Last night, a staff member at Coffee House Press told me that the proprietors of Nate’s Clothing downtown (27 N 4th St) closed the sale of their building yesterday. The Star Tribune ran a story in March on the impending ownership change, saying it would be sold to Uppal Enterprises, which plans to install a nightlife establishment or restaurant.

Coffee House, which currently roosts on the fourth floor, will mostly likely be moving to Northeast, possibly in the vicinity of the old Grain Belt Brewery. CHP is a non-profit press that has put out some award-winning books. If you’re not familiar with them they have various events going on around the Cities in the coming weeks.

Local artist Scott Seekins also has a studio on the fourth floor of the building, so he is being displaced as well. He will have a longer trek to complete his “performance art” rounds through the downtown skyway everyday if he has to move to a different neighborhood. (If you’re familiar with Seekins, you know that he always wears either a white suit or a black suit, depending on the season. I saw him at the Mayday parade last weekend in snowy garb, and as my friend said, “That means spring.”)

So, that’s a three-for-one hit to the rootsy side of downtown: the mom ‘n’ pop clothes business, a non-profit book publishing press, and a local artist all leaving the Warehouse District. God knows we could use another Aqua.

• twin_cities: ISO grassy metro parks for a guinea pig festival! “The grass has to be chemical free as dozens of hungry guinea pigs will be snacking on and simultaneously fertilizing it.” OMG SO KYOOT!
• MPR: College of St. Catherine to become a university. “The new name hasn’t been determined, but will include ‘St. Catherine’s’ and ‘university.’”
• Minneapolis Issues Forum: Do Idaho’s bike safety statutes make more sense?
• MinnPost: How we’re doing so far. Joel Kramer reports in on the first six months of MinnPost. “MinnPost.com has more than 100,000 absolute monthly unique visitors, as measured by Google Analytics. This makes us the most-visited local-news website in Minnesota that is not driving traffic to itself from a legacy medium, like TV, radio or print.”
• Minnesota Monitor: Congress studies wrong city for RNC disaster preparedness. “The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found that Minneapolis’ Hennepin County Medical Center did not have sufficient capacity to handle a terrorist attack. The committee completely overlooked St. Paul’s Regions Hospital, which would be the first responder in the unlikely event of a terrorist attack on the RNC.”
• Southwest Journal: Neighborhood organizations are adjusting their fundraising strategies in preparation for the loss of NRP funding. They mention Bryn Mawr Neighborhood Association; Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc.; and East Harriet Farmstead Neighborhood Association.
• City of Minneapolis: Sustainability Initiatives
• City of St Paul: Sustainable Saint Paul
• The Deets: Ed looks at recent reports on the link between local food environments (i.e., stores/restaurants in your neighborhood) and obesity and diabetes. Ed’s theory: “The distance you drive to buy groceries effects how you shop.”

I was under the vague impression that most people weren’t planning on using their stimulus check to actually stimulate the economy. I thought more folks would pay down debt or save it. Boy, was I wrong.

According to howispentmystimulus.com, people from Minnesota have all kinds of plans.

Brian from Merrifield, MN is using his to make his home more energy efficient. Robert from Minneapolis spent $216 on sweatpants. Elizabeth from Minneapolis is replacing her harvest gold washer and dryer. Nikki and Dustin from St Paul paid some wedding expenses. Maura from Minneapolis is paying on her student loan. Other Minnesotans are going on vacation.

(I don’t know why it tickles me so that it’s been shortened to “my stimulus” from “my stimulus check.”)

You can share your story with a photo or with a video (visual aid required). I’d be really curious to see some aggregate data six months or a year from now.

I’m boring. I’m paying down debt with mine. Inquiring minds (i.e., Sornie and I) want to know: What’re you doing with your stimulus?

The National Governors Association’s Greening State Capitols program has selected 20 participating capitol complexes. Considering Tim Pawlenty is the NGA Chair that’d be some shit if we weren’t on the list.

From Wal-Mart’s press release:

During the next year, engineering experts will visit the 20 capitol facilities to examine the lighting, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, as well as refrigeration equipment and building structures. Each governor will then receive recommendations on how to improve the energy efficiency of his or her capitol complex. The recommendations will be based on technologies that have proven successful in Wal-Mart stores, Sam’s Clubs and supplier facilities around the world. According to its engineering analysis, Wal-Mart, through its Supplier Energy Efficiency Program, has already helped participating organizations save between 20 and 50 percent on their energy bills.

