnesota State Lottery that constitutionally must be directed to projects that “maintain and enhance Minnesota’s environment and natural resources.”

I am not denigrating the work of the LCCMR. I was actually a member of this group (when it existed in a somewhat different format) before I was elected to the Minnesota House in 2000. The LCCMR funds many great environmental programs.

This program, however, would not be one of them. At least not the portion of the program dedicated to $15K community gardens.

There simply must be better ways to spend $600,000 in furtherance of the environment.

In the end, the LCCMR might not fund this particular program, but our decision to even make the request is evidence of the fact that we in government need to be constantly reminded of the following principle: The money we spend does not fall from heaven like manna but is taken from our constituents through the power of government. We should spend every dollar as carefully as though it was coming from our own pockets - in which case I suspect that most of us would find the prospect of a $15,000 garden absurd.

Last year, the Hennepin County Board (minus the votes of Commissioner Randy Johnson and me) voted to increase the general property tax levy by 4.95%. At the same time, the board (minus only my vote) also increased the county regional railroad authority levy by 114% and the county housing authority levy by 176%. 

It’s only fair to note that county spending actually decreased between 2009 and 2010, but not enough to avoid tax increases.

As we begin our discussions about the county’s 2011 budget, the safe bet would be that all three levies will increase again. But despite these increases, we are also considering a new source of revenue for the county (on top of the three major levies, the ballpark tax, the transit tax, the tax on garbage collection, etc.) known as a “wheelage tax.”

State law allows counties to levy a wheelage tax upon its citizens of up to $5 per vehicle annually. According to county estimates, a wheelage tax in Hennepin County would raise approximately $4 million per year. Pursuant to state law, that $4 million could only be spent on roads and bridges.

The new wheelage tax was raised as a potential option for the county at a recent meeting during which the county board discussed 2011 funding for county roads. The county’s transportation department suggested at this meeting that an additional $10 million in 2011 would be needed (over the $30 million already budgeted by the county for roads) to essentially keep our county roads in good repair (as we have been falling behind in this category over the past decade). Essentially, this additional $10 million would go towards pavement replacement, road maintenance and drainage system upgrades.

Several of my colleagues on the board suggested that it would be all but impossible to find an additional $10 million for roads within our $1.6 billion budget (which would require reallocating just over ½ of 1%). Hence, the argument for a new tax.

Providing safe and adequate roads and bridges for our citizens is a basic, fundamental job of county government (along with keeping the public safe and providing a social safety net to the most vulnerable people in the county). I recognize that I sound like a broken record, but it’s time for this county board to SET PRIORITIES and adequately fund what is most important rather than funding everything under the sun and then arguing that we’re too broke to meet our basic obligations.

We do not need yet another tax on Hennepin County residents - we need to focus, set priorities and adequately fund what’s important.

The newest Golden Fire Hydrant goes to the county’s “Better Together Hennepin: Healthy Youth, Healthy Communities” teen pregnancy prevention program. Last week the board voted 6 -1 to extend the program two years and spend another $518,000 (for a 4-year total of $1.1 million), despite receiving a report on the program showing it’s doing little or nothing to change the sexual behavior of the kids in the program.

“Better Together Hennepin” actually consists of several different teen pregnancy prevention programs that the county has been funding for two years - apparently to little success. Included are education and outreach programs through several different vendors, including Planned Parenthood, the Annex Teen Clinic and the Storefront Group. Also, the program includes funding two half-time sex education teachers in the Richfield and Brooklyn Center public schools.

The board chose to fund these programs for another two years despite seeing outcome studies that show they are ineffective in changing kids’ sexual behavior. This decision is a great example of government throwing money at a problem because it makes us feel good to be doing SOMETHING, even if that something is having no positive effect.

The report shows six statistically significant changes in behavior for those kids in the program - three are arguably positive changes and three are clearly negative changes. I focus only on those changes in behavior that are statistically significant, not on statistically insignificant results or on purported changes in kids’ attitudes about or knowledge of sex.

The arguably positive behavioral outcomes:

1. Kids in the program reported an increase in condom use when having sex. Specifically, THREE more kids reported using condoms after going through the program than reported using them before the program began. So, after spending about $600,000 over two years, one of the purported successes of this program is that three kids who were not using condoms before the program claim to now use them.

2. Several kids reported having talked to their parents about sex after going through the program. The specific numbers: 10 or 11 kids in 9th grade and 7 kids in 10th grade. I don’t discount this outcome. If it’s true, I believe it is a genuinely positive outcome of the program. We will never know if those conversations actually changed any of these kids’ sexual behavior or not, but kids talking to parents is a positive outcome.

3. The Annex Teen Clinic reported an increase in the number of teen visits after the program began. There are no numbers in the report and I don’t know if those visits led to positive changes in sexual behavior or not, but this would be the third arguably positive result touted by supporters of this program.

