Fund the essentials rather than amenities

Requests for the Met Council to pay for fountains and the like shouldn't hold water.

Annette Meeks
Star Tribune, January 10, 2006

A Dec. 23 editorial suggested that my colleague Chris Georgacas and I were misguided in our attempt to cut spending at the Metropolitan Council for several proposed Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grants. Since these grants will face their next vote in committee today, I thought I would share my reasoning for proposing these changes in funding.

All of my colleagues at the Metropolitan Council were appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. It is my understanding that we are there to uphold the values, goals and principles of the Pawlenty administration.

The governor's budget principles advise us to "fund what is essential" and to "earn the public's trust" by remembering that "it is the people's money," not ours. These were admirable goals in 2003 when we first discussed them at the council. They remain so today.

When reviewing the proposed 2005 LCDA grant recommendations -- the very projects that the Star Tribune encourages us to fund -- I don't see how several of these projects measure up to the principles we were appointed to uphold.

For example, I cannot justify spending taxpayer dollars to fund a park in Bloomington adjacent to the Mall of America. And I find it laughable to suggest that nearly $300,000 in "water features" at this park will mitigate airport noise, as suggested by Bloomington city officials

The same logic should be applied to the fountain slated for funding in St. Paul. City officials there requested $395,000 for this plaza fountain. I think this is something that, while desirable, isn't a necessity.

One project slated for funding, the proposed Apple Valley park, defies reasoning as to why tax dollars are necessary. This project includes a "recreational water feature as well as waterfalls, and playground equipment." Regional taxpayers have already poured nearly $2.5 million into this development. I think that's enough.

Several colleagues have asked me why I continue this effort to cut spending on unnecessary amenities. It's a simple answer: I would rather keep taxpayer dollars "in the bank" and, next year, solicit and fund projects that meet the guidelines set forth by this administration. Affordable housing needs in this region continue to be great. We would be wise to set aside funding for these types of worthy projects rather than squandering it on amenities that we can all live without.

For example, a high priority of the Pawlenty administration is to end long-term homelessness by 2010. Estimates place the number of long-term homeless in Minnesota near 4,000. Ending this tragedy on our streets is an achievable goal in this decade if the significant shift of public and private resources continues to flourish to build adequate supportive housing for these families.

Why should conservatives care about developing supportive housing for the long-term homeless? Again, I'm reminded that a principle value of the Pawlenty administration is hope -- "faith that together, we will develop a better future for Minnesotans" and that "ensuring the opportunity to achieve the American dream" is a primary objective. Supportive housing and the services that accompany it often are the only hope the chronic homeless have for a better future.

According to President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, supportive housing is a critical component for successful treatment of mental illness and, without these supportive services, many mentally ill Americans fall into the cycle of substandard housing and treatment found in our jails, institutions, homeless shelters and streets. Hennepin County's 2003 report on supportive housing found that "crisis costs decreased on average $6,200 per family because of reduced chemical health treatment and children's days in foster care." Providing additional supportive housing for the long-term homeless will help us accomplish two primary goals of the Pawlenty administration: giving people hope for a better tomorrow and spending taxpayer dollars wisely.

I hope that my colleagues on the Metropolitan Council agree with me and deny taxpayer funds for these unnecessary amenities. And I look forward to working with Chairman Peter Bell and council member Georgacas on developing a plan for the next round of LCDA grants -- perhaps grants targeted toward developing more supportive housing in our region. These would be grants worthy of funding by this administration.

Annette Meeks, CEO of the Center of the American Experiment, represents District 7 on the Metropolitan Council and serves on the Governor's Commission to End Long-Term Homelessness.

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.