Oh, my Dog…

Overland’s radical agenda: “Read your Constitution.” Radical? HELL NO — IT’S REVOLUTIONARY IN ORIGIN!

Letter: Keep liberal agenda out of city politics

Chuck Czerwinski, Red Wing
The Republican Eagle – 10/28/2006

To the Editor:

I read Saturdayâ??s letter from Carol Overland. Her ultra-liberal, anti-nuke message got her few votes in her primary bid for the At-Large City Council seat. The â??anti-background checksâ? posturing always sounded more like a candidate looking for an issue to run on than a sincere desire to protect civil rights. Either way, I am more concerned about the rights of voters. Overlandâ??s attempt to perpetuate her perceived victimization at Mondayâ??s council meeting lacks credibility. She blasted council members, saying â??read your Constitution.â?

The United States enjoys a stable government. Our legal process works. Rulings were handed down that support Overlandâ??s position. That should be the end of it. I did not get my way, but I accept the rule of law.

I agreed with background checks for candidates. Currently, candidates sign an affidavit affirming they are eligible. Assuming that politicians always tell the truth is like assuming Osama Bin Laden is really a nice guy. Candidates want to be elevated by us to positions where they make decisions that change our lives, but some get angry if we want to know as much about them as Wal-Mart knows about the people who clean their floors.

Overland wants to replace the common-sense people with those who bring her radical agenda to a job that is really about keeping our taxes down and our citizens protected. It is a safe bet that the council members who saw nothing wrong with background checks are the ones with nothing to hide.

I grew up here, and this is the first year I have been irritated enough to write letters to the editor. Overland has been here just a few years and she constantly bombards us with her unsolicited opinions. She has a constitutional right to complain, and I have an equal right to disagree. Isnâ??t America great!

Chuck Czerwinski
Red Wing

The Northfield Fluff

October 28th, 2006


The Northfield paper is going to have to change its name, because this isn’t “News.” Here we are, just before the election, and what’s their Editorial? “I’m proud to be Bob’s little sister.” The Northfield News Guest Column? Buckthorn! Really, “Buckthron control in our backyards.“ Where is their sense of civic duty to cover the myriad of elections and invite indepth comment and comment themselves?   Sure there are a bunch of editorials, hmmmm… the local nursery guy, “Leaf” Knecht, an avid “Democrat for Ray” has one in there, and Mike Hero (related to Community Relations guy at Xcel?) encourages us to do some pruning:

Voting is akin to pruning an apple tree. You keep the branch that bears fruit and you prune the branch that does not bear fruit with the expectation that the new branch will do better.

So perhaps the Buckthorn Guest Column has political implications afterall and strikes closer to home in this election season?


Happy B-Day, Erick!

October 28th, 2006

(lifted sans permission from — so sue me)

To my favorite fired reporter and incessent writer, who is so fair, objective and balanced that everyone wants to strangle him, way too Barneyesque in the face of political perversity when the Scorpio sting is long overdue, much maligned as the foiled operative in the Bachman campaign, the ’08 Rock Star Presidential candidate of G&D (FEITCTAJ) Party, and source of the most hilarious communications, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

May you fly right, have many more, and not need your attorney-on-retainer for a long time!

So everyone out there in Rice County and 2CD, y’all honk, wave, and holler “Happy Birthday” and be sure to give him the finger to keep it balanced!

Bark Back for Hatch/Dutcher!

October 27th, 2006

Luchelle Stevens, of the State Executive Committee, wants you to know about a great event coming up on Sunday…

Bark Back for Hatch/Dutcher!


A furry fundraiser for you and your dog!