More on Wal-Mart’s role, from the Greening State Capitols program announcement (pdf):

Wal-Mart will only recommend technologies that give the state a return on investment within five years, unless a state specifically asks for a different time frame. At the state’s request, Wal-Mart will use its procurement skills to attract bids from interested companies and facilitate installation of the recommended technologies.

Each state will provide personnel to help conduct the audit, implement recommendations, and track results.

It makes some sense when you consider what Wal-Mart has done to make their stores more energy efficient. And it jibes with the fact that real change on a large scale only happens when it becomes a business incentive to do so.

I still wonder about conflicts of interest, though. Wal-Mart can’t just be doing this out of the goodness of the VP of Sustainability’s heart. PR? While it’s not guaranteed, they’re obviously going to get further business when the states implement their recommendations.

(via Maria Energia)

The latest numbers on the Twins stadium:

Cost: $544.4 million (including site acquisition and infrastructure)
Public financing: $392 million from a 0.15 percent sales tax in Hennepin County
Private financing: $152.4 million from the Twins

Those are ballpark figures (*ba DUM bum*). I also read $522/$387/130 + about $5/year for naming rights. Looks like the more recent the estimates, the higher all figures are.

The latest numbers on the MOA expansion:

Cost: $1.9-2.1 billion
Public financing: $371 million from a TBD sales/food/lodging tax in Bloomington
Private financing: $1.5-1.8 billion

Again, costing varies depending on the date of the article. Here’s what you get in Phase II of the MOA. Phase I puports to bring $1.8 billion/yr to the city of Bloomington. Slightly off topic, I wonder how this will affect the Waterpark of America.

Part of the hang up here is the financing of the parking ramp to the tune of $186-$204 million. The parking ramp funding will certainly have implications for whatever large projects follow it (like a Vikings Stadium).

But… just look at the disparity in public vs private financing. The only direct comparison of benefit I turned up in my cursory research is that the state expects to collect $10 million/year from ballpark-related sales and player income taxes. The MOA pays $55 million/year in state and local taxes.

Tell me how the relative cost of taxpayer burden is worth what the venture brings to the region (yes, I know it costs me personally about $30/year for the Twins stadium). I’ll add in my argument for the social and cultural benefit of having a common cause that unites us.

Maybe I should wait to see how they go about approving the tax in Bloomington before I come to a conclusion. Maybe the residents will get a choice in the matter.

[Hennepin County/Twins Ballpark Fact Sheet (pdf)]

There is a story in the Pioneer Press about how St. Paul is making “public-private partnerships” to make ends meet:

Also, a summertime “Movies in the Park” program is sponsored by Comcast, and the city’s graffiti-eradication program comes courtesy of Wagner, the power paint-sprayer company. Even this newspaper sponsors the city’s bookmobile.

What’s next? A swing set sponsored by McDonald’s? Where is the line?

While I don’t really share the outrage of the Pioneer Press (advertising is already everywhere else, plus it’s an excellent source of non-tax revenue), I also kind of wonder where the line is.

Uncle Ben’s Rice Park?

The Star Tribune has a story about how our state legislature likes the idea of a regional cap-and-trade system.

I fully endorse the idea. If you’re unfamiliar with how it all works, the Twin Cities Daily Planet has a good primer:

Cap and trade systems are appealing for two main reasons. First, unlike traditional regulatory schemes, they are market-based. Cap and trade systems allow economic forces to dictate where emissions cuts will occur, rather than relying on government mandates. The U.S. has had a cap and trade system to deal with acid rain-causing pollutants since the 1980s, and has achieved deep reductions at far lower costs than had been anticipated. Second, cap and trade is more palatable politically than a direct carbon tax, which would have roughly the same effect.

Arguments against such a system (and global warming in general) are in the comments of the Strib article. Here’s one that raises a relevant point:

Does anyone think that the cost of purchasing the carbon credits won’t be passed along in the form of higher prices and then the carbon producing entities shifted to India or China which already have signnificant cost advantages? This is the dumbest idea to come down the pike in a long time. All in the name of eliminating a problem that doesn’t exist.

This is a fair question. Slave labor, child labor, cheap labor, all of it was outlawed in the United States and then moved elsewhere. While a cap and trade system will have the intended local outcome (due to the free market and a craving in the business community for clear regulation—if regulation is necessary—as opposed to governmental hemming and hawing, which is when businesses pick up and leave), there is a fear it will simply shift the problem out of sight.