One caveat about the results in 1 and 2 above: they are not verifiable. We are relying solely on what these kids tell us, recognizing, of course, that most sexually active teenagers are beyond reproach and would never think of fibbing to an adult.

The negative behavioral outcomes:

1. More kids in the program ended up failing other classes than those in the control group.

2. More kids in the program skipped school than those in the control group (possibly because they were busy having sex - with condoms, of course).

3. More kids in the program reported using marijuana for the first time during the course of the program than kids in the control group.

I don’t believe Better Together Hennepin was the cause of these three negative behavioral outcomes, but if we are going to tout the program as leading to the arguably positive outcomes, consistency requires us to attribute the negative outcomes to the program, as well.

Based on what the reports show, our investment in the program the past two years was a complete wash, and possibly more negative than positive.

I’ve had concerns about Better Together Hennepin in the past. In fact, the very first Golden Hydrant went to the small portion of this program funding the two teachers in Richfield and Brooklyn Center, not based on the efficacy of the program (as we had no outcome studies at that point), but based on the simple fact that counties in Minnesota should not be funding public school teachers.

I also have problems using property tax dollars to fund abortion providers and question whether the program’s practice of teaching teenagers that sex is only safe with a condom and then telling them where to get free condoms might actually have some negative consequences.

If, however, these outcome studies had shown that the program was actually changing kids’ behavior in a positive way, I would probably have quietly voted “no” based on my other concerns and moved on.

Instead we have outcome studies that show dismal results - at the very best.

We love to talk about measurable outcomes these days on the county board. The talk rings hollow, however, if we ignore negative measurable outcomes in order to vote for programs because they make us feel good.

We received a report regarding ARRA stimulus spending in Hennepin County at our board meeting on Tuesday.  According to the most recent report prepared by Hennepin County covering the period through December 31, 2009:  “More than $718 million in Recovery Act dollars funded as many as 726 projects at more than 200 different organizations and agencies across Hennepin County.”  Total number of jobs created or retained as a result:  2599.62.

That translates to a little over $276,000 per job created or retained (and that is using what has proven to be a VERY generous method of calculating jobs created or retained).

I understand that some of that $718M has not been spent yet, so more jobs might very well be created or retained (heck, maybe we can get the number down to $150K per job), but the stimulus was sold to America last spring as a way to immediately pump hundreds of billions into the economy and address the rising unemployment rate.  We were told to judge the stimulus on the massive number of jobs it would create in the short-term.

At $276K a pop, it hasn’t proven a very wise investment in the short-term.  But then again, what do we care - we’re leaving the bill for the next couple generations anyway.

Wise decisions and good prioritization.  Hooray!

I should add a disclaimer: I lost the 2006 A.G. election to Swanson (and I can’t even argue voter fraud, as there were far too many votes separating us to blame on any ACORN conspiracy or a lost ballot box on the Iron Range).  So, for me, this is a little like fantasy football: I get to pretend I’m in charge of something even though I’m really just watching from the stands.

Jeff Johnson: Swanson Should Have Backed Suit

Fourteen states’ attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new national health care law. Recently, Gov. Tim Pawlenty asked Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson to join those suits on behalf of the people of Minnesota. Not surprisingly, Swanson has informed the governor that she will not challenge the new law and, in fact, will file a brief arguing in its favor.

In Minnesota, the attorney general is the governor’s lawyer. That does not mean the attorney general is required to do the governor’s every bidding. If, for example, the governor requests the initiation of a baseless lawsuit or seeks to use the courts for partisan purposes (and I recognize we Republicans can play the partisan game with the best of them), there would be a strong basis for the attorney general to rebuff her client.

Pawlenty’s request, however, was not such a case. Instead, it set forth a very legitimate constitutional concern that every Minnesota citizen should share.

The strongest argument against the constitutionality of this new law concerns the provision requiring every citizen to purchase a federally approved health insurance plan or face a fine from the IRS.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 10th is short, sweet and crystal clear: The federal government only has powers to do those things listed in the Constitution. If a power is not enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.

So where in the Constitution is the federal government given power to coerce every individual to purchase a government-approved product in the private marketplace? Swanson stated in her letter to Pawlenty that the “Commerce Clause” provides the authority for such an action.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” Swanson argues that the health insurance industry is engaged in interstate commerce and requiring the individual health care mandate is apparently nothing more than “regulation” of that industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been expansive in allowing the federal government to regulate all sorts of economic activities under the Commerce Clause. No one questions, however, that the Supreme Court has never gone so far as to allow the federal government to force all citizens to buy a particular product.

If the Commerce Clause is that expansive, what limit would there be on the federal government’s power over how we spend our money?

But what about the automobile insurance mandate? Some (including President Obama) compare the new health insurance mandate to the permissible practice of government-mandated auto insurance.

