by Erica Mauter • MinnPost has a story on a joint decision by the governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin to share some costs between the two states, so as to reduce the overall cost of the stuff and thus reduce the cost to each state.
This includes stuff like road salt, software, tractors and bulldozers, warehouse space, call centers, ag/fishery/nursery operations (does that fly in the face of this proposal?), prisons, and Duluth/Superior operations.
[George Etzel] Pearcy’s proposed state lines were drawn in less-populated areas, isolating large cities and reducing their number within each state. He argued that if there were fewer cities vying for a state’s tax dollars, more money would be available for projects that would benefit all citizens.
Because the current states were being chopped up beyond recognition, part of his plan included renaming the new states by referencing natural geologic features or the region’s cultural history.
The new state of Superior would have Minneapolis as it’s major city. Milwaukee and I think Madison would be incorporated into the state of Dearborn. What about Saint Paul? If we were actually going so far as to re-draw state lines, would we re-draw city lines as well? The Twin Cities as well as the Dallas-Fort Worth area have a special problem to deal with under this premise. Actually I think Minneapolis and Saint Paul and the area governed by the Met Council would do just fine and wouldn’t need any major restructuring.
Thoughts on Superior? Is Superior… superior? *rimshot* I didn’t grow up here, so I don’t have a dog in the Minnesota vs Wisconsin fight.
Originally published on 1/14/09