We made a lot of progress at the state level in the last two years, but this year has shaped up to be a weird legislative session, and we find ourselves playing defense. Let’s find out what some of the most prominent urbanist organizations are focusing on in 2025!
Links
- Getting involved with Neighbors for More Neighbors
- Getting involved with Sierra Club
- Getting involved with BikeMN
Attributions
Our theme song is Tanz den Dobberstein, and our interstitial song is Puck’s Blues. Both tracks used by permission of their creator, Erik Brandt. Find out more about his band, The Urban Hillbilly Quartet, on their website.
This episode was hosted and edited by Ian R Buck, and was transcribed by Stina Neel. Many thanks to Lincoln Wells, Evan Roberts, Peter Wagenius, and Erik Noonan for coming on the show. We’re always looking to feature new voices on the show, so if you have ideas for future episodes, drop us a line at [email protected].
Transcript
[00:00:00] Ian: Welcome to the Streets.mn podcast, the show where we highlight how transportation and land use can make our communities better places. Coming to you from beautiful Seward, Minneapolis, Minnesota. I am your host, Ian R. Buck. The state legislative session got off to a rocky start this year, but we are in the thick of it now.
Yes, that’s right. It’s time for our hotly-awaited episode covering the legislative agendas of the awesome urbanist organizations that we have here in our state. First up, to cover housing and land use, we have Lincoln Wells, volunteer at Neighbors for More Neighbors, and Evan Roberts, representing the Minnesota Zoning Atlas.
This has been a weird Minnesota State session so far, um, and I have been peripherally paying attention, but it’s been a weird semester for me, so I don’t have all the details. Um, you,Evan, you, Uh, had quite a summary for us here
[00:01:02] Evan: I can give you a quick summary. Basically the summary is that both legislative chambers were tied, uh in some form, uh will become uh, you know, the senate has become untied with the election of Doron Clark to the Uh, one of the Minneapolis, uh senate districts.
Um, the state house is temporarily in sort of republican control because there’s a DFL seat, uh, which, uh, the member was ruled ineligible because he lived out of district, um, and so the expectation is it will become a tie, uh, in a special election in March, um, uh, and so they had, the House had to negotiate a sort of a power sharing agreement, uh, knowing that, um, Session was going to be a essentially tied for for most of the most of the session So it was kind of a chaotic start, but essentially that’s the that’s the small short version So
[00:01:58] Ian: yeah, so the the Senate seat that had to go through a special election that got resolved within a couple of weeks Of the start of the session, right?
[00:02:08] Evan: Yeah, a month. A month of, it was a month between Kerry Dietrich passing and then the special election.
[00:02:16] Ian: But March, like, what is the total length of the session? Like, how far into the session is March?
[00:02:23] Evan: Uh, I think they, uh, if I remember rightly, they have to be, they, they have a certain number of legislative days, uh, which they can sit in a biennium.
Um, and, uh, so the later they start, the later they can go. But, uh, generally Minnesota legislative sessions go into, into May sometime, uh, a week or so before Memorial Day. Uh, so they have a very firm deadline, uh, in the state constitution to, to do things.
[00:02:50] Ian: Okay. Yeah, it’s, it’s not like, uh, you know, at school when we have too many snow days and then we have to go farther into the summer.
[00:02:59] Evan: I mean, it’s more similar than you’d think, yeah. I mean, they do, you know, they can’t, yeah. It’s actually a really good analogy.
[00:03:07] Ian: All right, so let’s get into those legislative, uh, um, priorities that we have. What’s, what’s going on in housing? Um, we won some stuff recently. We had some goals from last year that, you know, were laid over.
So what are, what are kind of the big, uh, big ticket items that we’re looking at?
[00:03:29] Lincoln: Yeah, from Neighbors For More Neighbors’ perspective, we have a couple of different, um, legislative priorities that we’ll be pushing the session. Um, we’re working in coalition, um, what we call the Yes to Homes Coalition, which is a group of organizations.
Um, some focus on housing specifically like us and Habitat uh, for Humanity and then others that just have, um, kind of, uh, housing as an interest from either their, their members or, um, for, uh, specific concerns organizations like Isaiah, which is a faith based organization and, um, Sierra Club, which, uh, is obviously concerned about housing due to the environmental impacts of urban sprawl.
Um, so together the coalition has, uh, a group of, um, legislative priorities that’s, uh, mostly about, uh, increasing the abundance of, uh, housing types that are allowed within the cities and, um, trying to reduce some of the barriers, um, that developers and house, uh, home builders, uh, face in Minnesota. Outside of the coalition, Neighbors is also pushing, um, for legislation around, uh, land value tax, um, which we can also get into later if you’d like.
[00:04:42] Ian: Yeah, that’s actually one that I’ve seen some, some stuff about very, very recently that like it went through committee and it might be included in an omnibus in the, in the near future.
[00:04:53] Lincoln: Yeah. So there’s strong support for land value tax in the, um, in the house right now. And, uh, yes, so it’s been introduced and is working its way through its process.
Um, we’re, we’re still looking for, uh, strong champions for the bill in the, uh, Senate tax committee. Um, but yeah, there’s, uh, like strong indications that this could be moving forward in Minnesota.
[00:05:16] Evan: And to tie it back to last year’s, uh, session, uh, one of the, the sort of the housing related, uh, bills that did pass last session was, um, clarifying the sort of a contradiction, uh, conflict between, uh, the Minnesota Environmental Practices Act, uh, and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Yes. Uh, it’s not discussed in terms of like a lawsuit against. uh, Minneapolis, for the Minneapolis 2040 plan, uh, but the issue was really broader than that. And so, um, this was something which was supported both by the League of Minnesota Cities who were opposing, exert sort of more state control of local land use, uh, decisions, or what I’ve, decisions made at the local level now.
Uh, and so since that, you’ve seen a couple of cities, uh, St. Louis Park is one of them, uh, most notably sort of like released proposals for allowing Uh, different types of housing, revising essentially their zoning code. There’s 186 cities in the, uh, in the seven county metro. And so, if it’s done one city at a time, uh, it’ll take a really long time, uh, for our Cities to change zoning, uh, in the way that advocates like Neighbors have been, have been doing, uh, and so that’s why there’s this pressure for, um, uh, for state legislation, because we’ve got just such a diversity, uh, of what’s allowed, where you can build what, uh, very hard to navigate.
Uh, for, for builders, and, uh, and for people just like looking to build a home, um, so.