The federal government, however, does not require the purchase of auto insurance. Only state governments have that authority. Courts have agreed that state governments have a general “police power” that enables them to pass laws for public safety and health. This general police power does not exist for the federal government.

This is not a question of whether the new health care law is good policy; it’s a question of whether the U.S. Constitution even matters anymore. If we choose to ignore the legitimate constitutional questions surrounding this enormous expansion of federal power over every American, there will be little individual economic activity left that the federal government cannot control.

I don’t always agree with Pawlenty, but I think he’s got this one right.  The Attorney General should have acted on her pledge to uphold the Constitution and sued on behalf of the Governor and every other Minnesota citizen.

The Kingfish, as I understand it, is not capable of listening to cell phone conversations, but can track the location of a cell phone that is on but not being used.  This device has been used by other law enforcement agencies around the country to track missing or abducted children who are carrying a cell phone or who are with someone who is carrying a cell phone.  I am told that a court order is required before the Kingfish can be used to track a cell phone in any particular case.

The Star Tribune carried a short and accurate story (”Hennepin hangs up on cell phone tracker“) about the issue last week:

The latest: The Hennepin County Board for a second time has tabled Sheriff Rich Stanek’s request to seek $426,150 in federal money for a cell-phone tracking device called the KingFish. The device helps law enforcement agencies by pinpointing the location of cell phones that are on but not being used.

What it means: The 4-3 vote on Tuesday looks to end, for now, Stanek’s hopes to purchase a KingFish with federal funding. The deadline is nearly up for submitting this year’s wish list to the county’s congressional delegation.

The back story: Three weeks ago the board forwarded Stanek’s requests for nearly $3.5 million in federal funds for dispatch center equipment, but declined to include the KingFish. Commissioners expressed concern that the device might lead to illegal searches and questioned whether the Sheriff’s Office really needed one.

What happened: Board members debated the pros and cons of the issue on Tuesday. Some said they needed more information before going ahead with the request. Commissioner Gail Dorfman said she preferred a pilot project to determine how well the device works. Commissioner Jeff Johnson said he was convinced it was an important and useful law enforcement tool that wouldn’t violate privacy rights.

How they voted: Commissioners Peter McLaughlin, Mike Opat, Mark Stenglein and Dorfman voted to table the request. Commissioners Jan Callison, Randy Johnson and Jeff Johnson voted against the layover.

All of us on the board asked legitimate and difficult questions regarding this request for federal funds and had the opportunity to meet with the Sheriff’s Office directly to have those questions answered.  I was quite comfortable with the answers I received, but apparently that was not the case for a majority of the board.

The county board over the past year has requested hundreds of millions from the federal government (for transit, health, human services, environmental and public safety programs) without much discussion about any particular request.  In fact, this project (which is quite small in comparison to many we have requested and is a priority for the Sheriff’s Office) has probably been given more scrutiny than any other request I can remember (including our requests for subsidized bike helmet money, money for public art and many millions for several light rail trains).

I don’t begrudge any of my colleagues asking tough questions and scrutinizing the request for federal money; I only hope that the board will treat future requests - even those that are not for crime prevention - with the same close scrutiny and fiscal concerns that we treated this important public safety request.

As I was paying bills the other night during the Olympics, I saw yet another of those annoying 2010 U.S. Census commercials and decided - as I was grumbling about government waste under my breath - that it was time to award another Golden Fire Hydrant.

The U.S. government is spending $340 million to market the 2010 Census. About $145 million of that is for the creation and airing of television commercials, which can be seen during the most expensive time slots in TV (including a $2.5 million 30-second spot during the Super Bowl).

The ads stink, by anyone’s definition. They use marginally famous actors in a painfully unsuccessful attempt to be humorous. They share practically no useful information (not even telling viewers to fill out their census forms) and are unlikely to convince anyone who is opposed to or disinterested in completing the form to do so.

The Hydrant usually goes to a Hennepin County expenditure and, in the past, I have avoided calling out federal programs (as I would be posting on wasteful spending four times a day). But the combination of paying my bills and seeing one of these annoying multi-million dollar commercials for the umpteenth time put me over the edge.

Should there be an effort to inform people about the census? Of course. The government should be providing information to groups throughout the country explaining the Census’ simplicity and importance in allocating federal money and congressional representation. Hennepin County, for example, is actively doing that all around the county.

These silly commercials, however, are a great (yet sad) example of how completely out of touch some in government are. They don’t seem to have any concept that the money they spend actually has to come out of someone’s paycheck. It’s like pretend money - to be spent on anything and everything that seems cool, fun, well-intentioned or exciting (see, e.g., garbage burner beautification, “signature” bridges, bike helmet subsidies, artsy water fountains, etc.).

Until those in government start to understand that the money they’re playing with is real, don’t let them tell you they’re broke and you should pony up a little more.