Tomorrow the Wilmarth/North Mankato to North Rochester to Mississippi/Tremval WI transmission line is before the Commission to address completeness of the application, and a lot more:
This is the project that, as an alternate route, proposes to go over the HUGE 13.25 (at least) underground natural gas storage dome. And the Prehn Family live right on top of that dome!
Nowhere in the application did Xcel mention the dome, and in response to comments, said they’re used to dealing with pipelines, interactions are comment. But Xcel, this ain’t no pipeline. They did finally admit that, and got some info from CenterPoint, including that their proposed route did go over 4 of their gas wells.
Here’s where the gas wells are, from a DNR Data Request:
Here’s a bizarre statement to justify that Colorado-New Mexico corridor — claim of a1,200% increase? Have they forgotten those 11,000MW of mothballed natural gas generation and the transmission that serves it?
Under scenarios withmoderate load growth and high clean energy growth future scenarios, ERCOT will need an anticipated median increase of 9.8 GW of additional transfer capacity with the Plains region by 2035, a 1,200% increase relative to the 2020 system (p. 35).
And paired with this, pages later, 31 pages later (p. 66), a scenic tour down Hwy 54?
And does this look familiar — have a Grain Belt anyone?
Yes, looks too much like the ol’ Grain Belt Transmission Line:
And this one looks too familiar too, shades of Plains & Eastern:
As if all these transmission projects in Minnesota weren’t enough… weren’t too much already?!??!
What handouts is Blue Water Farms looking for? Shouldn’t everyone be concerned when the CEO of Blue Water Farm, Clarence Bischoff, was CEO of the Riverbend Market Cooperative, which defaulted on the Port Authority loan, and left other investors hanging in the lurch? (I’m still waiting on the Data Practices Act request, but it’s my understanding that the loan was in default, some recouped from sale of assets, and over $20,000 written off — will post when this info is received.)
What handouts from Red Wing city coffers is Blue Water Farms looking for? Who knows… the proposal isn’t public — YET. Their recent offer to “buy” the property is not public, and was rejected by the Port Authority because it didn’t meet their criteria:
It’s my belief that the Port Authority requirements for consideration of a sale were established 15 years ago, and haven’t been amended — pay particular attention to the second page. Am I missing something here, or do these requirements still apply?
What? The “offfer” is not public? The supporters, coincidentally they’re the vocals proponents of Recall City Hall (here’s the wayback of the Recall site, which has been disappeared), are claiming the City won’t make the offer public. Ummmm, hello?!?! That’s not on the City. Whether or not information is public is up to the party at issue. In this case, just like with ejected Chief Pohlman, the one with the power to disclose is the party at issue — it was Pohlman then, and he chose not to disclose.
In this case, DOH, it’s Blue Water Farms that has the power to disclose. So do it, Blue Water Farm, disclose your “offer.” Let’s make sure people know what we’re talking about. Folks aren’t talking about the handouts you want, so what else is there we need to know?
There’s a lot we need to know, and don’t have that information. It’s clear that the Recall City Hall folks loudly supporting Blue Water Farms, without knowledge of the issues and/or with select inside knowledge, apparently didn’t learn anything about confidentiality and who has the power of disclosure from the Pohlman and Recall City Hall fiasco. Earth to Mars — want disclosure? Get on Blue Water Farms to disclose!
Why is Port Authority involved? Simple… The City Council has delegated “economic development” and the vetting of proposals to the Port Authority. The current fracas involves a Blue Water “offer” for the property, made April 27, 2023, and addressed at the Port Authority meeting May 2 (the same day, probably same time, as the private Blue Water meeting at Smokin’ Oak!). Listen to the Port’s meeting:
What does the Council have to say about these points? How is any decision by the Council possible, other than to bounce it back to the Port, or deny based on these points?
Meanwhile, the internet is full of pleadings and requests for Red Wing residents to swamp the City Council with “SELL THE PROPERTY TO BLUE WATER NOW!” This makes no sense. There’s been no information on the offer provided. So far, just presentations by Blue Water, and no vetting, no verification, NO DUE DILIGENCE.
Those pushing for this sale, who again just happen to be the Recall City Hall folks, claim that under the Charter the City has authority to buy and sell property, and yes, the Charter does authorize property sales and purchases by the Council:
One of the vocal atadvocates has even said that she had never heard of any archeological issues! Nevermind that this has been discussed ad nauseum at Port Authority and Council meetings and workshops, there’s a Memorandum of Understanding with Prairie Island Indian Community, and that a consultant has been selected to perform the work. Seems they don’t care about protection of the mounds, and that they don’t care about our relationship with Prairie Island Indian Community, and they don’t give a rodent’s rump about upholding the MOU (and to which the Port and Council have held fast). And I heard first hand at the joint Port and Council workshop the willingness of those stridently pushing for a sale NOW that they’d want it sold prior to completing of the archeological study, and would even support turning over that responsibility to the buyers, contrary to the MOU! Unreal… And again, thankfully the Port and the Council recognize the MOU.
And again, there’s also misinformation, disinformation, and/or willful ignorance of state open meeting law and disclosure regarding property sales. See Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Sub. 3:
What will the City Council do? Tune in! To join this meeting via Webex, click this link and type in the password 2023. To join via telephone, please dial (415) 655-0001. Enter access code 2551 442 7582 and password 2023 when prompted.
Willful, intentional, abdication of and failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility, failure to complete due diligence, vetting, verification…
Way way back, we’re talking 2017, the Citizens Assembly issued its report, part of which were suggestions to improve city meetings, that “better meetings” and ethics and the City’s Code of Conduct were the areas that were important to me. Why? Because at the last meeting, a concerted effort was made, through a secret meeting and a Resolution from that meeting, to prohibit virtual participation and to eliminate the Statement of Intent.
Notice who showed up for this workshop and notice who DID NOT show up for this workshop:
Everything I say about this is flavored by the LONG time it took to get to this discussion, and the flagrant misbehavior of some Council members, disregard for basic concepts of how government operates and DOESN’T and SHOULDN’T operate, and the dissing of the public. That said…
The discussion was a start. They went through the suggestions I’d offered (because I was the only one who’d offered specific suggestions, a few times over the last SIX YEARS), variations of what I’ve been offering since 2017, and they DID discuss them. For the most part, they have focused on two things.
Develop “Standard Operating Procedures/Best Practices” explaining how things are done.
Update the “How to Participate” flyer that’s on the table in the foyer (there should be an announcement of this handout at the beginning of meetings for folks new to appearing).
That’s a start, good to see, and ONWARD!
Here’s the 2/27/2023 City Council Meeting: youtube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rqZKMLVXYI4&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=8603
I also made copies of a Letter to the Editor that Alan and I had written following the ejection or resignation of Dennis Egan as Mayor due to conflict of interest, and as Citizens Assembly was discussing ethical issues and the City Code of Conduct, which is so deficient and needs updating. This last Council meeting was a wake up call for update of the Code of Conduct — discovery of the Gang of Four’s secret meeting, two Council members falsely stating and doubling down that it was an Agenda and/or Executive/Leadership committee meeting (plus “COVID is over,” I mean, really?!?!), and for trying to prohibit virtual comments and eliminating the Statement of Intent? I’d like to see Oath of Office committed to at each meeting!