[00:06:45] Ian: Yeah. So let’s get into the, let’s get into the real juicy details here, like what kinds of, are we talking about broad upzoning across the state, missing middle housing, all those buzzwords?
[00:06:56] Lincoln: Yeah, so I would say that we’re kind of looking at making progress across the spectrum.
Um, there are, uh, things that could be implemented across Minnesota that would increase the housing supply. Um, we really like to frame this, um, uh, In that we need to legalize more starter home options for individuals who are first entering, um, the, the housing market. These could be or like the ADUs, cottage homes.
Some people know them by or in law suites, uh, townhouses duplexes. So, uh, a good option for almost every. residential parcel of land within the state. Yeah. And that’s, it’s really important to try to bring down, um, you know, the first time, uh, homebuyer costs so that people are, are able to enter the market, um, for, for homeowners if, if they’re looking to buy.
[00:07:49] Ian: So what are the mechanisms that we’re targeting here? Are we talking just like Just allowing more units per parcel? Are we talking, like, increasing the floor to area ratios that are allowed? You know, are we pairing all these things together?
[00:08:04] Lincoln: Yeah, so, things like floor to area ratio, like, lot setbacks, things like that, what are typically referred to as bulk controls are ways that municipalities can prevent the building of these types of homes.
I will definitely be talking about those for, uh, some of, some of the other legislative priorities. That we have, um, for the, for the starter homes, uh, a lot of this comes down to, uh, yeah, how many dwellings, uh, can be on a single parcel of land that the ideal number across the entire state would be at least two.
Um, so you would think of a typical home and an ADU or a duplex and then allowing, uh, like lot splitting on parcels that already exist or newly developed home parcels for the creation of townhomes.
[00:08:51] Evan: Uh, and just to sort of say the context with our work on the Minnesota Zoning Atlas, the, you know, the average city in the metro area, uh, they kind of, Stock common most common area rules for a building home is you need about 10, 000 square feet Uh of land, uh, and for you know listeners in Minneapolis and St Paul Uh, that’s sort of twice your kind of average, uh in the the two inner cities the evidence from a lot of cities is that People don’t necessarily want that size of lot, and so what we see in Minnesota cities in the metro area is the, is a large scale use of what’s called a planned unit development.
Most cities have a provision in their code for how this gets done, and it’s essentially like a A developer has to come with a proposal, uh, and they can negotiate the planning approvals for a large number of homes with the city. And so starting with the zoning code as a, uh, as a sort of a template. In that process, and it’s a little opaque, uh, because it’s done sort of in private, um, Developers are often pushing for smaller lots, and you can sort of see this if you drive out into the suburbs, that you’re not seeing, um, new developments have like, you know, 10, 000 square feet.
The homes are on smaller lots. They’re kind of making that up by having, um, a lot of common area, you know, sort of, um, you know, like a park that’s kind of owned in common, lots of driveway space. So the city is maintaining that overall level of density control of like one quarter of an acre per parcel, but the actual amount that a homeowner has to look after is probably closer to your Minneapolis lot than to the sort of the 10, 000.
What happens with all that extra land? Some of it like becomes you know, like it’s a wetland or it’s a field where kids play or whatever, but a lot and a lot of it needs to be kind of managed. Uh, and so you see cities pushing, uh, these new, new, new housing, uh, into homeowners associations, manage that, that space and, uh, the grounds and the mowing and the, you know, plowing of the sidewalks and what have you.
And that is also like a, an issue which is coming up is the, the role of these, um, Uh, homeowners associations, uh, in, uh, new housing developments. The, the direction of the legislation is to say that cities cannot require, as a condition of approving a development, that you have to have a homeowners association.
Our project, uh, with the Minnesota Zoning Atlas and the You know, second year, 25, 26, uh, so starting in the summer, uh, we’ll be sort of working on model zoning code that cities could adopt, uh, to allow townhouses as infill, replacing, you know, two or three single family homes that might have fallen into disrepair.
You can put, you know, 10 to 12 townhouses in that space, uh, incrementally. Cities have generally not planned for, how do we do infill? A lot of city zoning is really about like, okay, we’ve got 100 acres here and we’re dividing it up, and how do we divide it up? They have not made it easy to do infill.
[00:12:06] Ian: Now, Lincoln, on the topic of, um, allowing people to like, split up lots into multiple different smaller lots, um, you know, that, that That makes me think about rural contexts as well, um, is the legislation that we’re pursuing is, is that targeting only like incorporated cities in Minnesota or would that apply?
In like, unincorporated, you know, county jurisdiction areas.
[00:12:33] Lincoln: Yeah, I think this is a really, like, uh, underappreciated aspect of housing work. When people think about infill, um, missing middle, they’re usually thinking about large cities. The, the work that we’re thinking about with, um, like what we’re talking about again with the starter homes.
So this is like having two dwellings on any residential prop, uh, parcel within, um, Minnesota. Uh, the thought process would be that that would be for any, um, you know, current, uh, like housing, uh, parcel. So that would include like rural regions as well. This is, uh, a piece of legislation that we think could apply to pretty much any housing parcel within the state.
[00:13:12] Ian: Okay, okay, interesting. Yeah, because one of the goals of good urbanism, right, is that like we build densely in our population centers so that we don’t have to spread out, you know You mentioned Sierra Club’s concern with you know, urban sprawl, right? And and and one of my yeah one of the things that I have come to appreciate recently is that like there are counties in the metro area where you know, they have Incorporated cities and those, you know, have to, you know, do their comprehensive plans and plan for more big density and everything, but the county itself, you know, outside of those cities, they are able to keep density very low, you know, and, and specifically say like, Oh, you can only have so many housing units per, you know, like per quarter quarter of a township kind of thing. Um, and I see that as a very positive thing because, you know, like we, we want to be able to keep the low density areas, low density, um, you know, for farming or for, you know, public recreation for, you know, like uses that are, that are good outside of cities.
Yeah.
[00:14:25] Lincoln: Yeah, and especially like is like the U. S. farming population also ages like a lot of those people, they live in, um, their farmhouse. They want to leave that to a child who will be taking over the farmstead, but they don’t necessarily want to leave the property where they’ve lived their entire life.
Allowing things like accessory dwelling units on, um, a farm homestead like that can be a really, like, uh, viable option for people as they kind of age out of these larger farmhouses into, like, smaller units.
[00:14:55] Evan: Yeah, and this is, like, a very predominant pattern that on a farm you can have one house. Uh, and it’s, it’s, the, the rule came, it’s important to be clear, it came for good reasons, like concerns about sewer, things like that, they’re trying to limit the supply.
