DM&E and NIMBY

[wallyworld]

War of words heats up in Minnesota. Good thing these folks were not around when the transcontinental was built.

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/dmeStatic.html

[edbenton]

The CEO of the Mayo clinic he was the one who wanted to take me off a med that was working already so he could prescribe it instead. All he is looking for is ca***o make himself look good, the Mayo clinic does everything in secret to begin with I think they took lessons from the George W Bush and *** Cheney school on how to run a business.

[solzrules]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Mayo conducting THEIR business in secret. That is their business, and a good business would want to do that to protect their trade secrets. However, in this case, the bedfellows are the Mayo clinic (a private enterprise) and the city of Rochester (public officials elected by the public to do public work). I think Kevin Scheiffer is right. It would be one thing if the conflict was between the Mayo clinic and the DME. It is between the Mayo clinic, the city of Rochester, and the DME. These meetings should be public, because they affect the public at large. If the city officials have the support of the public, why do they feel the need to conduct negotions in secret? What purpouse would that serve? Unless, of course, the public supports the DME and the city officials are aware of this. Then I can understand why they don't want the public to know. Seems to me like this is another example of a government chasing after the needs of a special interest in opposition to the expressed will of everyone else. 55 of 56 communities support the project. It will provide competition and add capacity where it is desparately needed. It has government approval. One city objects so the whole thing is killed? This should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[GP-9_Man11786]

Can't DM&E play the interstate commerce card?

[edbenton]

They can and more than likely will but I think they are trying to do this nice before they get mean.

[Anonymous]

I'm amazed/amused.

When localities complain about ever louder diesel horns at the crossings in their towns, that cat calls here of "gee why did the moronz move close to the railroad if they didn't expect ~diesel horns to get 30% louder than when they bought their place~ noise"?

So here we have the tables turned, the community is attempting to address the problems before they are built, and it is still they who are at fault?

While I'll admit that the coalition of the gov't officials/Mayo's insistence for confidentiality looks like some form of shady deal is being kept below the horizon, I hope the city has the foresight to include in the final agreement the required interval on which the railroad, it's successors, or assigns is required to repaint the overpass bridges... [}:)]

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

I'm amazed/amused.

When localities complain about ever louder diesel horns at the crossings in their towns, that cat calls here of "gee why did the moronz move close to the railroad if they didn't expect ~diesel horns to get 30% louder than when they bought their place~ noise"?

So here we have the tables turned, the community is attempting to address the problems before they are built, and it is still they who are at fault?

While I'll admit that the coalition of the gov't officials/Mayo's insistence for confidentiality looks like some form of shady deal is being kept below the horizon, I hope the city has the foresight to include in the final agreement the required interval on which the railroad, it's successors, or assigns is required to repaint the overpass bridges... [}:)]

I don't fault Rochester for having concerns. I think every other city would. The problem is that they seem to be negotiating under false pretenses. Scheiffer's letter mentioned the city of Rochester wondering if a tunnel could be built under the city. That is ridiculous. Again, it may be different if the DME wanted to lay a NEW line right through the middle of the city. Instead, they want to UPGRADE their existing line to accomodate more traffic safely. But, as Scheiffer pointed out, they have chosen to resist any idea of this. If they could give logical reasons as to why they don't want the DME to upgrade their line, that might be a good place to start and make their case. They have not done this. I think that the DME has started to realize this and they are going to try some different tactics in the city proper. One of those tactics seems to be taking the case to the people instead of the elected officials, who appear to be under the thumb of the Mayo clinic. So what is the false pretense? Rochester seems to think that if they do not get everything they want they will kill the project on their own. When you go to the negotiating table with that kind of an attitude, how can you work anything out? Every other city affected by this has struck a deal with the DME. This includes towns that have had no prior rail service. What makes Rochester so different? The Mayo clinic? Seems like an awfully small special interest when compared to the number of people and industries this is going to help. Hospitals and railroads have co-existed for over a hundred years. Suddenly they are unable to do so?

[blhanel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

The Mayo clinic? Seems like an awfully small special interest when compared to the number of people and industries this is going to help. Hospitals and railroads have co-existed for over a hundred years. Suddenly they are unable to do so?

Ummm... you obviously haven't been to Mayo- they are by far the largest employer in Rochester. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the town's 85,000 population is either an employee or a family member of an employee, including one of my sisters and a brother-in-law (married to another sister). Initially I was leaning toward Mayo's side on this one (you know, blood is thicker than water), but recent developments (including this article) have me sitting on the fence now, and facing the RR's side.

