After blasting both state and national Republicans (and politicians in general) last week, I must now fire back at the state Democrats.
The Republicans recently released their plans for redistricting the state from the 2010 census, and immediately and without surprise, the Democrats cried foul and wanted the proposal thrown out. While their argument is certainly sound, from statements that it is a ploy to secure districts (it is) or that it is purely to benefit themselves (mostly true, Ron Kind becomes pretty solidly safe as well). I agree with the Democrats; the process is wrong and the results make Wisconsin look poor.
But are we honestly supposed to believe that the Democrats wouldn’t have done the same thing had they secure control over all branches? Had Barrett carried a Democratic wave in 2010, wouldn’t we be looking at a map where Paul Ryan would absorb more of Milwaukee and less suburbs? Sean Duffy, in an already contentious district, would surely have seen changes.
Most importantly, let’s not pretend that only the Republicans would’ve done this. It’s easy to do so, but it is wrong.
When folks say that this is unprecedented and the process hasn’t happened like this before, it’s true; but only because for the past fifty years Wisconsin has had a split legislature/governor during this process. I think that concerns like those of Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison) being moved out of her current district should NOT have a bearing into the process. Should we protect the incumbents naturally? I don’t think so and I wouldn’t think so regardless of who it was.
I think it is especially telling that in the complete Democrat controlled state capital until November of 2010 did NOT bring forward reform measures. Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison) has been a prolific tweeter on the matter but wouldn’t a skeptical public think that its odd that the multitude of Democrats purportedly supporting this did not present this before the new legislature and Governor took office? I know Hulsey wasn’t there before but a lot of others were and could have done it. Legislators look into the future and they clearly did not expect everything to be overturned in November, yet it happened, and now the Democrats are scrambling to recover.
My prediction? Governor Walker will be open to a more open process than the brothers Fitzgerald. The recalls against the GOP is pretty solidly in place and there is not much to gain or lose for those legislators but the Governor has another three years left (sorry Madison, he won’t be recalled. The numbers aren’t there) and will need Democrats for some of it at the very least. This is a very good place to begin some healing and still end up with a plan favorable to the majority party but with some willingness to work together as it will be needed at some point.
And remember: we are a purple state. Neither party rules very long here so learning the lesson of bipartisanship is something that will be learnt, one way or another.
After yesterday’s passing of a bill to replace the Stillwater Bridge sponsored by Senator Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) by a large bipartisan majority, the commentary around the Capitol continued to reflect on the $225 million that had just been spent on what our very own Representative Brett Hulsey (D-Madison) called a “boondoggle bridge”.
In his press release, Hulsey urged members to vote against the bill because over 1,000 other deficient bridges exist in Wisconsin. Think about it. Yep, he just argued that we shouldn’t fix one because there are other problems out there. Not a good start. Shahla Werner, the Director of the regional Sierra Club is also quoted in the release saying,
“This bill will pave the way for constructing a $633 million bridge just seven miles north of an
eight lane bridge while ignoring more reasonable bridge upgrades…This massive project unnecessarily
jeopardizes the federally protected St. Croix Scenic Riverway.”
Now, the good Director’s first two claims are true: the bridge will cost upwards of $633 million and is about 7 miles north of Hudson, Wisconsin which has I94 running through it into Minnesota. While true, those statements are misleading.
- The first is that Wisconsin is not spending $633 million; Wisconsin authorized bonding for $225 million, our share of the bridge. (The additional implication that this will be funded through bonds and not the internal budget is another matter entirely…)
- The second statement about Hudson’s I94 bridge is misleading in that its not exactly an empty bridge. During peak time the bridge is bumper to bumper for all the lanes, cars backed up from St. Paul 10 miles farther into Minnesota. That doesn’t sound like a bridge capable of adding another 18,000 cars per day without extreme congestion and cost. Additionally, the next nearest bridge is in my home town of Osceola, and is built just like the I35 bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis a few years back prompting strict weight limits and frequent inspection. Neither option can handle the strain.
- According to data collected by the Federal Highway Administration, the Stillwater bridge has two peers that have over 10,000 vehicles per day and a structural deficiency rating of less than 3/100. (Stillwater bridge is labeled as the Township of St. Joseph in this data) So that already puts it near the top of the replacement list. In all honesty, if the bill included provisions to bond a total of $600 million for all three of these bridges, I would be ok with that. People are at risk daily because of political gridlock and that’s not okay.
- Stillwater bridge closes annually in the Spring when the water of the river rises to touch the deck and sometimes flood the roadway of the bridge. That water enhances the corrosion of the beams, many of which are original 1931 steel, leading to the infamous rust holes in the support structure. That’s right, I can see through the bridge’s supports because they are so weak and rusted away. Every so often, a large truck will come across the bridge and actually hit the beams, bending the steel!
- For more commentary and public views (some of which are blatantly ignorant of the past forty years of regional history) check out the recent MPR discussion between the Mayor of Stillwater and a representative from the Sierra Club. It’s interesting.
There are over 2,000 bridges in Wisconsin deemed to be structurally deficient and earlier yesterday, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bipartisan bill to rebuild the one at the center of one of the longest and strangest controversies between the Cheeseheads and East Dakota. Having lived in Osceola, Wisconsin, twenty miles from this bridge, I can assure you that I have traveled it extensively, and I’ve followed the history closely.
The Stillwater Bridge has gained notoriety over the years for being exceptionally frightening to drive (or walk!) across, and for being habitually closed for repairs and floods. Conversations about replacing the bridge started when the bridge turned 50 (in 1981) and when the Twin Cities was just beginning to grow enough to consider Stillwater a suburb. Early on, there was much confusion over who should pay more for the bridge, Wisconsin or Minnesota? Complicating matters more is the fact that the bridge lies on the St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway, an area with strict construction requirements and conservation laws. Nevertheless, plans had slowly trudged along.
In 1994, when it seemed like a new bridge would come soon (the current bridge could legally retire now…) two of my friends who lived in Stillwater at the time were subject to Minnesota’s Eminent Domain and their neighborhood was bought out for the new bridge that would soon be coming. Nearing twenty years after THAT, and the end is finally in sight. Governor Walker sent a letter to US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood asking for support in an exemption to the protections placed on the Scenic Riverway. This letter mirrors one sent by Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Gottleib to Secretary LaHood.
Both letters note that the appropriate Congressional process is being pursued by two matching resolutions S. 1134 in the Senate and H.R. 850 in the House. The Senate’s version features signatures from ALL FOUR of Wisconsin and Minnesota’s senators (Klobuchar, Franklin, and Kohl for the Democrats, and Johnson for the Republicans) Additionally, the House version features the four most affected congressmen in the states, Democrat Ron Kind who actually represents the district, and Republicans Sean Duffy, Michelle Bachmann, and Chip Cravaack.
This is as bipartisan as it gets folks and its exciting to see finally happen.
Tomorrow, a follow up post will appear where I make the case as to why this bridge should be funded, despite cries from the likes of Representative Brett Hulsey that its not necessary.