It’s sort of silly, silly sprawl, uh, but it really is a barrier to sort of multi generational families when you’ve got it, when you want to have it, as Lincoln says, uh, in sort of in the metro area where we do have land, which is designated for agricultural purposes in some of the, uh, some of the counties.
Hmong families have been sort of, uh, affected by this. Uh, they want to, you know, there’s people who are not multi generational, but. You know, essentially siblings or cousins who want to farm the same piece of land and have to, you know, what we think of as two farmhouses, uh, but that’s, that’s not allowed.
Uh, and so the issue, you know, comes up in a slightly different way in rural areas, but essentially it’s the same. Uh, it’s the same one.
[00:15:49] Ian: Interesting. Yeah. Thanks for that context.
[00:15:52] Lincoln: The next like level of increase in density that you can think about would be increasing up to like triplexes or quadplexes in very specific regions across the state.
Something that we’ve been considering or like looking at within Minnesota is the, uh, state of Minnesota actually provides about $200 million to local municipalities every year for the, um, maintenance and, um, like repaving of, uh, what are called municipal state age streets. Um, so these are streets that the municipalities have deemed of high importance and the state helps them either create these roads or or manage them.
Something we’ve been thinking about is making sure that if the state is providing this funding to municipalities that there is good land use around these streets. So the one of our legislative priorities would be to kind of evaluate these MSA streets, which are located in about 150 cities across Minnesota, and try to allow higher density around these streets, whether it be like triplexes or quadplexes so we’re kind of moving up in the density ladder.
But trying to target it to very specific locations where the state is putting, uh, investment anyway.
[00:17:05] Ian: Now, the state aid roads, the funding source comes with a requirement that the municipalities have to build them to certain standards. As I understand it, like, makes a lot of these state aid roads some of the more dangerous ones for pedestrians.
Because they have like wider lanes, you know, feels like drivers can, can go faster. Are we, are we putting ourselves in a position where we’re like, trying to make a lot of people live in high density housing right next to some of the most dangerous streets in the state?
[00:17:39] Evan: This would not just be on, uh, on the municipal state streets, uh, but in a sort of a buffer around them.
Stand, uh, into, uh, you know, what we in Minneapolis of interior streets. And so in that way, so capture more, uh, more of the land area, more of the residential land, uh, than just along the streets, I think is sort of in America, in the context of North American planning, a pretty, uh, important innovation because it does get us away from that model, um, of.
If you want to have anything other than a single family home, essentially you’re going to be on, on a, on a major street.
[00:18:17] Ian: Right. Right. So what were the, what were some of the specific numbers for like, Like what kind of density we’re targeting near state aid roads.
[00:18:26] Lincoln: So we’d be thinking like triplexes and quadplexes, um, like within a certain, uh, buffer distance.
And, you know, this is obviously something that’s going to have to be negotiated out within the legislative process. Obviously we would like to see the buffers go out as far as possible up to like a quarter mile.
[00:18:43] Ian: Any other, any other big items?
[00:18:46] Lincoln: Yeah. So the last big one, I guess we can talk about is like legalizing homes near destinations is kind of what we’re referring to, how we’re referring to the bill.
And this would really be legalizing residential housing options within commercial areas. So most folks, they want to be able to live near amenities that makes their home like worth living in things like grocery stores and coffee shops and gyms, hardware stores. The way that the current zoning is structured really segregates residential housing from these commercial centers that people want to live in.
So we will definitely be pushing legislation looking to allow commercial, uh, uh, or residential housing to be built in commercial zones. Um, like the typical example that most people think about something like this would be like a five over one. So, yeah, that’s kind of the last main piece of legislation, as well as, uh, you know, there’s gonna be some smaller bills as well that will make, uh, the, the building of homes easier, hopefully.
Things like limiting municipalities from setting like aesthetic standards that make it harder to build housing things like, uh, the people will also be supporting like the people over parking act, um, which will, uh, remove, um, residential parking mandates, um, across the state, which is something that has already occurred here in, uh, St. Paul and Minneapolis. And, um, yeah, some, uh, another small bill will be, uh, regarding clarifying some liability issues for condo builders. Um, if you have any background knowledge in this, like condos are harder to build in Minnesota, and there haven’t been many built in the past few decades, um, and part of the reason why, uh, due to, um, there’s some, there’s, uh, uh, some clarity that needs to be addressed within, um, the, the liability the builders face when they’re trying to build finance and insure.
These like condo buildings. So those are the main,
[00:20:45] Ian: that sounds like something that could be an entire episode all on its own liability. That sounds fascinating.
[00:20:52] Lincoln: The last one is really just land value tax, which I know you’ve previously covered Ian and a couple of podcasts. Um, this is just gonna be the last priority that Neighbors, uh, for More Neighbors will also be pushing, um, which will just be to allow for, uh, municipalities to, uh, restructure their property tax scheme.
Um, to try to invent, incentivize development on, uh, vacant lots. Um, things like parking lots or, or undeveloped land within their jurisdiction to hopefully provide more incentive for the landowner to, uh, develop the land rather than, uh, sit on it as like a land speculation.
[00:21:29] Ian: Yeah. Is this current legislation like a pilot program kind of thing still or, or have we moved past that?
Are we just like, is the current legislation kind of allowing municipalities everywhere to do this?
[00:21:41] Lincoln: So the current language would allow municipalities to go forth.
[00:21:45] Ian: Alright, Lincoln, Evan, thanks for coming on the show.
[00:21:49] Evan: Yep, thank you, Ian. Thank you.
[00:21:59] Ian: Next, we’ve caught up with Peter Wagenius, legislative director at Sierra Club North Star Chapter, after the Transit Equity Day celebration.
[00:22:08] Peter: Yeah, our big top takeaways for 2025 is that Uh, we have to play defense. I wish that weren’t true, but we have to play a lot of defense. Uh, Sierra Club is part of the Yes to Homes, uh, land use reform coalition.
And we’re not, we’re not stopping our advocacy for land use reforms. But we’re trying to do that simultaneously with playing defense to protect our biggest wins from 2023. And in the
[00:22:35] Ian: Which would be like the three quarter cent sales tax Yes. for transit. Any, any other major ones from 2023 that were still
[00:22:43] Peter: The three quarter cent metro wide sales tax for transit, and I, let me just spell that out a little bit more, for transit walking and biking Yes.
all of the above, because they’re all threatened Mm hmm. is probably the biggest one. And I can speak to why that’s the, the, the biggest threat, but let me just identify a couple of the others. Uh, another big victory from 2023 was the Climate Impactive Highways Law. And as a matter of fact, earlier this evening we heard from Larry Kraft, who was the lead author of that law, and Katie Jones, new state representative, who worked with, uh, Representative Kraft as an outside advocate to, to pass that law.