[chad thomas]

[blhanel]

Yeah, I can see that that one is going to get used a bit around here... until Bergie comes along, and then it's [xx(]

[chad thomas]

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by blhanel

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

The Mayo clinic? Seems like an awfully small special interest when compared to the number of people and industries this is going to help. Hospitals and railroads have co-existed for over a hundred years. Suddenly they are unable to do so?

Ummm... you obviously haven't been to Mayo- they are by far the largest employer in Rochester. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the town's 85,000 population is either an employee or a family member of an employee, including one of my sisters and a brother-in-law (married to another sister). Initially I was leaning toward Mayo's side on this one (you know, blood is thicker than water), but recent developments (including this article) have me sitting on the fence now, and facing the RR's side.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to minimalize the importance of the Mayo clinic to Rochester or MN. They have a world renowned reputation in the medical field. My point is that it seems there are cross purpouses here. I honestly think the Mayo clinic doesn't want the DME to build, period. Of course they can't come out and say that when there are so many more people who's livelihoods will depend on the success of the DME. Politically, I think they are taking the best route one can take when you don't want the railroad to succeed but you also don't want to be blamed for killing it. They have failed to present any serious reasons for not wanting the railroad to fix up its track. Let's face it. A good track is far safer then what is there now. It is really too bad that the parties involved can't come to some sort of an agreement. There has to be a way for BOTH industries to exist without engaging in a war of words.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules


I don't fault Rochester for having concerns. I think every other city would. The problem is that they seem to be negotiating under false pretenses. Scheiffer's letter mentioned the city of Rochester wondering if a tunnel could be built under the city. That is ridiculous. Again, it may be different if the DME wanted to lay a NEW line right through the middle of the city. Instead, they want to UPGRADE their existing line to accomodate more traffic safely. But, as Scheiffer pointed out, they have chosen to resist any idea of this. If they could give logical reasons as to why they don't want the DME to upgrade their line, that might be a good place to start and make their case. They have not done this. I think that the DME has started to realize this and they are going to try some different tactics in the city proper. One of those tactics seems to be taking the case to the people instead of the elected officials, who appear to be under the thumb of the Mayo clinic. So what is the false pretense? Rochester seems to think that if they do not get everything they want they will kill the project on their own. When you go to the negotiating table with that kind of an attitude, how can you work anything out? Every other city affected by this has struck a deal with the DME. This includes towns that have had no prior rail service. What makes Rochester so different? The Mayo clinic? Seems like an awfully small special interest when compared to the number of people and industries this is going to help. Hospitals and railroads have co-existed for over a hundred years. Suddenly they are unable to do so?

I won't disagree with any of the political points you touch on, I doubt seriously that the City is a white knight in the matter.

A tunnel would be outrageous, my bizarre sense of intrigue makes me wonder if some entity (Mayo related., perhaps?) Has a tract of land they would like to sell to DM&E at a sky high premium, and are conspiring with the "NIMBY" 's to make all other options unavailable.

Just my personal "everyone is corrupt" outlook at work there.


When you say that DME want's to upgrade the line to handle more traffic, isn't that kind of an understatement?

Isn't this the line that would become a major artery into the powder river basin? meaning this line will see volume like very few other lines will ever see. Or have I got the lines confused here?

[blhanel]

Ryan, I am 100% in agreement with you there.

No, TheAntiGates, you're right- that's where they want to run the coal through, east to Winona and a barge-loading facility.

[solzrules]

The way I read the plans off of DME's website was that most of the new coal traffic would split off in Owatanna. It is possible that the DME is just saying this to placate, however. IF they build everything that they want to build who is going to stop them from running a couple more trains on their track anyway?

[Anonymous]

My take on Mayo is that, as many another large institution, they object to any change that they might see, no matter how incomprehensibly, as posing a challenge to their operation.

OT: I read a couple of years ago that an American home could save easily one-quarter of its electric bill by: (a) turning off the PC if it's not going to be used for an hour or more; (b) getting the most efficient refrigerator; (c) using compact fluorescent bulbs, and (d) setting the thermostat two degrees lower in winter and two degrees higher in summer.

But alas, that ain't gonna happen. The Midwest needs the electricity. Nukes have proved to be too expensive in the long run, which limits our options. At least our power is domestic in origin, mostly.

[vsmith]

Hold the Mayo!

Personally I think D&ME should take the "ultimate bypass" around Rochester, then stop all rail service entirely and begin the process to remove all rail service to the city entirely and let them choke on the extra truck traffic it will take to get anything into or out of the city!

