I’m attached to Farmington — when I first opened my office and started practicing (practice makes perfect, will I ever get it right???) 30 years ago, my office was in downtown Farmington, next to the bakery (pro tip — never ever work next to a bakery!), and before that, I drove for Bongard Trucking, also in Farmington. I put my office there just in case I ever needed to jump in a truck to make some money, fortunately, that wasn’t needed.
Anyway, there’s a data center bru-ha-ha in Farmington, and I’ve been downloading the filings in the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development v. City of Farmington to figure out what’s going on. And it’s not just “Farmington,” there’s land in Castle Rock township that Farmington and TRACT want to annex, so Castle Rock is suing too. It’ll take a while for me to load these, and some documents refuse to download. I’ll publish as I go, and I’ll try to put the more important filings up first, so keep in mind this is NOT complete, there will be updates.
There’s an AUAR in the works for Cannon Falls, but I’m in the park and can’t get this uploaded. The AUAR Scoping document is 70mb and I can’t shrink it or upload it. Here’s the City’s page with a link, but that isn’t working … sigh…
And the saga continues, first from Xcel. Xcel DID send notice out to all the landowners, that was on January 31, two weeks after the deadline for intervention:
What to comment about? See all the links below to the DEIS, and consider:
Here’s the hearing schedule, but don’t be surprised if this changes after the Prehearing Conference on Friday:
Here are the piles and piles of the DEIS — it’s in a pdf and the links should work. The narrative, “Draft EIS” #2 on the list below, is probably the most important, and that alone is 872 pages. SOOOO, get to work!
Public hearings for the Mankato-Mississippi 345kV transmission line have been announced for May 27 28 and 29th.
Meanwhile, Commerce-EERA’s Asst. A.G. Dornfeld just sent a letter to the Administrative Law Judge stating:
In December, the Department requested that the state’s central mail services send these notices to about 1,341 additional landowners who could be affected by route alternatives identified during the scoping process. In the last few weeks, the Department discovered that mail services did not, in fact, send these letters to landowners.
Lovely… 1,341 potentially affected landowners who did not get notice. And this was discovered “in the last few weeks,” and only now are we finding out?!?!
Had they been given notice in December, they would have had at least some time, a couple weeks before the Intervention deadline, to consider what was proposed, learn about the process, gamble on how it might affect them, and decide whether to intervene.
From the 2nd Prehearing Order:
BUT WAIT — DISCOVERED “IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS” AND ONLY DISCLOSED NOW IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT DECEMBER TO MAY IS FIVE OR SIX MONTHS, AND IT’S ONLY DISCLOSED NOW?
1,341 landowners?
Now, there’s at least “a few weeks” more lack of notice to these folks, but really, months and months.
Lack of notice? WHEW! At least the Administrative Law Judge is concerned!
Here’s what Commerce’s Asst. A. G. thinks about discussing this in a prehearing conference:
A “courtesy, not a legal obligation.” These landowners could lose their land, and Commerce’s Asst. A.G. sees no responsibility to provide notice?
Due process should be top of mind these days:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Constitution, Section 1(emphasis added).
Who cares? I sure do. I’m remembering CapX 2020, and the Cannon Falls landowners who received notice a matter of just DAYS before the public hearing. I remember learning about this at the public hearing, and scrambling to open a window for them to intervene if they wanted — which was tossed out. And I remember our Motion for Reconsideration to challenge that last minute change with ZERO notice:
Oh yeah, I will be objecting to Dornfeld’s objection. These 1,341 landowners need time to figure out what this means for them. Given how these routing dockets work, there’s a high probability that at least some of them will be affected.