That’s a piece of policy that is really important to Uh, constrain, uh, vehicle miles traveled. And just so your viewers understand what that bill did, is, it said to MnDOT, you cannot build projects that will exceed our greenhouse gas reduction targets, or our vehicle miles traveled reduction targets.
We’re the first state in the nation to have a climate impact of laws that uses both of those. Okay. Colorado has done one. I think we’re the second. But we’re the only one that has said You have to meet a greenhouse gas reduction target and a vehicle miles travel reduction target. That’s really important because we’re trying to get people to obey a law they don’t necessarily wanna obey.
So it’s kind of a belt and suspenders thing. Okay. You really wanna constrain them. And what it says is if they, and, and we have a greenhouse gas reduction target goal now 20%. Okay. VMT reduction target. And if they’re gonna ex
[00:24:22] Ian: 20% by when?
[00:24:24] Peter: Uh, I think it’s 2040. Okay. Unfortunately, it’s 20 percent per capita, which is not what we wanted.
We wanted 20 percent in absolute terms. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still, it’s still a big deal. Mm hmm. To get any state DOT to be required to meet a VMT reduction target is a big deal. And a crucial part of that is that with any individual project, they either have to adjust the project to make it not exceed VMT reduction goals.
Or they have to pair it with other projects that will, or they have to cancel it. It’s a great law, but over the long term, are we going to actually be able to enforce that law? If MnDOT doesn’t have the ability to use their dollars on good things? I think a lot of people would like to believe that MnDOT has categories of projects.
Projects that are good for the climate, and projects that are bad for the climate. And I hate to break it to you, but for the most part they have two types of projects. Projects that keep the number of lanes, which is to say they perpetuate emissions, or they increase the number of lanes, which is to say they make it worse.
We actually have to make it legal for them to obey the law. We have to make it legal for them to do good things. So we’re trying to lay the groundwork for MnDOT to have the flexibility to use their dollars on good things. Like, for example, highway bus rapid transit on highways. That’s an obvious one.
It’s clearly constitutional. And so that’s something we’re trying to work on.
[00:25:51] Ian: And if it, and you’re talking about MnDOT being able to use money for that. Because currently all of our highway BRT stuff has been like Metro Transit led. That’s right. But if we had MnDOT leading it, then we could do that in more places in the states.
[00:26:04] Peter: Yes, absolutely. I mean when people think about, Uh, the I 94 project between the two downtowns.
[00:26:11] Ian: Yeah.
[00:26:11] Peter: Um, or even getting BRT south of downtown, which tragically we had to do in the context of a highway expansion project. Right, right, right. Because at the time we weren’t as strong a coalition as we are now.
[00:26:21] Ian: Right, right.
[00:26:22] Peter: But
[00:26:23] Ian: part of the And it shows, because the orange line like goes very quickly in the sections where that reconstruction happened. And then south of that, you know, it has to exit. and go to a station and then get back on and it’s like, yeah.
[00:26:35] Peter: That’s right. And that project took 20 years.
And threats of lawsuits and all this crazy stuff. And part of it is because everybody was debating the color of money. Well, is, is that a dollar you can use for a transit station? Or is that a dollar you can only use for a retaining wall next to a transit station? Oh my god, stop, you’re killing me. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Just build good things. Yeah, yeah. And MnDOT, to their credit, is finally asking. They’re asking for the flexibility to build good things. And we should be helping them. But Republicans don’t want to help them. They have a really narrow view. And frankly, some Democrats have a really narrow view. That the Constitution says, and this is wrong, the Constitution doesn’t say they can only use dollars for steel, concrete, and roads and retaining walls.
It actually says highway purpose. And highway purpose can include helping people in a highway travelshed get where they’re going. I mean, we use highway dollars for all kinds of things. Those little vehicles that come, you know, deal with accidents are paid for with trunk highway dollars. So it’s not a constitutional problem.
It’s a political problem. And we’re trying to build support to say, let’s help MnDOT obey the law. It will also make a difference on every project. Think about all the fights that communities have had over highway projects. It’s happening right now between the two downtowns. It’s happening. In Brooklyn Center over Highway 252, MnDOT comes to the community and says, what do you want?
And the community says, we don’t want a wider highway. Yeah. We want transit. We want different ways to get around.
[00:28:05] Ian: And, and MnDOT says, Hey, what, what about a wider highway? Yeah.
[00:28:08] Peter: And, and, and they say, sorry, we can’t fund the thing you want. We can only fund a wider highway. Well, why did you ask the question then about what do we want?
If the only answer is more highway, then cut it out. Yeah. Ask a real question and get a real answer.
[00:28:21] Ian: So let’s, so to clarify, like, like. This year, our legislative agenda is passing some laws that allow MnDOT to do that, but how? Like, what’s the mechanism?
[00:28:31] Peter: Let me be a, let me be a little less grandiose. Right now, we want to protect the climate impact of highways law.
And there are Republicans who are blaming every problem under the sun. You know, if the cost of a project goes up by $10, they say, what’s the climate impact of highways law? It’s ridiculous. Our near term goal is to defend the climate impact of highways law from these ridiculous Republican attacks, claiming that it’s raising costs.
Ultimately, the climate impact of highways law is actually going to save us a lot of money because we’re going to build more efficient infrastructure. Right, right, right. We also want to lay the groundwork by reminding people that we need to give MnDOT the flexibility to obey the law. The flexibility to build good projects.
Because we’re playing so much defense, I don’t know how much time we’re going to be able to put into that, but we are having those conversations. This will fundamentally change how each individual project is dealt with by MnDOT and by the community. If the community around Highway 252, if the community around Interstate 94, if any community dealing with MnDOT is told by MnDOT, we can’t pay for anything good, that corrupts every process over every project.
Imagine how different it will be. After we have given MnDOT flexibility to spend money on good things, it won’t just change how they behave, it will change every community conversation. Because the community will be able to say, No, no, you can pay for what we want. You don’t have to do this color of money problem where, Oh, I’m sorry, we can’t pay for that, Met Council has to pay for that.
No, no, they can just pay for it. And we will be
[00:30:12] Ian: And MnDOT is where the big money is.
