Rights & Privileges–the Voter ID Debate in Minnesota

Rights & Privileges–the Voter ID Debate in Minnesota: Rights & Privileges–the Voter ID Debate in Minnesota:
Yesterday, I was at the Big Stone County Courthouse, casting my absentee ballot in the primary before the special election to fill the seat of our district senator, Gary Kubly, who passed away recently from ALS.
So, I’m down at the courthouse, and the county auditor is preparing my ballot. I’m chatting with another county employee, who’s telling me about how much work and money it’s going to take to do this quick-as-legally-possible special primary and election. “Well,” she sighs, “voting IS a privilege.”
Maybe my Minnesota nice filter isn’t in place yet (if it ever will be) because I all but shout, “voting is a RIGHT!”
I registered to vote when I turned eighteen–even before I got my driver’s license. If I’d had my license, it wouldn’t have been a photo ID because at that time and in that place, drivers licenses didn’t have pictures unless you traveled to specific locations to get a special ID. I took the Freeman’s Oath, my mom cried, and I joined the ranks of engaged and registered voters. It felt important–like an event.
And, when I voted in those first couple of elections after I registered, I didn’t need a photo ID to do it, which was good because I didn’t have one.
Even though all states now have standard picture drivers licenses, it’s important to remember that (as teenagers’ parents and sometimes the cops will remind you) driving is a privilege. You have to pay money and take a test to get that card, and that card (and the privileges associated with it) can be taken away, lost, stolen, defaced, and even faked–as can any other photo ID created by humans and their institutions.
Voting is a RIGHT. A right that cannot be taken away, lost, stolen, defaced, or faked.
Or can it? Convicted felons can’t vote until they’ve served their time. It’s possible to fake a vote, but not nearly as easy or possible as some would have you believe. The few instances of irregularities and problems tend to be very highly publicized, in part because they’re so rare, and in part because a certain contingent of the population wants you to think they’re the norm.
I’ve been listening to Republicans in the Minnesota legislature talk about how even one fraudulent vote disenfranchises another voter–and their argument seems to be that somehow, magically, a photo ID that can be lost, stolen, or faked will prevent all that pretty much non-existent fraud.
For those Republicans to use the word, “disenfranchise” is reprehensible considering how many hundreds and even thousands of voters will be disenfranchised by their constitutional amendment to require a photo ID to vote in this state.
Perhaps those pushing this amendment don’t understand the difference between rights and privileges. I’d wager that’s because many of them haven’t ever had to learn. They haven’t ever had to wonder how they’ll afford the photo ID or the documentation required to get it–or how to arrange the transportation to put it all together. They reside in a world where privileges are never taken away, and so they are taken for granted as “rights.”
They don’t get that a right is not something you have to pay money for (or even something that you can pay money for)–it’s something that is guaranteed for everyone, regardless of their income or situation in life. And regardless of whether or not they’ve jumped through the hoops and paid to get a picture of themselves on an ID card.
Then there’s the other explanation: that supporters of this Voter ID amendment understand very clearly the difference between rights and privileges, and they are working hard to make voting a privilege reserved for those who are most likely to support them. And that is a full-frontal assault on our democracy.
While I don’t ascribe that motive to the slightly alarmed county employee I vigorously corrected yesterday, the diction is crucial in this debate: voting IS a right, and one that does not, and should never, require an attendant privilege to exercise.

Twitter, E-Mail, and Blogs, Oh My! Online Marketing Workshop for Farmers March 19 in Milan

Twitter, E-Mail, and Blogs, Oh My! Online Marketing Workshop for Farmers March 19 in Milan: Twitter, E-Mail, and Blogs, Oh My! Online Marketing Workshop for Farmers March 19 in Milan:
Are you interested in marketing your farm and its products online but don’t know where to start? Join Land Stewardship Project and University of Minnesota Extension for a workshop highlighting some of the many available social media and internet marketing tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and websites, and how they can be used to connect your farm to potential customers throughout the region.
Ryan Pesch, U of M Extension educator, will delve into the specifics of online marketing tools (from free to $) and provide individual assistance to farmers wanting to get started using these tools. Regional producers will discuss their online marketing strategies, the costs, the benefits, and how to build customer relationships by telling their farm story to an online audience.
Join us at the Milan Community School in Milan, MN on Monday, March 19 from 9-noon. Light refreshments will be provided. Fee for the workshop is $10 for LSP members and $15 for non-members. RSVP to Rebecca Terk, LSP Community Based Food Systems Organizer: (320) 305-9685 or rebeccat@landstewardshipproject.org.
This workshop will also occur in southeast Minnesota on March 27th. For details about the location or to RSVP, please contact LSP’s Caroline van Schaik: (507) 523-3366 or caroline@landstewardshipproject.org.