Then we'll see how much the Mayo whines about how much freakin' traffic that will cause!!!

[Anonymous]

Um, query about Mayo: does the hospital routinely accept trauma victims such that a delay of several minutes at RR crossing would severely inconvenience people? And doesn't the place have a heliport already if that were the case?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[blhanel]

I don't believe Mayo per se deals with trauma victims- however, the two hospitals affiliated with Mayo, Methodist and St. Mary's, do. Methodist is downtown, within a block or two of the RR ROW. St. Mary's is on the west side, very close to US 52, which crosses the RR on an overpass already. St. Mary's does have a helipad- I'm not so sure about Methodist, but I suspect they do as well.

Taking away Rochester's rail service would probably suit them just fine. Alot of the industry served by the DM&E is on a spur to the south side of town, so forcing it to trucks would increase the truck traffic down there, and not necessarily through downtown.

[TomDiehl]

So, is there a letter, made public, from the coalition or the Mayo Clinic that answers this?

Or is the DM&E's claim of them wanting secrecy and accurate one?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

The CEO of the Mayo clinic he was the one who wanted to take me off a med that was working already so he could prescribe it instead. All he is looking for is ca***o make himself look good, the Mayo clinic does everything in secret to begin with I think they took lessons from the George W Bush and *** Cheney school on how to run a business.

No, they are running a business in conjuction with the Democrat Senator Mark Dayton School of Disingenuousness line of thought. And you are responding in the typical disingenuous fashion by trying to pin the Mayo's unprofessional tactics on Bush, when all the cards point to Dayton and his cronies. Really now, do ya'll have an honest political bone in your collective body?

Here's more evidence of the Democrat ties to the Mayo socio-fillibuster:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/04/17/news/wyoming/4983bb96ea5e13b587257150007ed5dc.txt

So Ed, since when has the Sierra Club been a croney of Bush and Cheney school of business?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

The CEO of the Mayo clinic he was the one who wanted to take me off a med that was working already so he could prescribe it instead. All he is looking for is ca***o make himself look good, the Mayo clinic does everything in secret to begin with I think they took lessons from the George W Bush and *** Cheney school on how to run a business.

No, they are running a business in conjuction with the Democrat Senator Mark Dayton School of Disingenuousness line of thought. And you are responding in the typical disingenuous fashion by trying to pin the Mayo's unprofessional tactics on Bush, when all the cards point to Dayton and his cronies. Really now, do ya'll have an honest political bone in your collective body?

Here's more evidence of the Democrat ties to the Mayo socio-fillibuster:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/04/17/news/wyoming/4983bb96ea5e13b587257150007ed5dc.txt

So Ed, since when has the Sierra Club been a croney of Bush and Cheney school of business?

So Dave, where do you see any reference to ANY political party in the linked article?

[edbenton]

Dave what I am trying to say is the Mayo Clinic tries to keep things as under the table as The current leadership in the White house that is all I am saying.

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Personally I think D&ME should take the "ultimate bypass" around Rochester, then stop all rail service entirely and begin the process to remove all rail service to the city entirely and let them choke on the extra truck traffic it will take to get anything into or out of the city!

Then we'll see how much the Mayo whines about how much freakin' traffic that will cause!!!

Nah. No "ultimate bypass". Build a transload on either side of Rochester, and truck everything through town. See how quick everybody wants to get the railroad rolling again!

Too bad it won't ever happen...

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Dave what I am trying to say is the Mayo Clinic tries to keep things as under the table as The current leadership in the White house that is all I am saying.

Yes, but don't forget about the previous White House leadership...! [B)]

[solzrules]

I still maintain that the DME should save their money and then lay down an 8 track mainline right underneath the noses of every one there. Then they could park the trains all the way through town. Maybe they could use the old rail that they aren't allowed to fix so everything derails all the time!

Seriously, I don't know if this is a democratic or a republican problem. There are a lot of special interests involved, and I don't think any one party can claim a side on this. Rochester is trying to protect its largest industry - the Mayo clinic. They are doing this because the Mayo clinic says more trains are a problem. The major sticking point here for me is that they have not provided any proof of that. I don't think you can kill what amounts to a 2.5 billion dollar investment in MN's economy (and the rest of the upper Midwest) just because the Mayo clinic 'says so'. As for politicians being involved, this is a sad result of people not being able to solve their problems. Senator Dayton popped off his mouth about South Dakota being worth less than the Mayo clinic - very juvenille and not likely to convince any people riding the fence that this is a bad idea. However, senator John Thune could also be criticized for slipping funding for this whole affair deep inside a bill passed at the last minute without any debate. Finally the taxpayers will foot the bill for this project, if it ever goes forward, and I guess the voters should at least have the opportunity to discuss the expense. Yes, the DME will pay back the loan gaurentee, but what if they go bankrupt? It is a risk that should have been discussed before the bill was passed. Sadly, the current attitude in Washington is bigger government and bigger spending. I thought the current administration would address this problem, but it hasn't and I really am disappointed in that.