[00:30:14] Peter: MnDOT is where the big money is. It’s ultimately not about, I think some legislators think it’s about, well you just want more money for transit. We want to change the conversation. We want to empower communities to get what they want from MnDOT and for MnDOT to be able to say yes.
So that, that is what we’re doing on that side of defending the 2023 win. Building on the climate of impact of highways. Making it be something that works for MnDOT, works for our goals, and works for individual communities trying to design projects that work for them. But the biggest fight of all,is the fight over transit dollars.
Okay. And if you want to talk about that, we can go to that next.
[00:30:51] Ian: No, for sure, yeah. I mean, that’s, like, the big shocker this year was when all of a sudden, Governor Walz, like, proposed Huge cuts to the budgets of was it just Metro Transit or is it like transit agencies statewide?
[00:31:06] Peter: Oh, it’s just Metro Transit.
[00:31:07] Ian: Great. Great. Yeah, that makes me feel great.
[00:31:09] Peter: Well, and frankly, this is this is let’s just talk about governance for a second when people wonder Hey you nerds, Peter, Sam Rockwell, Elissa, Why do you always talk about governance reform so much because in my entire life the Met Council Has been an afterthought for governors.
And that’s a problem because the governor appoints every member of the Metropolitan Council.
[00:31:31] Ian: It is such a bizarro world seeing Charlie Zelle having to, like, tow, not the party line, but the governor’s line. And being like, yeah, I want less money. Which, like, if he was an elected official, he would never say that.
[00:31:46] Peter: No, no, no, never. If the Met Council was accountable to voters in the metropolitan area, we would not be having this problem. But because the Met Council is reactive to one and only one person, a governor who’s elected by statewide voters, um, we have this problem all the time. Yeah. For my entire career. And by the way, you said, is it only Metro Transit?
Let me be really specific with your listeners. We looked at every transit system in the state of Minnesota. That is running fixed route transit. I’m not talking about Dial A Ride. I’m talking about fixed route transit. Yep. That’s Mankato, St. Cloud, Rochester, Duluth, Moorhead, Fargo Moorhead area, and Winona.
Okay. In every single one of those communities, the transit agency is responsive and accountable only to local elected officials. So why is it that the most, the biggest and most important transit system doesn’t have that same protection of being accountable to local elected officials in the metropolitan area.
It’s a problem. Yeah.
[00:32:47] Ian: Yeah. Yeah, and so We have a great way of
framing it that I’ve never heard before
[00:32:53] Peter: We brought it to the legislature last year and we were supporting Frank Hornstein and Scott Dibble’s efforts to reform the Met Council Because because we keep running into problems like this. Yeah, so so so how did we get here?
We got to remind people and this is what we were talking about earlier tonight what we were talking about earlier tonight is, let’s remember how we passed this historic 2023 transportation bill. With the climate impact of highways law, with this historic funding for transit that I’ve wanted my entire life.
Um, that we’ve been working for for decades. It passed because of champions in the Minnesota legislature.
[00:33:27] Ian: Mm hmm.
[00:33:28] Peter: It had virtually nothing to do with Governor Walz.
[00:33:31] Ian: Right.
[00:33:32] Peter: He never proposed a three quarter cent metro wide sales tax in the first place. He posed a dinky little one eighth of a cent metro sales tax, which would have barely filled Metro Transit’s operating deficit.
But that wasn’t our goal. Our goal wasn’t to maintain the transit system. Our goal is to reduce vehicle miles traveled, promote climate and equity, and expand the bus rapid transit system throughout the metro area. Yep. So the legislature made that happen.
[00:33:57] Ian: And we made it happen by building a coalition that was metro wide, not just in the core, but suburbs as well.
[00:34:03] Peter: Absolutely! We had, one of the best things that’s changed in my lifetime is seeing Suburban Democrats, stand up for transit. Suburban Democrats like Larry Kraft, who is here tonight. Uh, like, uh, Senator Lindsey Port from Burnsville.
[00:34:17] Ian: And if we promise them highway BRT lines, you know, that we’ll be able to spin up with this new money, and then suddenly next year, like, take away the other, like, the pot of money that we traditionally rely on for transit.
Like, we’re not going to be able to deliver on those promises.
[00:34:35] Peter: Oh, absolutely. If, if, if these proposals, either the, the cut from Walz or the cut from House Republicans go through, it’s, it’s not that We’re going to stop running buses. It’s that it’s going to Significantly curtail our ability to expand the metro transit system throughout the metro area, which is what we all fought for which was promised When they signed the bill in 2023, so so Governor Walz is proposing this and this is this is what I was telling people tonight there’s a lot of crazy stuff happening at the Capitol right now, and it seems like Like, all of these things could happen.
The good news is, most of these crazy bills are not going to happen. The House Republicans are performing. They’re putting on a show for their donors and their delegates. But this cut to Metro Transit, walking, and biking, and it really is all three, because it’s a cut to Met Council, and the Metro wide sales tax is supposed to pay for transit, walking, and biking, that’s a real threat, because it’s not just the Republicans pushing it, it’s Walz pushing it.
And Frankly, this is a part of an alarming trend from Walz. He’s not just undermining this, he’s undermining the 100 percent clean energy law at the same time. We weren’t really talking about this last year, frankly because Walz was running for vice president. Sure. And now that that’s over, we need to just elevate the people who are really doing the work.
Yeah. That’s Metro, that’s uh, Sierra Club’s strategy. Elevate the people who are doing the work, which is our legislative champion.
[00:36:05] Ian: So, so where the heck are these, like, proposed budget cuts coming from? Like, why, like, why do we have a deficit all of a sudden?
[00:36:13] Peter: Yeah. What’s going on? So, some of the social services are costing more money than was originally predicted.
Uh, some of that’s like actuarial tables, right? Like how long people are living. Um, and it may be that some of the things that were proposed in 2023, not in the transit world, not in the transportation world, just cost a little bit more than, than were expected. But here’s the important thing to understand.
Um, if a legislator tells you, Oh, well, there’s a structural budget deficit in the out years, meaning not this year, next year, but in the future. Therefore, we need to cut services? Eh, wrong answer. That’s not how this works. It’s true that they need to reduce expenditures. But expenditures have multiple forms.
Services is one thing you could cut. Another thing they could do is cut tax expenditures, which is corporate welfare. And that’s what we were talking about earlier tonight. It’s hard to believe people could be this clueless in the context of Elon Musk and his tech bros trying to dismantle democracy in America.
But believe it or not, there are serious proposals right now. To increase and make perpetual a tax credit for data centers owned by Amazon and Microsoft and Google.
[00:37:32] Ian: Uh huh.
