|
<br />104 STATE COVERN:l.IENT. SPRINC, 1972
<br />
<br />__no.
<br />
<br />we see that a com-
<br />munity which may
<br />be helping others
<br />this year, in an-
<br />other year will be
<br />recipient of bene-
<br />fits itself. It is not a
<br />, bill to shift money
<br />from the suburbs to the central cities. Minne-
<br />apolis has a 57-story office building under
<br />construction. right now. Every':c,qmmunity
<br />in the Twin Cities area is'able to look at that
<br />, building an'd saY~,:'\Ve have a piece ,~f it." Con-
<br />versely, :Miilti~i1poliscan,}60kat ,e,!ery subur-
<br />ban shoppi~g c~nter'or indu,sirialpa.i~'~nd say, :
<br />"\Ve havea pieceof that:':':~T':<i;/:'~~~i,t-:,~;~ .
<br />A quite- common form o(objection\vas that
<br />. '_'.' . ..:_ .._..... .. ,n ~ - ..,..~... . .'. ~-. ._~..~. .--': .
<br />passage of this law ~vould mean that 'comimini-
<br />"'-. _..:..-.'.~....'."~" .;"- ""';-;'..- .-..:.........,
<br />'-tieswotlldn~t'~Want:to a€ce'pt'€oII~n:ieidal' and
<br />ind ustrial: 'd~v~lopment . \vith'i~--theirl;~~ders
<br />'. ._.~_ _. - - .___ .. .", ''''0-.'' ....-..._." _~""'~~-"",
<br />anymore~::I:beli~ve that a> 60-40 split gives
<br />plenty onnceiiti~e for 'a )~~hlgoy'erIimerit to'
<br />con tinue~o plan for commerH~1 a~i:l i~dustrhl
<br />areas.A.nd the experience in, Minnesota since
<br />passage o~_ t,hislaw does not indicate that com-
<br />munitie~ are unwill~ng tei acc'ept new, growth;
<br />A co~mun:itywh<:re the,;developmenf'is lo-
<br />cated still will ,!e~eivethe largestsh;ue ,of the
<br />benefit. Buimoniimportarlt,I realiychallenge
<br />the basic premise that 'this 'would destroy in- ,
<br />centives. Eventf 100 percent :6(th~ne\~ com-
<br />mercial-industrial 'growth ~e~e: : plaCed 'in an
<br />areawide pool; there still wouldbe'btber.forces
<br />at play that would-se~e to ens~T~'IJ~atsuch
<br />gr-Owth:1V.ould"be_welcome~ nOLtheleast of
<br />which is the desire of the individual landowner
<br />to maximize the output,from his'investment.
<br />Frankly, I think that as municipalities re-
<br />flect on the impact of thIS law, it will serve to
<br />. be a stimulus to development in the region.
<br />They can begin to work together and compete
<br />as one unified area with other metropolitan
<br />areas, rather than. competing with each other.
<br />Industrial commissions, chambers of com-
<br />merce, and other groups around the area that
<br />are trying -to attract business might weil ex-
<br />plore the possibilities of certain formal efforts
<br />to entice business to this region. They can do
<br />this knowing that wherever a new. business is
<br />
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />...'P.";,';:;s.r~_.J..-~. ..,.~~-=~ :.:.--
<br />
<br />I". ~.-
<br />
<br />,,.
<br />
<br />located, each will receive some benefit.
<br />Finally, there were critics who were s~Jspi-
<br />ciOllS that this law is a {oot.in-thC'.door that
<br />would lead towards the abolition of local gov-
<br />ernment by some sort of big metropolitan unit.
<br />This is an amazing conclusion to me because
<br />along with Mr. Preeshl. I have precisely the
<br />opposite feeling. It will reenforce local govern-
<br />ment. It \vill strengt~en local government. hi
<br />fact, some critics might say that this law goes
<br />too far in perpetuating the number of small
<br />units of government we have iJ?, our region.
<br />I am not going to defend the existence of some
<br />300 independent taxiDg districts. That is for
<br />another law to handle at another time. Our law
<br />simply was aimed at recognizing the economic
<br />inten:Iependence of the area,~itho~t'disturb-
<br />i~g its politic;~l structure one way'or'the otl:te~.'
<br />. " .' . . - - . . ~ . - '. . " '. "t- .' ....".... - . -' . .
<br />
<br />" --: :..i:..-
<br />~"4"""- .
<br />
<br />How'the SharingW Or.kj.~,', ~_:':':_.
<br />
<br />- t. .~ .;..... . ".
<br />
<br />I have been deeply pleased with"the national
<br />attention which this law has received. The
<br />February 1972 issue of Nation's Cities noted
<br />that a national conference, on - "what more
<br />could the cities do to help themselves" con-
<br />cluded, among other things, that States could
<br />follo\v our example aoo adopt a -similar law.
<br />Very favorablecomnie'nts have'been received -
<br />from the National Municipal League, the Ad- '
<br />visory Commission on Intergovernmental Re-
<br />lations, the,Brookings Institution,. and the
<br />Department of Housing and Urb~nDevelop-
<br />inent. , ('<.
<br />Our base-sharing l~w is rio p;nacea. I am
<br />sure the law can be improved. Perhaps another
<br />State can take the concept, apply it to its par-
<br />ticular situation and 'come out with something
<br />much better. If that ,happens, I would be very
<br />pleased. \Ve have demonstrated,.however, two
<br />things: (a) A State Legislature can take effec-
<br />tive action on major urban problems; the fed-
<br />eral government in [10 way has preempted this
<br />field. No federal law c-ouJd accomplish what
<br />we did. (b) As I noted earlier, this law proves
<br />you can have both sharing of resources and
<br />preservation of local control.
<br />
<br />.---- ~..
<br />--. .----- .-..
<br />
<br />. _. -.. - - ..
<br />- -.---'-- ---~----_.
<br />
|