In this post, I asked several questions, including why do Democrats think that unaccountable bureaucrats with a constituency of one person (the governor) are best-suited to do region-wide infrastructure planning?

People that don’t have to worry about accountability to citizens inevitably get corrupted or stop listening to the people or both.

Something that Katherine Kersten wrote in this article should raise red flags. She wrote “The council’s vision to transform how the people of the Twin Cities region live and get around has two prongs. First, the Thrive plan will promote compact, high-density housing and “transit-oriented development” (TOD). TOD seeks to ‘pivot’ from an “auto-friendly” to a ‘transit-friendly’ transportation system by discouraging driving and pushing people to walk, bike or take public transit to work and leisure activities. Both Thrive’s housing and transportation policy plans exhibit a striking hostility to travel by car, and to the freedom and mobility that ownership of a personal vehicle brings.”

Here’s a question for LFR readers: should any government agency have the authority to push its citizens towards “transit-friendly” transportation systems? Here’s another question that dovetails off the first question: should an unelected government panel be allowed to “exhibit a striking hostility to travel by car”? Shouldn’t those decisions be made by the citizens themselves?

If you think that unaccountable bureaucrats that don’t have to listen to the people make better decisions than elected officials that have to answer to the people, I’d love seeing the proof for that. Honestly, I don’t think it exists.

Later in the article, Ms. Kersten wrote this:

The plan will lavish funds (at least $2.7 billion) on fixed-rail transit while virtually ignoring funding for expanding roads, which are vital to regional prosperity and on which 99 percent of area trips rely in some way. Despite the council’s drive for densification — which will jam more cars into a smaller space — the Thrive plan declares that “expanding the roadway system is not a sustainable way to address congestion, climate change, equity and livability.”

It’s time for the Met Council to disappear or, at minimum, to have their authority reduced. It’s obvious that they’re an organization with an ideological agenda. It’s obvious that they aren’t that worried about what the citizens of the Twin Cities want.

The transportation plan greatly favors the urban core over suburbs and exurbs and uses limited transportation funds as a bludgeon to promote its social agenda of dispersing poverty. In response, county boards of the five “ring” counties — Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott and Washington — have unanimously denounced the council’s plan.

And around and around we go. The Met Council doesn’t care what Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott and Washington counties want. They’re shaped almost exclusively around the belief that fixed rail transit is the way to go. It won’t take long for the people to reject that foolishness.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Questioning the Met Council”

  • Crimson Trace says:

    The two most corrupt boards in Minnesota accountable to no one:

    First Place: Met Council
    A Close Second Place: MnSCU Board of Trustees

    They supposedly “represent” various districts. I am still waiting for the town hall meetings to start.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Actually, they’re carbon copies of each other with the exception that the MnSCU Board of Trustees doesn’t have taxing authority. They both have one constituent, aka Gov. Dayton.

Leave a Reply