[00:37:32] Peter: A tax credit that was originally projected to cost the state of Minnesota $4.7 million a year, is now costing the state of Minnesota 110 million a year.
And it’s projected to rise as more data centers come online for AI and cryptocurrency and meme coins and all this crazy bullsh They actually want to give corporate welfare to oligarchs with invitations to inaugurations. The worst wealthiest people on the planet want tax dollars. This is a direct trade off with transit, Ian.
[00:38:06] Ian: Yeah, yeah.
[00:38:07] Peter: If they would actually curtail the greed of these corporations We wouldn’t have to cut transit one penny. And there’s other examples. One of the same senators who wants to give a tax credit to data centers, to Microsoft and Google and Amazon, wants to give a bigger tax credit to Big Ag and ethanol.
Ethanol has the longest proven track record of failing to meet any carbon reduction goals. I mean, the number of, quote, advanced biofuels under the renewable fuel standard was zero. Zero gallons, zero gallons, zero gallons year after year. We’re going to shovel more money at them, at the expense of transit?
This is crazy. Sierra Club right now is part of a broad coalition of organizations, not just environmental organizations, who testified earlier today, and are going to keep testifying, um, to make legislators make a choice. To shine a light on all this corporate welfare. To say, you don’t actually have to make any of these cuts to services.
You don’t have to cut transit one penny. You just have to Not feed the greed of these oligarchs, and then transit will be fine. And I recommend to all your listeners that they engage with their legislator. If you have a legislator who says, oh, well, we need to cut something, let’s, let’s, we’re gonna show them a real menu of things they can cut.
[00:39:27] Ian: Mm hmm.
[00:39:28] Peter: Start with tax credit for data centers, start with tax credits for ethanol, and there’ll be more to come. Nice. A successful transit system has big LRT lines and also a lot of connecting bus service. And the proposal to, to kill the Bottineau BRT line is also out there and it’s a pretty stupid proposal.
[00:39:47] Ian: Um, We haven’t even talked about Northstar.
[00:39:50] Peter: Yes, well Northstar is a more complicated topic. Let’s just focus on Bottineau. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, Bottineau LRT runs through Golden Valley-New Hope-Crystal-Robbinsdale. Sure. And any of your listeners
[00:40:03] Ian: That’s my favorite suburb.
[00:40:05] Peter: Anybody who lives in those communities Transits should speak up for Bottineau LRT.
Yeah. They should also speak up for the bus funding, which is the most threatened, because we want Southwest and Bottineau to be successful. And the way people use transit has changed. Fewer people are going to and from downtown for peak hour service. But these projects can still be successful if they’re part of an integrated network, and it just so happens that the same Senator who’s pushing the data centers tax credit represents the Bottineau LRT line.
Hey, well, do we want that? So if you’re in New Hope-Crystal-Robbinsdale, you got to speak up for no cuts to Bottineau, But also no cuts to bus transit because Southwest and Bottineau Need connecting bus service to be successful
[00:40:55] Ian: How many of these data centers are in New Hope-Crystal-Robins?
[00:40:59] Peter: Oh, they’re not. Exactly. They’re not. And there are no cornfields in White Bear Lake. I’d much rather be putting money into clean energy manufacturing, transit, things that employ people on a permanent ongoing basis. Nice. So if you live in those suburbs, you really need to speak up.
[00:41:16] Ian: Sweet. Peter, thanks for coming on the show.
[00:41:18] Peter: Thank you, Ian. Love talking to you.
[00:41:26] Ian: And finally, I sat down with Eric Noonan, Communications Manager at the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, during their day on the hill.
[00:41:35] Erik: Yeah, so 23 was really the year that we were able to accomplish a lot of stuff. It was our dream list, um, of things that we thought were maybe right at the edge of what was possible.
That resulted in us kind of going back to the table and saying, okay, well, what, what is that next phase really of our organization? It lined up with, uh, the new executive director, Michael Wojcik, um, taking over that role and us reimagining kind of, well, how do we have this being kind of grassroots driven?
Um, we did out some membership polling, and a lot of that pointed to that the needs are really local level, but the, the state level needs, they still exist, and they’re pretty big.
[00:42:12] Ian: Right, and how can the state level stuff support those local needs?
[00:42:15] Erik: Yeah, exactly. And that’s, uh, for people who aren’t as familiar with the Bicycle Alliance, I, I would say that the way that we are truly different than the other Transportation Non Profits is that, We, uh, have a bigger presence outside the metro than we do in the metro.
Uh, we, we have 13 chapters around the state. Uh, so if you are wanting to talk to people who want to see bike ped or transit get better in Duluth or Rochester or really, you know, small communities too. Uh, Willmar, Minnesota or Fergus Falls. That’s us. That’s our organization.
[00:42:46] Ian: One frustration from last year. That I remember was, uh, the e bike rebates process. Once it actually happened, people were not very happy with the results. So what are we doing to address that this year.
[00:42:59] Erik: Yeah, I would say that it’s not even just to some people. I don’t know of anyone who’s like, yeah, that was, that was well done. I will say that, you know, subtly, and we try to keep this close to the chest.
I think there’s a point of pride that, um, there was enough demand for this program. Sure. Despite how small it was around the state that we crashed a Salesforce server. Um, and, uh, that’s my understanding. It’s not easy to do. That’s Minnesota Exceptionalism for you right there. Minnesota Exceptionalism.
Someone tell McKnight. Um, the Um, yeah, that was It was not the best rollout that I’ve ever seen of any program
anyone’s ever done. And I think that that’s acknowledged by our state government.
[00:43:38] Ian: And not, not throwing shade at like the, the Department of Revenue or anybody.
[00:43:42] Erik: They were really busy rolling out weed too, which a shout out to that recent episode.
[00:43:46] Ian: But, but you know, they, they were constrained in a lot of ways by the wording in the actual law. They were. We’re addressing some of those issues.
[00:43:53] Erik: And I think that, especially for listeners, what I try to reinforce is. The bill that made it through at the end is different than the bill when it was first introduced.
The intention of the original bill was very much that this is something that would go towards helping people who did not otherwise have the financial means to purchase an e- bike that was good quality, that was safe, and that would facilitate them having that transportation option. Right. And that, you know, in addition to again, the Salesforce server crashing and the frustration about that initial rollout is when you look at the kind of the results of that, that equity component, it didn’t make it through the way that it should have.