Observations Toward the End of Winter

Observations Toward the End of Winter: Observations Toward the End of Winter:
The first of the seeds are started here at my yet-unnamed urban farm. Besides a farm name, which will come in time, I’m still trying to figure out how to incorporate the “wink” when I call my new, slowly-developing market and home gardens in a town of 450 residents an “urban farm.”
But, naming issues aside, I’ve got yellow storage onions, red Italian bottle onions, and leeks started so far, as well as a number of perennial and biennial herbs and flowers. At Flying Tomato Farms, most of the annual vegetables and herbs were at the farmstead (along with perennial berries, horseradish, rhubarb, and asparagus), while the perennial herbs and flowers resided at my postage-stamp place in town. Here in Clinton, they’ll come together in a more biodiverse mix better designed to draw beneficials and to keep the neighbors happy.
Aside from starting a few perennials from seed, I’ll have my eyes open for plant division possibilities. There’s a lot of space here, and not a huge need for lawn. Here in Clinton’s “urban core,” the kids play in the street or in the open grassy spaces and parks. We have sidewalks, but except for the main drag, we mostly just walk in the wide streets. It’s pretty fantastic, actually.
Yesterday afternoon we hit 57 degrees according to the Clinton State Bank clock, and today promises more of the same. Whatever of our paltry snow cover makes it through this day will almost certainly be melted by tomorrow’s projected rain. Tuesday, we’ll approach 70!
As the snow melts, I can continue the process of observation that guides the development of the two lots I’m on. Last fall, when my friends Joelie and Rob helped me lift and move the raised bed frames from behind the burned-out house across town, I set them in this great little configuration behind the house and along the south side of the shop.

It seemed perfect–close to the house and with reflected heat from the shop wall for early seedings of roots and greens, with eventual shade from the deciduous trees to extend their season into summer. Now that I’ve seen what happens with what little snow we did get this year (and half of what we got is already melted in the below image), I’m reconsidering that siting.

Had it been last year with the many, many feet of snow we got, I wouldn’t have seen those raised beds again ’til late April or May. So much for early seeding!
I guess the snow issue should’ve figured in my mind initially, but while weighing several other factors, I simply didn’t think about the trajectory of the snow off that roof. And because the two beds that are in the main part of the snow trajectory aren’t filled with soil yet, I can still easily move them (OK–I can move them in a couple of days when the snow melts!).
Instead of the two raised beds there, I’m planning a wide in-ground bed/border along the shed with plants that can take advantage of the reflected warmth, but be resilient enough to survive getting buried in the winter. Instead of guttering the shed and storing the water that comes off the roof, I’ll store that water in the soil instead–building up the organic matter and mulching the bed thickly so the soil doesn’t get pounded along the eaves-line.
From what I can tell now, about a third of the shop wall towards the house will remain comparatively cool though still full-sunny–evaporation won’t be as quick there (judging from the moss growing on the ground), so plants that like their feet cool and moist will thrive in that location. Growing things that like it hotter and dryer can be located along the 2/3 of the wall that is unshaded except for the early morning hours.
There is a lot that can be determined about a growing location, even having only observed for part of the year. But it’s hard to get everything “right” just looking at a place over a month or two–so many factors to take into consideration (and yeah, roof avalanches are a big one). It seems like a lot of people go at landscape and garden designing wanting a certain “look” on their property without taking into account the specific needs of the land itself.
Doing landscaping without the land’s input–without the process of observation and interaction–can lead to a lot of extra work and expense down the line. It’s true that the process of “developing” a landscape for living things is in itself work, and more so if the land hasn’t been well-managed in the past.
But, over time the workload can be made lighter by moving mindfully and considering the many elements, both human-made and naturally-occurring, that give each place its own unique character.