Sunday, October 29
1:00â??3:00 pm

At Downtown Dogs; West Wing, 821 2nd Ave North, Minneapolis 55405

(one block south of International Market Square)

Join our co-hosts and their two-legged friends in helping elect Mike Hatch for Governor and Judi Dutcher for Lt. Governor.
Buffy, Laddy, and Bella Hatch (and Mike & family)

MiloDutcher (and Judi & family)

Biscuit (and Vice President Walter Mondale & Mrs. Joan Mondale)
(Senator Becky Lourey)

Kirby Franken (and Al Franken)

Cosmo Hartnett (and Dan)

Zoe Stevens (and Luchelle & Robbie)

Oscar Fynboh (and Paula)

Frida Wetterlund (and Pam)

Kirby Humphrey (and Hubert â??Buckâ?)

Zeb Gaskins (and Keesha)

Theo and Tshanit Elliott- Katz (and Geri)

Lizzie Ledger (and Rhys & Andrea)

Diego Morillo-Stiles (and Javier & John)

Max Kelly (and Tom)

Sebastian Senese (and Dick)

Bailey Flanagan (and Peggy)

Dylan Bischoff (and Sara)

â??Treatsâ? for canines, snacks and refreshments for those who love them.
Suggested Donation(Nobody Turned Away for Barking More, or Less)$25 $35 $50 $100

Political Contribution Refund:Individuals can receive $50 and couples can receive $100 per year refunded by the state of MN.

Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota DFL, Brian Melendez, Chair. Not authorized by any candidate or candidateâ??s committee.

Revenue Stabilization Agreement

October 27th, 2006


I have this feeling about the proposed deal between Red Wing and Xcel. It’s been in the works for a year and a half now, and is due to be approved. It was on the last Council meeting agenda until I raised this little problem — the copy on-line was missing all the odd pages, and it’s hard to comment on something that you can’t read! So they did continue that…

In the meantime, now I’m starting to go over this and there are a few things that jump out.

1) The “valuation” of the property, a 1,060MW plant, is listed at $400,000, which is 1/4 of the cost of the 600MW Big Stone II plant. It seems at minimum, it should be twice that. Apparently valuations can be challenged, and ARE challenged because they’re regarded as arbitrary, there’s not a concrete formula used. Valuation is in the Tax Statements in the Exhibit, and can also be found using the PIN at the County site. Go to Property Information and then Property Tax Information (but I’m getting “ERROR”).

2) There’s this out for large capital expenditures. Extraordinary Investments, para. 7. Ummm… this is an aging plant, and is in the process of being refurbished, and it seems it will be, in large part, prior to relicensing. Steam Generator I has been replaced, and Steam Generator II is on the way (or done?), turbines are going to be replaced, and it seems that by not counting the increase in value, what they’re doing is restoring the major components and then those would not be included in the valuation. Sure, that’s good for Xcel, but what does it do for us? They’ll end up with a like-new plant with a $400,000 “value.” Because there is an exemption for these costs, those agreeing to this deal should have a replacement schedule with costs, so they know what they’re waiving. It seems to me that if this agreement was not in place, the valuation would rise, the gross valuation would rise with these expensive replacements, even if the rate itself goes down.

3) Isn’t there an inherent value in relicensing and in avoided costs when they can use this plant and not build another? Like avoiding costs of around $3 billion, using Big Stone as a guide?

4) Though the agreement is predicated on continued legislative efforts to restore the tax revenue, through any number of means, and the agreement allows for these continued efforts, assumes it, yesterday Sen. Steve Murphy was very clear that he had no intent on addressing this legislatively, “that would be going backwards.” If his constituents are counting on his help on this, on his supporting them and not his employer, Xcel, we have a problem here.


There are a few things to weigh. I would guess that what Xcel is doing is planning to make improvements and not have to account for the benefit they receive, only that they can deduct the cost. They are positioning the plant for relicensing, and I’d bet they are also positioning the plant as a “stranded cost” a la deregulation, where we pay for the privilege of imprudent PUC decisions to invest in infrastructure. And I can’t imagine they are doing this out of the goodness of it’s radioactive little heart, so they must gain, and not have their gain recognized in a way that cost them anything. So is this a set up we want?

Here’s the power point that explains the deal:


Here’s the deal itself, in several parts because it wouldn’t upload:


(Agreement still too big, on to Filezilla, maybe posted soon)