Here’s an update to my Sunday post about Iron Range cities sharing services.
That post was original prompted by the Mesabi Daily News‘ Sunday editorial calling on East Range cities to get behind a joint wastewater plant, which I agree with. What I didn’t mention was that the editorial said that State Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) was opposed to the idea:
And that’s why we were so displeased to hear the state representative who represents all three communities — Tom Rukavina — talk about Gilbert still maintaining its own wastewater facility.
In a news story last week dealing with local officials traveling to the State Capitol to lobby for different projects, Rep. Rukavina said he is not of the opinion that there should be one wastewater treatment facility for the three communities. He indicated Gilbert should not necessarily abandon its plant.
The earlier story, written by MDN editor Bill Hanna, reads this way on the topic:
“I think Gilbert and Virginia should take advantage of what will be coming out of Washington,” Rukavina said.
However, the legislator said while it is good that the communities are working together on projects, he still thinks it would be best for Gilbert to have its own wastewater plant.
“The idea of Fayal, Gilbert, Virginia and even Eveleth moving waste around to handle the flow is good. But I still think Gilbert should have its own facility, too. Emergencies happen,” Rukavina said.
This morning Rep. Rukavina called me and, shall we say, colorfully and emphatically denied that he opposed the project, calling the MDN story and editorial biased. He did suggest that Gilbert maintain a facility as a backup for logistical reasons, but supports the concept of a shared wastewater plant for the other towns, indeed having sought its original funding.
To an extent we’re splitting hairs here, but it now seems that the MDN editorial overstated Rukavina’s “opposition” to a project he supports. I can’t speak for Gilbert’s wastewater needs (the city does lie well off the “triangle” formed by the other involved communities), but it now seems that we’re dealing with mere discord rather than a real barrier to this project moving forward. And that, in a proverbial nutshell, is why shared service agreements always run into walls on the Iron Range. We need to fight through this nonsense, report information accurately, and simply make the logical decisions based on community needs. Towns shouldn’t share just to share, but rather should share strategically in a way that saves money and serves people. If it can be proven that Gilbert would be better off, from an engineering standpoint, to have a small plant instead, then so be it. But that’s not the question raised in the editorial. Instead, we have misdirection and use of the “straw man” fallacy.
Meantime, according to the Hibbing Daily Tribune, the shared wastewater plant among Hibbing, Chisholm, and nearby townships has run into a snag because the governing authority realized that it didn’t legally exist. Again, a matter of a small mistake costing all important time and money while confusing citizens already confounded by bickering on that side of the Range.
One way, I maintain the best way, to address these problems is to call an Iron Range Congress, a gathering of representatives of cities, counties, schools, public service providers, citizens, legislators and, of course, the media, not just to talk but to shed light on petty disagreements so that long-term solutions may be won for the entire Iron Range. Everyone should share their engineering reports and the reams of paper coughed up by a generation of planning consultants and come up with a final, comprehensive Range-wide public services and schools plan that everyone agrees to follow. I’m putting the idea out there for someone to take with my full support because I think it’d be more credible coming from several elected officials. I’ll take it up myself no one steps forward. Either way, this is something no one person can do alone.
Speak Your Mind