And that’s really disappointing to see that the kind of the people who were intended to have to be helped to be helped by it, that that’s didn’t make it to them. And there’s a number of reasons why that happened, but definitely one of those is it was available to first come first serve on a Tuesday morning at 11 a.
m. Right. You know, in the middle of summer and it’s, it’s, um, there’s a certain type of person who has the flexibility in their schedule to be able to be online and have a reliable connection at that time of day. And that, you know, that Venn diagram overlap is not as big with the people who need that transportation as you’d maybe want it to be.
So that’s one of the things that we’re hoping to address this year. What we’re starting with on that is shifting to a lottery system, which I think many people looking at that, especially Given that the fallout of it. It makes a ton of sense is why did we try to have people line up? All at the same time and whoever had the best internet connection had a chance at maybe getting you know This very small number of rebates and I think that that’s the other part of it. Is that People were excited about this My understanding is that we’re around 60, 000 people simultaneously trying to get onto the Department of Revenue’s website at the same time, hence, uh, you know, accidentally facilitated a DDoS attack. Uh, but the, um, the demand, uh, far outstripped the capacity, even had this rollout been flawless.
Sure. Because we’re talking about, you know, 3,000 and some change number of people who were able to get this money. And there’s a great, um, SRF Consulting, uh, put together this great one pager about how just, you know, pie in the sky idea, if we had actually funded this robustly, um, in a way that would mean that anyone who wanted this rebate, uh, could get it similar to how we do for electric cars, um, Um, the cost to be able to provide that to again, just everyone who is simultaneously online so that, you know, roughly 60,000 people, it would cost less than a freeway interchange and it would facilitate half the state’s, uh, greenhouse gas emission reductions essentially overnight.
Um, just, and that was a very conservative estimate based on other states, uh, that have done a rebate program. Uh, and it’s one of those things where it’s like, why are we not doing this? Well, you know, the funding doesn’t always work that way. Um, so there’s some bills that we’re working on this year around that as well, the way that we fund transportation.
But the, um, For the e bike rebate bill, the things that are currently in play as we talk right now on February 27th, uh, is that it’s hopefully going to be switched to a lottery system, and that there’s also going to be robust tracking behind it, and so that tracking component, um, is really important to us making the case that this is something that we should try to do again.
Again, we’re coming into the second year of this rebate being available, and it’s, again, it’s not a lot of money. We’re talking about a couple million dollars here, um, But we’re making the case for like, what if there was a pot of money that was just every year it was replenished in the same way that we did, uh, you know, electric vehicle subsidies, uh, electric car subsidies.
[00:47:29] Ian: Is the electric vehicle thing, is that a federal level or is that state level?
[00:47:32] Erik: That’s a good question. Uh, I don’t know that Minnesota ever did a state level one. Okay.
Um, but there’s some, some other subsidies around that that are not pertinent maybe to the, the electric vehicle itself. But I believe, I believe there’s some, some, uh, IRA funding that is applicable to like home charging and the voltage upgrades and that kind of stuff. Maybe you can bring Peter Wagenius back to answer some of those questions for you, Um, but yeah, it’s, it’s, uh, it was by far the highest profile bike, anything that happened in 2024 and it was, um, a frustrating, again, roll out for everyone.
[00:48:06] Ian: Oh yeah.
[00:48:07] Erik: We can talk about the bills that we are putting through here. Yeah, absolutely. First off, the state of Minnesota is responsible for Safe Routes to School as a program existing nationwide.
It had stopped existing , um, Jim Oberstar, representative for the state of Minnesota, uh, was institutional in getting that to happen federally because it had been so successful here in the state of Minnesota. That the way that the funding structure for that works is that, um, the state of Minnesota funds that at a level of 500,000 a year, uh, which is a lot of, if you’re talking about an individual income, uh, but when you’re talking about.
Statewide funding of anything you’re talking about. That’s that’s that’s a traffic light. Maybe
[00:48:43] Ian: right.
[00:48:44] Erik: Um, and so every year we come and we say, Hey, like, this is a really successful program. Department of Health likes this department education like this. Parents like this. Everyone likes this. And so we get many times that number, but we have to keep coming and asking for it.
[00:48:59] Ian: And it’s just one safe routes to school funding. How much could it cost?
[00:49:03] Erik: Exactly. Well, more than 500,000. The answer. Uh, and Um, that kind of, it hinders a lot of the efforts involved with that because you’re talking about staff members who are looking at this as, okay, well, I have this position for two years, but then it might go away depending on if like BikeMN is able to ask for enough money next time.
And so we are hopefully this year going to be bumping that number up to a level of reality of what that’s actually costing around the state to facilitate. And so, um, we have a number of bills that are currently making their way through, but right now what we’re looking at is, uh, somewhere between $10 and 20 million as the, the, the annualized number.
What this funding means is that it’s not just the wealthy school districts that have. You know, the, the bandwidth to apply for the grants to make this stuff happen is that when there is a larger pool of money, it means that the, the smaller school districts that may be less financially well off school districts, they’re still going to benefit from more kids being able to get to school safely on their own.
Um, and that is the goal is that, uh, that, that’s something that we hope to spread. And I guess on that note too, what I kind of harken back to one of the things that we accomplished in 2023 was that a mandate around bike education in schools. So we got that through, which is excellent. Uh, first state in the nation to do that is my understanding.
Um, and the reality of that one is we’re, we’re not at a hundred percent of kids getting this education yet. We’re, we’re still sitting around 30, 40%.
[00:50:34] Ian: Oh my God.
[00:50:34] Erik: Um, and a lot of that is, uh, this awareness between kind of the state level agencies. And when he could actually down to the school districts. But what this mandate means is that if you’re a school teacher, if you’re a parent, uh, this exists and you can say, Hey, why aren’t we doing this yet?
Um, it’s mandated and you kind of have that, uh, that gravitas, that energy behind it to be able to say that this is something that needs to happen.
[00:50:57] Ian: I remember in years past, we were trying to get like. Speed limit lowerings near schools, right? Regardless of like, state highway, county road status and stuff like that.
Did we win that or is that still something we’re working on?
[00:51:14] Erik: It’s in play right now. Um, so that, what it’s going to look like is that that’s the new design standard. Is when a new school is built or when a road is redone, that again, somebody can point to this and be like, This needs to be a roadway that is safe for kids to cross.
[00:51:28] Ian: Right. Decriminalizing jaywalking.
[00:51:30] Erik: Surprisingly, to me at least, we now have bipartisan support for it.
Nice. I think it’s kind of under that idea that like, we have laws in the books.that are dumb. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it’s okay to look at those and have, you know, fresh eyes on them and be like, does this make sense in the context of, you know, this year of our Lord 2025?