[Anonymous]

It's the nature of the beast today. As I've stated before in those other (now locked) threads, it is nearly impossible today to develop any capital intensive project such as the DM&E (or a new mega refinery, et al) without some form of government assistance. In essence, the government aid is needed to offset the disincentives brought about by too many regulations (mostly environmental) and too much frivolous litigation (again, mostly from the environmentalist camp). Heck, even "green" Europe has less environmental regulation and litigation than the US.

Get rid of the environmental regulatory/litigatory overkill, and then and only then can we start talking realistically about reducing government involvement in what logicaly should be private sector investments. Like new large scale railroad building projects.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Environmental regulations are there for a reason unless you want the whole country to be as poisoned as the area around Butte, MONTANA. Clean air and clean water are precious resources.

I am willing to presume that the Mayo Clinic is willing to take the heat on the issue of DM&E because it has a lot of popular support in Rochester for its stand and is voicing what a lot of people really think.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

The way I read the plans off of DME's website was that most of the new coal traffic would split off in Owatanna. It is possible that the DME is just saying this to placate, however. IF they build everything that they want to build who is going to stop them from running a couple more trains on their track anyway?

I've gotta be honest and say you have rellay knocked me for a loop with that last comment..


Doesn't DM&E require approval in order to "build everything they want"?

I thought they did.

And I think in a nut shell, the people who make that place their home are trying to keep resulting negative impact on their quality of life to a minimum, by making a few requirements.

Not all of those requirements are reasonable, but (IMO) that by itself does not make anyone hoping to secure some controls over negative impact to be an enemy of railroading.


My take is that SOMEBODY has got to make those demands, because surely if they don't, the railroad will build whatever is cheapest, and funnel as much volume through their community for as long as is profitable, forever changing the lay of the land and the focus of the community, then the moment it is no longer profitable, will abandon, sell the steel in the rails to a scrapper, and wham bam, thank you mam, it will all be over.

I don't blame the towns people one bit for trying to trying to assure peacefull coexistence BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, afterall, they have to live there while DM&E will be making their profit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Environmental regulations are there for a reason unless you want the whole country to be as poisoned as the area around Butte, MONTANA. Clean air and clean water are precious resources.

So we're back to the "either/or" line of thought, huh? Either we keep all this environmental overkill, or we all end up like Butte, MONTANA? It's a sad statement of a large portion of the US that people still think this way. And it shows that you know nothing of the true intentions of most major environmental groups (Hint: It's got nothing to do with preserving the environment. That's just a front.)

What you are avering is that if the DM&E project goes through, Rochester MINNESOTA will end up like Butte MONTANA.

If we build a new upgraded refinery at Cherry Point WASHINGTON, it will end up looking like Butte MONTANA.

If we dredge the Columbia and Snake Rivers to allow larger container ships and deeper draft barges respectively, then Portland OREGON and Lewiston IDAHO will end up looking like Butte MONTANA.

If we drill in ANWR, it will become Butte MONTANA with caribou.

If we drill off the California coast, then Crescent City CALIFORNIA will end up looking like Butte MONTANA.

IS THAT ENOUGH SARCASM TO MAKE YOU RETHINK YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT, OR DO YOU NEED MORE?

If you have any pretense of logical reasonable thought, you will admit that we can streamline most of these environmental laws, eliminate the taxpayer subsidy for environmental lawyers, end the 501c status of environmental groups, put the burden of proof on the environmentalists rather than the developers e.g. force the environmentalists to provide an ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT rather than having the developers provide an Environmental Impact Statement, and leave in place the basic framework of environmental law that promotes stewardship and mitigatory replacement of ecological premises.

And you know what? Suprise, suprise, we CAN drill for oil and gas in ANWR, off the California coast, along the Rocky Mountain front, et al with corresponding new refineries; we can build the DM&E and the Montana Farmers Pacific Ralroad, et al; we can have hydroelectric dams and fully functional transportation waterways; and still have a basically pristine healthy environment to live, work, and play in. It's called using the brains that God gave us.