What are the opinions of DUers from the Twin Cities area

[KitchenWitch]

regarding the Metropolitan Council. I do not know a whole lot about this body, but what I do know disturbs me. These folks are not voted for, but yet they make policy decisions regarding how our communities are allowed to grow, develop, etc. Is this not taxation without representation?

[GAspnes]

1. It's a rational management of growth policies

The Twin Cities is already one of the 'most-sprawled' metropolitan areas.

Unbounded by oceans and mountains, the Twin Cities are surrounded by wide open space. Orfield says it's a sprawling metropolis with a higher than average rate of elbow room. He says the Twin Cities metropolitan area is one-third the size of Chicago, and sits on two-thirds as much land, "and we have a proposal now before the Metropolitan Council to add 20 percent or more to that land area."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/22_olsond_growth/

Anyone concerned about peak oil, loss of farmland, costly infrastructure services, high property taxes, school troubles and/or the growth of the Minnesota Republican base in the 3rd and 4th ring suburbs should support the Met Council.

[no name no slogan]

2. ....when it's actually run that way

Unfortunately, it tends to be dominated by politicians (read: pro-sprawl politicians) instead of urban planners, whose vested interests include opening up more land for further 'suburbanization'. All members are appointed by the governor, and in the past decade this has tended to mean more pro-sprawl members than pro-rational growth members.

Myron Orfield is the hands-down expert when it comes to metro-area sprawl. He's published at least one book on the subject (Metropolitics, in the early 90s) and it was a primary issue of his when he was a state rep from leg district 60B.

If more people listened to him, the problems we have now would not be as big.