People Power vs. Corporate Power: Keep the Teeth in Minnesota’s Interim Ordinance

People Power vs. Corporate Power: Keep the Teeth in Minnesota’s Interim Ordinance: People Power vs. Corporate Power: Keep the Teeth in Minnesota’s Interim Ordinance:
In Big Stone County, where I live, a proposed aggregate quarry by a North Dakota-based corporation has united local residents around protecting the ancient granite outcrops that gave the county its name.
Strata Corp. applied for a conditional use permit at the county level just before Christmas, and though Strata’s own planning process has been six years in the making, citizen input was limited until the Planning & Zoning Commission’s initial public hearing on January 5th.
The room was packed with citizens who were reeling from what seemed to them like an incredibly fast process where there were many more questions than answers. Most residents had no idea the project was in the works until community members staged a grassroots organizing effort to take outreach into their own hands–writing letters to the commissioners and local papers, having one-on-one conversations with other residents, and collecting signatures on petitions in opposition to the project.
While the county’s permitting process continues despite growing opposition to the quarry from residents across the county and region, the Ortonville Township Board took action to protect residents in and around the proposed quarry site by passing an interim ordinance to place a moratorium on the project and to develop their own planning and zoning commission.
Education and action on potentially harmful developments is going on across the state–in southeastern Minnesota, counties have enacted interim ordinances to check the rapid expansion of frac sand mining, which is changing the face of the landscape and destroying productive agricultural land.
But legislation moving through the Minnesota House and Senate would diminish the power of local governments to protect their citizens and communities.

House File 389 and Senate File 270 weaken township, county and city local control. The proposals weaken the power of local governments to enact interim ordinances (also called moratoriums). An interim ordinance allows local governments to quickly put a temporary freeze on major development. This power is essential when the community is caught off-guard by unanticipated and potentially harmful proposals, especially those from corporate interests and outside investors, such as frac sand mines, big box stores like Wal-Mart or a large-scale factory farm. This bill favors corporate control over local control. [Action Alert: Legislation Weakening Local Control Moving Forward at State Capitol. Land Stewardship Project. 24 Feb 2012.]

Some have tried to frame this issue as a fight between liberals and conservatives or between pro-development and environmentalist factions. But the faces at public hearings have belied those characterizations–this is a fight for community that brings together citizens from all walks of life and all political perspectives.
The real fight is for local control in the face of corporate greed–about the right of citizens to determine what’s best for their communities through a democratic process vs. a desire by corporations to weaken that power and steamroll that process.

At the root of the debate is an age-old tension between the rights of business and the rights of neighbors within the unwieldy democratic process. Proponents of the new law, primarily Twin Cities builders, say developers who have spent tens of thousands of dollars planning a project deserve to have those investments protected from politically arbitrary decisions by government officials.
“It happens regularly,” said James Vagle, public policy director for the Building Association of the Twin Cities, which has been trying to get the law through the Legislature for several years. “We were following all the rules … and a project gets stymied.” [Marcotty, Josephine. "Should locals have the power to stall controversial projects?" Star Tribune. 21 Feb 2012.]

A developer’s complaint that they spent many years and dollars in the planning process and were “following all the rules” only to be  “stymied” by “politically arbitrary decisions” sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Except that “following all the rules” isn’t a pass to do whatever you want, especially when local governments are also following all the rules to ensure citizens have a say in the development of their community.
To suggest that because a corporation dots its i’s and crosses its t’s, it should get to build, mine, and blast whatever it wants wherever it wants flies in the face of our democracy. To suggest that a community whose citizens come together across socioeconomic and party lines to halt an undesirable project and begin a lengthy and complex process of planning for the future is “arbitrary” in any way shows ignorance of the democratic process at best–contempt at worst.
Instead of “playing by the rules,” corporations are trying to change the rules–to take the teeth out of local control via the interim ordinance and make it virtually impossible for smaller units of government and the citizens they represent to exercise their right to determine what kind of community they live in and how their resources are used.
What you can do to protect local democracy and your community:
Contact your legislators in St. Paul and tell them to vote against House File 389 and Senate File 270. Then, contact Governor Dayton’s office to tell him you’ve spoken with your elected officials about this legislation, and ask for a veto should it reach his desk.
To learn more about the fight for people power vs. corporate power at the state capitol, to find out who has supported this democracy-weakening legislation, and to find contact information for your legislators, see Land Stewardship Project’s latest Action Alert on the subject, or contact LSP’s Bobby King: bking@landstewardshipproject.org or 612-722-6377.

