Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

MnDOT Bids and MnDOT Breach and MnDOT Costs the Taxpayers

Posted: 10/11/07 21:28, Edited: 10/11/07 21:29

by Dave Mindeman

Over the last week the state has released the I-35 Bridge Protest Rejection; in which 2 of the bidders filed a formal protest about the bidding process for the I-35 Bridge Project. This administration paper gave some incite into how the bidding procedure was conducted.

In addition, another paper (a special report), from the State House Commerce and Labor Committee, outlined the problems and background of the troubled Wakota Bridge project.

There is a lot of relevant information in these two documents which could lead to pages and pages of discussion, but for the sake of brevity, let me sum up two important points.

(1) The Wakota Bridge project began in February, 2003 as a $58 million project that would be completed in 2007. It is barely half done. MnDOT insisted on a bridge design that already had a proven failure record... in fact a Florida bridge (being built at exactly the same time, 2003) of the same design had to be completely retrofitted because of the design failure. The construction firm for the Wakota Project, Lunda Construction, had cost overruns because of the needed design changes and other delays that, a dispute board ruled, were MnDOT's fault. But MnDOT took the contract away from Lunda and refused their new bid even though it was well within the range they outlined. The dispute board ruled again that MnDOT was wrong to terminate and found the department to be in breach of contract. The bridge still sits half finished and the costs will be at least $117 million... double the original contract. And that doesn't count the cost to area business. That is estimated at $36,500 per DAY.

2) This same construction firm (Lunda) was a bidder on the I-35 Bridge Project and came in with the second lowest bid of $178.5 million. That is $55.5 million less than the winning bid of $234 million. Yet they were rejected on the "technical merits" of their bid. The Wakota dispute was not resolved at the time of the I-35 Bridge bidding. Are we to believe that the MnDOT portion of the technical evaluation did not have a bias against Lunda?

If you look at the dollar cost of just these two items, we are talking about additional cost to the taxpayers of $114 million dollars. I am sure MnDOT will argue that the I-35 Project is funded with Federal Money -- at least $250 million -- but we haven't got it yet (starting to wonder about Bush promises?) and the total costs with clean-up are now over $400 million. MnDOT has asked for "front" money of $195 million from the state. Why? Because they are broke.

Couple this with the Crosstown Project, which experienced delay after delay until a $240 million project became a $288 million project -- the largest in state history.

All of these delays (which cost money) and all of these bidding problems (which cost money) and all of these cost overruns (which...well, you get the idea), are the result of a department run on NO NEW TAXES and a credit card. MnDOT is being starved into being a totally ineffective department and the leadership has no plan to fix it.

comments (0) permalink

Things Are Getting Tutu Complicated

Category: US Politics
Posted: 10/11/07 12:44, Edited: 10/11/07 20:37

by Alan Anderson

The recent flurry of letters and articles about the refusal of the University of St. Thomas to let Desmond Tutu speak, and now the reversal by President Dease to allow him to speak, is both bothersome and confusing. The irony of the denial is really about why Tutu was to speak. This Nobel laureate is coming to Minneapolis/St. Paul to speak to a group of young people, sponsored by Peace Jam and youththrive, about the importance of working for peace. In doing this work, Tutu emplores young people to work for social justice and to speak out against inhumane conditions around the world. In modeling this practice he has criticized the Israeli government for destroying the homes of innocent Palestinians and for oppressive conditions in Gaza and the West Bank . He was criticizing government policies and actions, not the religion nor the people.

Tutu?s message is to encourage dialogue and reconciliation between people of profound differences. It is through talking and engaging each other as people that violence can be avoided and peaceful solutions found for human conflict. This is also the message that Christ delivered on many occasions.

Tutu?s visit is simple: inspire us all to take action for social justice. Doesn?t seem that complicated, does it?

comments (0) permalink

"Formula for Tyranny by the Minority"

Category: US Politics
Posted: 10/11/07 12:42, Edited: 10/11/07 12:44

by Sam Rulli

Those are the words of Sen. Bill Frist; his comments were directed at the use of the filibuster by the Democratic Senate minority. At the time of this quote Sen. Frist was also the Majority Leader of the
Republican led Senate. He added his voice to the voices of many many Republican Senators who decried the filibuster as unconstitutional.

So enraged and offended by the use of the filibuster by the Democratic minority in the Senate were the Republicans that they declared it to be unconstitutional and vowed to use the ?nuclear option? and threatened to arbitrarily change the rules of the Senate to eliminate this long standing procedure because it was (according to Frist, the majority of Republicans in the Senate, George Bush and Dick Cheney) unreasonable, against the spirit of the constitution and immoral. The Republicans did not in fact take those actions knowing that actually taking steps like that really would be immoral and unconstitutional.

Time passes and an election brought the Democrats into the majority in the Senate. Since the election, the Republicans have been the minority party and they have used the filibuster nearly fifty times.
comments (0) permalink


« March 2015 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.