A while back I offered readers of this blog the opportunity to write guest posts. A few have written me saying they’re thinking about it, but I finally got one for real this week. Bob Tammen is a retired miner from Soudan who has been a vocal critic of nonferrous mining projects on the East Range.
Pat and I are home again after a few days in the Cities. We went down last week to set through the [Iron Range Resources Board] meeting which was held at the capitol last Wednesday.
Commissioner Layman suggested hiring a community development specialist and was reminded that the IRRRB couldn’t afford it.
The Board then proceeded to rebate $4 million to the mining industry. This is on top of the $8 million already rebated in the last year or so.
Their actions were rewarded by the taconite industry the very next day with the announcement of the layoff of 590 miners. That $12 million meant nothing to an industry that ships billions of dollars worth of ore every year.
That $12 million would have meant a lot to the school in Cherry or the main street of Tower or the nursing home in Ely.
I’m not a great believer in privatizing public services but maybe it’s time to transfer the IRRRB & the DNR Lands & Minerals to the Chamber of Commerce where they belong. They could do their public relations services for the mining industry without burning up our tax dollars.
On the subject of Polymet, we should recall that it’s a Canadian penny stock. It has a marketing agreement with Glencore, a Swiss company with a history you don’t care to discuss in front of the children.
It’s a perfect scenario to maximize extraction and destruction of our natural resources and minimize job creation.
Mining company lapdogs have been quite successful the last few years. They’ve mechanized us out of our jobs. They’ve politicized us our of our tax revenues. They’ve ostracized the critics trying to create a sustainable economy.
It’s time for a change.
If you would like to respond in agreement or disagreement, consider sending along a guest post by clicking on “Contact Me” in the above menu bar. You may also use the comments section, but if it’s a longer piece send it the other way and I’ll run it on the main page. I’ll keep doing this until it gets boring or runs amok. Be civil, everyone.
$12 million could by a lot of beer and cigarettes!
I would like to point out that it is not our tax dollars that the IRRRB is spending, it is mining company taxes.
And please remember that the purpose of big business (mines, etc) is not to provide jobs, it is to make money.
C.O.
They are mining company production tax dollars that those companies pay in lieu of local property taxes. This was the deal cut back in the 1960s and ’70s and is among the reasons the Range has enjoyed a decent quality of life through the economic devastation of the 80s. Range towns and schools would be much worse off without their production tax revenue and those companies would have folded long ago if they had to pay property taxes.
Just like any tax dollars they can be used for good or wasted. That part is in the eye of the beholder.
I have some questions about this production tax. The ore deposits were undervalued in order to give the taconite companies a tax break and to make them more competitive in the marketplace. Taconite rock is about 25% iron, so there is considerable cost involved in extracting this low grade ore.
However, there was a period of about 11 years when the production tax was not adjusted for inflation. And the last couple of years, when the mining companies made huge profits, that money all left the state. It seems to me that Minnesota has lost a lot of tax dollars through the production tax set up, including the fact that the IRR routinely returns tax dollars to the mining companies. I think this is an issue that deserves further study.
That’s an interesting point. I can’t say what the truth is there, but I do know that there is a lingering issue over what represents a “ton” of ore. The production tax system recognizes a smaller “ton” than what you see in the shipping industry.