“Compromise” Language on Local Control is No Real Deal–Calls Needed Before Feb. 22

“Compromise” Language on Local Control is No Real Deal–Calls Needed Before Feb. 22: “Compromise” Language on Local Control is No Real Deal–Calls Needed Before Feb. 22:

Below is LSP’s full action alert regarding the latest attack on township and county rights.

This issue is especially timely here in Big Stone County with the proposed Strata granite quarry, and Ortonville Township Board’s ability to pass an interim ordinance, placing a moratorium on the project and giving residents time to study the project more fully. Keeping local control strong is a fundamental part of our good Minnesota democracy.

Retaining the full power of the interim ordinance is an important piece of LSP’s work in the state. If you believe in the right of local governments to determine what kind of development is right for them, you should be a member of Land Stewardship Project.

Calls Needed: Bill that Weakens Township & County Rights Up (Again)

in the State Legislature Wednesday, Feb. 22, at 10:15 a.m.

Proposed ‘Compromise’ Language on House File 389 Still Weakens Local Control

House File 389 will make it more difficult for citizens who want their township, county or city to take action and protect the community from unanticipated, harmful development. The bill weakens the power of local governments to enact interim ordinances (also called land use moratoriums). An interim ordinance allows local governments to quickly put a temporary freeze on major development. This power is essential when the community is caught off-guard by unanticipated and potentially harmful proposals, especially those from corporate interests and outside investors, such as big box stores like Wal-Mart or a large-scale factory farm. An interim ordinance freezes the status quo and gives the community time to review or create the appropriate zoning ordinances.
UPDATE: House File 389 was tabled at the Jan. 26 hearing in the House Government Operations and Elections Committee due to our phone calls and e-mails and strong testimony in opposition. Now new language for the bill is being proposed as a “compromise.” However, this new language still dramatically weakens local control and is NOT a compromise. Under this new proposal, after a project applies for a permit the local unit of government has a short window of time in which to enact an interim ordinance. If they miss that window, then the proposed project is exempt. The clock starts running before any public hearing — by the time there is a hearing, the clock could be run out. (Full details below.)
TAKE ACTION!
1.  Contact these key members of the House Government Operations and Elections Committee before Wednesday, Feb. 22, at 9:30 a.m. If you have called before, call them again. They need to know a large number of people are watching the issue.

• Rep. Joyce Peppin (R), Committee Chair, at 651-296-7806 or rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn
• Rep. Rich Murray (R) Vice Chair, at 651-296-8216 or rep.rich.murray@house.mn
• Rep. Michael Nelson (DFL), DFL Lead and bill co-author, at 651-296-3751 or rep.michael.nelson@house.mn
• Rep. Dean Urdahl (R) at 651-296-4344 or rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
• Rep. Tim O’Driscoll (R) at 651-296-7808 or rep.tim.odriscoll@house.mn

Here is a suggested message: “Minnesotans value strong local control and township rights. House File 389 authored by Rep. Beard undermines these rights, specifically the right to enact an interim ordinance or land use moratorium. I urge you to oppose it. This power is essential when the community is caught off-guard by unanticipated proposals, especially those from outside corporate interests. I am familiar with the new language being proposed and it still weakens local control unacceptably. Local control is working and should be left alone.”
If you have more time, contact these other members of the committee:

• Rep. David Hancock (R) at 651-296-4265 or rep.david.hancock@house.mn
• Rep. Carol McFarlane (R) at 651-296-5363 or rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn
• Rep. Duane Quam (R), also bill co-author, at 651-296-9236 or rep.duane.quam@house.mn
• Rep. Tim Sanders (R), also bill co-author, at 651-296-4226 or rep.tim.sanders@house.mn

2.  Attend or testify at the House Government Elections and Operations hearing on House File 389 on Wed., Feb., 22, at 10:15 a..m. in Room 5 of the State Office Building. Contact Bobby King at bking@landstewardshipproject.org or call 612-722-6377 for more information. Committee information is here.