Um, Jaywalking doesn’t.
[00:51:48] Ian: Honestly, like, I, until I saw it on the list of things that we were advocating for this year, I had assumed that jaywalking was not a criminal offense, that it was just like, oh, if I’m crossing mid block, like, I don’t have the right-of-way. I’m still allowed to do it if there are no cars coming.
But, like. Like, the common sense understanding of, of that scenario is like, does not align up with
[00:52:14] Erik: the lived experience of anyone. Like, you’re a car driver. You park on one side of the street. Are you going to go down to the crosswalk to get to the restaurant that’s directly across the street? No, you’re going to wait for the traffic to cross, and then you’re going to cross mid block.
And that’s you deciding what is the safest option for you, and statistically in the state of Minnesota. We actually score really poorly, uh, at safety at intersections where we are telling pedestrians currently that they are required to cross or, you know, or else they might face a criminal prosecution.
And it’s like, this is, this is insanity. This is a dumb thing that we’re doing right now and we don’t have to do it that way. Yeah.
[00:52:47] Ian: As long as we don’t have the word practicable written into it,
[00:52:49] Erik: we are trying to get away from that one. And that’s a great segue into the also in 23, we passed a one half of the Idaho stop.
Yep. And so with this one, we’re saying, Hey, you know, if you’re If you’re on a bike at a red light, you’re very vulnerable, uh, if somebody doesn’t see you or they’re, they’re looking for the lights change and they’re not paying attention that there’s a, you know, small person on a bicycle in front of them that, you know, they very well might, uh, rear end you.
And it’s also the fact that like when you’re on a bike, you’re safest when you’re in motion because you’re able to determine, uh, your movement, which is not true when you’re at a, you know, dead stop. You’re ready to talk about the inspector general. I think that that’s the other big piece of infrastructure of legislation that we’re working on this year.
So I guess I’ll start by talking about what an inspector general is, uh, an inspector general is internal to an organization, but they’re essentially self policing. It’s saying, Hey, are we doing things in the right way? Are we doing things per the letter of the law and our mandates and, and, uh, uh, making sure that, um, you know, Those laws that we passed in 23 and 24, and before that, and after, that were building roadway projects such that when we build a road next to a school, assuming we pass this law, that it’s being built at a design standard, that means that people are going to drive 15 miles an hour.
The unfortunate reality is that, uh, the central office is sometimes good at this.
[00:54:13] Ian: Central office of MnDOT?
[00:54:14] Erik: MnDOT, yeah. And as soon as you get out into the districts, um, there’s a lot of people that don’t. It hasn’t, that information hasn’t made it out there that like we have a statewide VMT reduction mandate or that when they’re designing a project that involves bike or pedestrian facilities, that they can’t just cut that right away, that that needs to make it into the kind of the finalized, um, uh, form of that design options before they even talk about, is this something that’s necessary within the context of this project?
And those aren’t happening unfortunately yet. And we’re tracking on a number of projects across the state. That, that are like that. Um, one that is particularly relevant to, to my boss, uh, uh, Michael, um, is the busiest intersection in, in Rochester. And that is being redone here in a couple of years. And they, they’ve not done a good job, uh, of, you know, not adding roadway capacity to the, again, the busiest intersection in the third largest city in the state.
Uh, and the bike/ped facilities on that are, are pretty trash. Um, and. It’s, you know, resulting in all sorts of ramifications for that city being able to expand, um, uh, transit services and accessibility to places like the farmer’s market down there and the shopping mall and areas that are supposed to be transit, um, oriented, but are going to stay as drive throughs unless this intersection is done correctly.
Uh, and this intersection should have been done correctly. So, again, we’re trying to make sure that there’s a MnDOT with the authority to say, Um, this project needs to halt until we do it correctly. Um, and this is kind of tying on to a bigger conversation that is very popular, especially with the Republicans right now, is these officers and inspectors, inspector general, uh, they’re kind of looking at it as a like fraud prevention.
We would love to have the conversation be about kind of, are we spending money in ways that are necessary when it comes to, you know, highways, uh, but I think the purpose of this one really is, is, uh, you know, are these design standards being met, um, and how do we facilitate that? So. Again, an example of a bill that we’ve been able to get bipartisan support for and we’re really hopeful.
Uh, and also a bill, I believe currently we have six different bills going through that there are some variation of this one, but we hope in the coming weeks that that’ll, you know, uh, uh, consolidate down into, to, to one finalized version that’ll make it through all the different committees in time by, by June.
[00:56:34] Ian: Honestly, the, the like version control on the state legislative website. Like, it, it, uh, it impresses me just as much as like GitHub does. .
[00:56:44] Erik: If, if only, yeah. Uh, yeah, we need, we need more, um, uh, we need more educators on, on, on how to successfully use versioning. Uhhuh , uh, yeah. No, uh, uh, my colleague CJ and I, uh, last night at 9:00 PM we’re still sorting through kind of as new bills were coming in, uh, that had, uh, been.
You know, made it, made it through the reviser’s office yesterday. So we have our work cut out for us as we look at the finish line for, for this legislative session. But we, we are really optimistic on the majority of these. And we, we believe that we’ll really be successful in, in shifting the conversation and also in achieving a lot of these goals.
Again, these, these goals were ones that were set from our The surveys that we sent out to our membership, which were all ideas that came in through that.
[00:57:28] Ian: Right, right. Which is why most of them like, feel like just common sense things, right?
[00:57:34] Erik: 100%. It’s the kind of thing that you wonder why it didn’t happen before.
Right. Um, yeah. Like jaywalking. Exactly.
[00:57:45] Ian: Awesome. Erik, thanks for coming on the show. Very happy to be here. And thank you for joining us for this episode of the Streets.mn podcast. The show is released under a Creative Commons attribution, non commercial, non derivative license, so feel free to republish the episode as long as you are not altering it and you are not profiting from it.
The music in this episode is by Erik Brandt and the Urban Hillbilly Quartet. This episode was hosted and edited by me, Ian R. Buck, and was transcribed by Stina Neel. We are always looking to feature new voices on the Streets.mn Podcast. So if you have ideas for future episodes, drop us a line at [[email protected]]. Streets.mn is a community blog and podcast and relies on contributions from audience members like you. If you can make a one-time or recurring donation, you can find more information about doing so at [https://streets.mn/donate]. Find other listeners and discuss this episode on your favorite social media platform using the hashtag #streetsmnpodcast.
Until next time, take care.