And I’m not going to say some pollution won’t go overseas. But in most cases, if they’re not already making it overseas, they’re not likely to start. It’s generally cheaper for a company to produce close to the raw materials and end users, both of which are generally in the United States, if not the Midwest specifically. Add to that the cost of scouting new locations overseas, buying land, building new facilities, and all the other work that goes into off-shoring, and compare that with the relatively easy task of retrofitting current facilities. The off-shoring argument falls flat, I think.

So, while I disagree with our Republican governor and our DLF legislature on many issues, I’m glad they’re moving forward with this system. I really do think the clear regulations will attract business (and obviously our pro-business governor must as well), and we can add green jobs and green living to the long list of what makes our state so wonderful.

This past weekend the latest version of the Star Tribune 100 came out. This is an annual report on Minnesota’s top 100 publicly held companies - most of which are right here in the Twin Cities area.

 The headline in the paper said it all - “in the black, but blue.” While the list performed fairly well, many of our local companies are taking a stock beating expected during a ”recession.” Here’s to better times ahead. (please)

The news today is “Five of the seven major US airlines (Continental, Delta, Northwest, United, and US Air) plan to charge most customers $25 each way to check a second bag starting May 5″

*Note - Delta and Northwest being linked is from the source.

[Via] - Airlines Win Big on Those who Overpack

Overcharging or legitimate price increase?

I can see both sides.

On one hand, it seems suspiciously timed with a business merger. On the other hand, fuel prices have gone through the roof.

What do you think?

You may have been Uptown a couple of weeks ago and noticed picketers outside the D’amico and Sons restaurant at 2210 Hennepin who were, in my opinion, bringing attention to an escalating issue regarding the U.S. workforce. The protesters were reacting to D’amico and Partners’ termination of 15 Latino employees from a “no-match list” after they did not, or were not able to reconcile their social security information.

From what I can tell, a no-match list consists of people whose social security numbers do not match their names and other personal information, therefore not validating their eligibility to work in the States. This sample employee no-match letter from the National Immigration Law Center asserts that a no-match does not mean termination of employment, and that no-matches may be clerical errors, or something else not necessarily indicative of “illegal” status.

However, the Department of Homeland security has been trying to install a law requiring employers to terminate no-match employees. The law, according to the NY Times, was blocked last October to protect businesses, but the DHS is trying to impose it again.

I think there is some debate as to whether D’amico and Partners was discriminating against Latino employees, or if the company was within its legal jurisdiction. An employer can pay a massive fine for not providing valid social security information for no-match employees, so I can see why nervous human resources departments might take stringent action with this no-match law dangling over their heads. In a company-wide letter to employees issued on March 31st, which I have a hard copy of, D’amico said that it gave no-match employees over seven months to resolve their information, and provided a Spanish interpreter in September 2007 to aid in resolution. The no-match law faltered last October, so the company was clearly trying to protect itself early. But since the law was blocked, it seems that employers are now doggy-paddling in a gray area between discrimination and illegal employment of immigrants.

In an article on the myths and realities of Mexicans in Minnesota originally run in the Pioneer Press, Bruce Corrie says:

They take our jobs: If this statement is aimed at citizens, it is wrong, as these workers compete in the market for work. If it is aimed at undocumented workers, the kinds of jobs these workers do are in the low-wage, back-breaking, finger-numbing and high-turnover tasks that most people do not want to do.

I’m inclined to agree, and having worked in restaurants for over a decade, I can attest to the large percentage of staff that is Latino and/or of immigrant status in both the front and the back of the house. They often start with the work that many people won’t deign to do for minimum wage, then work their way up to better positions. I’ve chatted with servers who have mentioned that their Minneapolis restaurants have been compelled to let people go too, some places finding themselves shortstaffed and having to find temporary help.

It’s led me to wonder who is going to take the biggest blow from stricter immigration laws, which I think is a common debate these days. A Mexican co-worker of mine posited that it could be the States, because “Mexicans lose their jobs and have to go home, but you don’t have us anymore.” Which is a good point, the States would lose a large portion of the workforce and the money those people put back into the economy through consumption.

So, maybe we’re not feeling the full effect yet, but getting a meal at your local grub hub may take longer and longer because the place is shortstaffed, due to the government deciding that things just don’t match. And that would be just the beginning.