[Speed Gibson,
Friday April 7, 2006 at 8:29am]
The League of Minnesota Cities
One of the major players in the Eminent Domain debate has been the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). Their name has come up before in other matters, and I'm starting to wonder if such an organization isn't more foe than friend.
One of the main activities, perhaps their primary activity, would appear to be lobbying at the state capitol. Why would we need this? City officials can call, visit, mail, or email their legislative delegation directly. Actually, I'd turn this around to say that it's the responsibility of the Legislators to make sure their cities' needs are being met. Either way, where does the LMC fit in?
The LMC not only lobbies, it takes positions, obviously only one position per issue. As a growing bureaucracy itself, it's not surprising that the decided position will favor that of its member bureaucrats. Eminent Domain is a great example, where the LMC wants no restraints, however reasonable, however more Constitutional, placed on their cities' favorite "planning" tool.
The devil's argument would be that large companies or organizations like, say, Xcel Energy or the Vikings would still be free to lobby with big time lobbyists. How could cities fight them without pooling to hire their own Goliaths? I ask, how does this help? If your Legislator is corrupt, the battle is already decided, one way or the other. If not, you need no special advantage beyond your status as mayor, council member, or city manager.
Perhaps the Legislature needs to consider whether elected bodies - cities, counties, school districts, the Met Council, and joint powers agencies - can spend public funds on lobbyists. The LMC could continue as a think tank, provide common services, etc., but in taking public funds could no longer lobby at the capitol.
The LMC could arm cities with general facts and arguments, but the communication should be specific and direct for each city. Otherwise, as I sense with Emiment Domain, the LMC takes on a life of its own.
One of the main activities, perhaps their primary activity, would appear to be lobbying at the state capitol. Why would we need this? City officials can call, visit, mail, or email their legislative delegation directly. Actually, I'd turn this around to say that it's the responsibility of the Legislators to make sure their cities' needs are being met. Either way, where does the LMC fit in?
The LMC not only lobbies, it takes positions, obviously only one position per issue. As a growing bureaucracy itself, it's not surprising that the decided position will favor that of its member bureaucrats. Eminent Domain is a great example, where the LMC wants no restraints, however reasonable, however more Constitutional, placed on their cities' favorite "planning" tool.
The devil's argument would be that large companies or organizations like, say, Xcel Energy or the Vikings would still be free to lobby with big time lobbyists. How could cities fight them without pooling to hire their own Goliaths? I ask, how does this help? If your Legislator is corrupt, the battle is already decided, one way or the other. If not, you need no special advantage beyond your status as mayor, council member, or city manager.
Perhaps the Legislature needs to consider whether elected bodies - cities, counties, school districts, the Met Council, and joint powers agencies - can spend public funds on lobbyists. The LMC could continue as a think tank, provide common services, etc., but in taking public funds could no longer lobby at the capitol.
The LMC could arm cities with general facts and arguments, but the communication should be specific and direct for each city. Otherwise, as I sense with Emiment Domain, the LMC takes on a life of its own.