---

More details on this legislation:

• House File 389 is authored by Reps. Beard (R-Shakopee); Quam (R-Byron); Nelson (DFL-Brooklyn Park); Sanders (R-Blaine)
• Senate File 270 (the Senate companion) is authored by Sen. Limmer (R-Maple Grove).

Interim ordinances (also called land use moratoriums) are a part of strong local control. An interim ordinance allows a city, county or township to quickly put a temporary freeze on major development. This is necessary when the community is caught off guard by unanticipated and potentially harmful development. This power has been attacked repeatedly by corporate interests over the years.
The power to enact an interim ordinance matters. For example, communities in southeast Minnesota have been bombarded with outside corporate interests wanting to mine for sand to be used in frac mining. These mining proposals are much different in scale and scope from the aggregate mining that takes place there now. In response to citizen concerns, Wabasha, Goodhue and Winona counties enacted interim ordinances that put a moratorium on frac sand mining while they study the issue to see if their current ordinances are sufficient to deal with this new type of mining.
Here are the details of how the legislation and the proposed compromise weaken local control:    

• Under the proposal, merely applying for a permit exempts a proposed development from any future interim ordinance. But all too often neighbors do not get any information about a project until AFTER the permit has been applied for. When that happens, an interim ordinance may be needed to freeze the status quo and create time to assess the situation.

Proposed “compromise”on this aspect: After a project applies for a permit, the local unit of government has a short window of time in which to enact an interim ordinance. If they miss that window, then the proposed project is exempt. The clock starts running before any public hearing. In fact, by the time there is a hearing the clock could be run out.  Here is how this new clock would work.  After the permit application is accepted, a 30-day clock starts at the next public meeting. This is any public meeting and not a hearing on the project. For example, a permit for a sand frac mine is accepted on a Thursday and the county commissioners meet the following Tuesday. This issue will very likely not even be on the agenda at that meeting, but that meeting triggers the 30-day clock. By the time the first public hearing happens and neighbors know about the project, the 30-day deadline could be expired.

• The proposal requires a two-thirds vote (a super majority) to enact an interim ordinance.  For counties this would mean 4 of 5 commissioners must vote for the ordinance, or 80%. Currently, an interim ordinance can be enacted by a simple majority — that’s how democratic rights should work. There is no reason to make adopting an interim ordinance so difficult by requiring a two-thirds vote. (The “two-thirds vote” proposal is also included in the”compromise” language.)

• The legislation slows the process for enacting an interim ordinance by mandating public notice and a hearing before an interim ordinance can be enacted. In many cases, a local unit of government — particularly a township — does not get complete information on a proposed development until shortly before approval. In those cases, there can be legitimate concerns that the local government needs to address. When that happens, an interim ordinance must be enacted quickly to be effective. An interim ordinance can only be adopted at a public meeting, but currently no special notice is required to be given that the interim ordinance may be considered at the meeting. The very nature of an interim ordinance is to address unanticipated situations, and so there are times when it must be enacted quickly as an emergency measure. (The “mandated public notice” proposal is also included in the new “compromise” language.)

