Doesn't the mayor of OPH live near where the new bridge will go in and opposes it for that reason? Talk about personal agendas!

Susan, you fundamentally misunderstand our representative democracy. Citizens vote for the quality of the thinking of the members of a city council. We vote for those whose reasoning skills best represent the majority. That means that personal agendas become public policies and they are supported by tax dollars sometimes. This is Jeffersonian democracy at its best. Those candidates who are viewed to have faulty reasoning skills or agendas that are outside the mainstream are defeated and drift over to comment sections of on-line articles.

Ann, please go back and read about our founders, and their desire for a republic, not a democracy. Our founders wisely rejected "democracy" and gave us a republic, based on the Rule of Law. "A government of laws and not of men". A majority does not make it right, or wise. We do well to understand these concepts, and why our founders chose as they did.

If you are implying that I am on, have been on, or have tried to be on the council, it is, once again, you that is inaccurate.

Susan - I am a constitutional lawyer. A representative democracy is another phrase for a republic. Under the notions of John Locke, supported by Jefferson and the Federalist Papers, we vote for those who best reason like the voting population. Their agendas, in aggregate, become our public polices.

You are right, we get representatives who are chosen by the majority of those who vote, not necessarily the majority of all the people. Your job does not give you any more of a right to express your "opinions" here, than I have. If you feel the need to slam my every comment made against our city council, then so be it, but thankfully I have the right to express those opinions.

Jim, can you expand on that? I understand that it may go over "Lake St. Croix Beach", but that is just a nickname for that section of the river. From what I understand, a "lake" must be surrounded by land.

Jim,
Are you planning another law suit by the Sierra Club to drive up the cost? Is the Lake separate from the river?

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/eastmetro/lakes/lakestcroix.html

It's a lake according to the MnDNR!

If the US Congress and the president of the US enacted a law allowing construction of a bridge over a Wild and Scenic waterway when in fact the bridge will be over a lake I can't see the project going forward, even if the all powerfull Stillwater mayor and MnDOT are pushing it.

Jim, even the DNR page you link to says, "Lake St. Croix refers to the lower portion of the St. Croix River from Stillwater to Prescott along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border."

So the "lake" is a named portion of the river. Don't you think the Sierra Club would have latched onto your twisted logic to defeat passage of the bridge? If you can't see the project going forward, then you can't see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Wow if it is not part of the river then it wasn't part of the Scenic River-way and therefore not protected and all this was unnecessary.

The financial windfall of choosing to be a commercial business center first and a residential community second. Those decisions require some of that business tax revenue to be spent on things that are necessary because of increased traffic volumes rather than just subsidizing the lower than typical resident property taxes. Also, the Oak Park Heights mayor cannot be trusted. He relishes being a thorn in the side of anyone else, especially the county and MnDot (although some of that is certainly justified). The state should not be paying to replace utilities that will soon need repairs/replacement in the first place. That's not fair to Minnesota communities everywhere that pay for their own utility replacement costs. Much like the school district, Oak Park Heights is using the highest number it can reasonably defend as a way to frighten the residents with inflated figures.

Interesting info on the tax explanation, thanks. I agree that OPH should pay for the "new" lines, but I think MNDOT should pay to relocate them. It would be asinine to put them under the paved roads, and in the state right-of-way. OPH wouldn't have to move the lines if these road changes weren't happening.

I guess I don't know enough about the mayor's record to comment on his background, but I did meet him during the last stages of the bridge debate. He seemed very knowledgeable on the history of the project, was able to share some information that was new to me.

What people (especially the Oak Park Heights mayor and council) are conveniently overlooking is that when OPH initially got permission to run their utilities in the state's right-of-way on Hwy. 36, they were fully aware that, by law, the state cannot pay to relocate utilities in a "permitted right-of-way." They assumed the risk for the sake of convenience and now they don't want to be responsible for it.

That does change things now, doesn't it? Thanks for the additional info Bob.

Bob, do you know when those utility lines were put there? I ask because my family is from Oak Park Heights, dating back to the 40s, and I want to ask my dad if he remembers any info.

Sorry, Susan. I have no idea when they were put there.

I believe what is now Highway 36 was paved (over the utilities) in the early 70s. I have been trying to get more information about this and the contract that was presumably signed between Oak Park Heights and MnDOT back then. Again, this is what I've been told by a few different people, but it's not anything I have been able to confirm.

Susan - This is an example of faulty reasoning skills. Lack of attention to detail in a discussion leads one to inaccurate reasoning and faulty conclusions.

Oh please! Because I forgot about the links, means I have inaccurate reasoning, and faulty conclusions? Seriously, I think you need to reevaluate who has the inaccurate reasoning here.

Yes it does, Susan. It shows a lack of attention to detail in your reasoning skills. As they say, "The devil is in the detail."

How ironic that a constitutional attorney would take shots at someone for exercising their constitutional right of free speech. Can someone recommend a good constitutional lawyer to sue Ann for harassment?

What the hell are you talking about?

One needs to read no farther than the last post by our resident lawyer to understand why lawyers are viewed the way they are in this country...

Sure, if people or municipalities won't negotiate to the desired outcome of the government, then the government should just seize what it wants. In other words, MNDOT or Minnesota should just take the property in question, and do as they may.

Eminent domain is an awful action to be taken by our government, and should only be used in the most extreme cases!

Wrong country boy. State and Federal governments used the Right of Eminent Domain to build the interstate highway system (for the defense and the public good) in the 1950s and 1960s. Earlier, it was invoked to expand the railroads west. It is a right that the citizens of this country gave the government. The country is not screwed up. It is based on laws that citizens approved. The public good is always paramount to private needs.

Opinions are based on reasoning and knowledge. Those are a matter of quality. In a democratic society, quality of opinions are what counts.

It's not just the quality of opinions that counts. It's content and context. To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, an opinion creates an environment by its mere presence.

So, are you saying that opinions put out by those who don't have full knowledge of all things related, should be discounted, "corrected", and ultimately ignored?

It sounds like you would make a perfect politician.

Since this subject was brought up, does anyone else find it odd that the government can seize your property for "public good", yet it cannot take your guns, which kill 30,000 people a year in this country?

And no, I am not anti-guns.

I would suggest that you never drive on a federal highway or an interstate. Much of the road we drive on was government seized under the Right of Eminent Domain. Yet, try driving to Bemidji on side roads and see what the "public good" means. Look up the work "eminent." Most citizens are shocked when they understand that they do not have prime authority over their "private property." That's why the government can seize your property if it is used in a crime (i.e. growing marijuana on it). By the way, the government's authority is not limited to land. It includes ALL private property. The government, whether you like it or not, has the "eminent domain" over ALL property, when they want it for the "public good." Scary, huh?

The largest land owner in many states in the western US (i.e. New Mexico) is the federal government. They can make treaties that affect your land. They can take your land for compensation. There is not much you can do when this happens because citizens can't legally sue the US government.