The People’s Business

The People’s Business: The People’s Business:
I get tired of hearing that everything should be run like a business.
Government? Should be run like a business! Education? Run it like a business! As if the world and everything we do in it were so simple that one particular way of, well, “doing business” would be applicable in every single situation one could possibly think of.
There is a reason that institutions like public education and government are recognized as operating in a different sector than business (and aren’t, so far as I know, announcing IPOs). Because they aren’t businesses, and running them like most businesses (that is, on the basis of profit) isn’t an effective way to deliver the things they’re mandated to deliver.
As a friend of mine wisely quipped, schools don’t have the luxury of “firing” their under-performing students–the ones that may put a drag on test scores and achievement rates. I’d add that governments, even when they’re tightening their budget belts, don’t have the option of doing away entirely with expensive basic services. Moving overseas might be a little tricky, too.
Certainly, government and public education need fiscal oversight. But, in the end, their mandate isn’t about making money for their shareholders, it’s about providing specific services to the citizens who pay for those services through their tax dollars.
But, the idea that everything should be run like a business is pretty entrenched among a particular set.  So, if we’re not going to get everyone over that idea, perhaps we just need to suggest different business models.  The models endorsed by most people I’ve heard making this comment seem to be either the single or partnership models or the S or C corp models. That is, all the profits (rewards, services, etc.) end up in the hands of the owners and/or the shareholders who’ve invested the most to begin with.
This might seem fair and just in much of the business world, but what happens when we apply these models to governments and education? Suddenly, the road by so-and-so’s house gets plowed, but not ours. The new confinement dairy operation locates next to (and stinks up) the old neighborhood. The school in the less affluent part of town is falling apart, but the one in the more moneyed area is sparkling new. Social unrest increases due to cronyism and favoritism.
I’d like to suggest that, if a segment of the population is going to continue insisting that our public endeavors should be run like businesses, there is a business model that works better for ensuring democracy and equity in those endeavors. That model is the cooperative.
According to the International Cooperative Alliance, “A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”
Granted, not all of our citizens would admit that they’re “united voluntarily”–but then some people who steadfastly refuse to be part of society move off to the wilderness to create their own. The rest of us, when it comes down to it, realize that we’re in this thing together–sink or swim. And because we pay our taxes and call someplace home (however temporarily), we’re participating more-or-less actively in our shared, democratically-controlled enterprises of government and public education.
But maybe you’re not that familiar with cooperative businesses. Maybe you think this is a low-rent model that works only on a small scale or is just an agriculture or health-food related venture? Allow me to school you:

Values-based, community-supported and member-controlled, modern cooperatives have grown steadily since their inception in the late 1800s. Today, the top 300 cooperatives, or Global 300, generate as much revenue as the world’s ninth largest economy, or the economy of Spain. Meanwhile, new research shows that cooperatives worldwide have three times as many members as traditional businesses have shareholders — and provide 20% more jobs. [Reeder, Jessica. "Co-ops are Big: Charles Gould on the Int'l Year of the Co-op." Shareable: Work & Enterprise, 2-13-12.]

Coops are not just farmers’ elevators, rural utilities, and grocery stores. They’re also banks (credit unions, that is), retailers (who work together with other retailers to maximize their wholesale purchasing power–like IPC pharmacies, True Value Hardware, and Best Western hotels), and worker-owned coops such as Arizmendi Bakery, Isthmus Engineering & Manufacturing, Citybikes, and Equal Exchange.
There are producer and distributor coops, housing coops, local newspapers run as cooperatives, and even parks that are cooperatively-owned and operated (right here in Minnesota!).
Cooperatives, like good government and education systems, run on principle before (no, not necessarily instead of) profit.
And what are those principles? Glad you asked!

1. Voluntary and Open Membership: “Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.”
2. Democratic Member Control: One member; one vote–sound familiar?
3. Member Economic Participation: “Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative.”
4. Autonomy and Independence: “If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, [cooperatives] do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.”
5. Education, Training, and Information: “Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public – particularly young people and opinion leaders – about the nature and benefits of co-operation.”
6. Cooperation Among Cooperatives: “Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.”
7. Concern for Community: “Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members” [quoted material taken from the ICA's Statement on the Co-operative Identity].

As much as I’m sick of the simplistic, “run everything like a business” credo, I guess if we must operate our public endeavors as such, this looks like a pretty decent model to me–notwithstanding the “voluntary membership” principle in the face of death-and-taxes inevitabilities.
So, the next time you encounter the, we-should-be-running-our-[insert public institution here]- more-like-a-business ideology, say, “Yes! You’re absolutely right! We should run it like a cooperative!”
And then be prepared to teach them what that means. After all, cooperation is about education, training, and information, isn’t it?