By Alex Brown, Stateline.org

For years, Western leaders have debated the creation of a regional energy market: a coordinated grid to pool solar power in Arizona, wind in Wyoming, hydro in Washington and battery storage in California.

The shared resources would meet the demands of 11 different states, bolstering utilities’ local power plants with surplus energy from across the region.

With the passage of a landmark new law in California, that market is finally on its way to becoming a reality. Proponents say it has the potential to lower energy costs, make the grid more resilient and speed up the deployment of clean energy.

But the market’s success, experts agree, depends heavily on which states and utilities decide to opt in. As energy issues have become increasingly politicized, it’s uncertain whether Western leaders can buy into a common vision for meeting the region’s power needs.

“As we move toward weather-dependent renewables to run our grid, we’ve got to have a grid that is bigger than a weather pattern,” said California Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation aimed at establishing the new market. “A Western energy market is critical.”

The California measure earned bipartisan support, and leaders in conservative and liberal states alike have long touted the benefits of a region-wide market.

But some skeptics worry about merging the power systems of states with varying climate goals. And some fear the new market could give federal regulators appointed by President Donald Trump an opening to interfere and mandate more fossil fuel-powered plants that can be turned on regardless of the weather.

A bigger market

Across the 11 Western states that straddle or sit west of the Rocky Mountains, 37 separate private and public utilities operate portions of the grid.

This fragmented structure differs from the grid systems in Eastern and Midwestern states, where regional transmission organizations, or RTOs, coordinate and plan for energy needs across vast swaths of the country.

Backers of a Western market argue that a region-wide approach would be much more efficient.

Under the current system, each utility is required by state public utility commissions to build enough power to meet peak energy demands. That could mean building gas plants that only turn on a few times a year during extreme heat waves.

As part of a West-wide market, utilities could manage those high-demand events by importing power from other parts of the region that are generating surplus electricity. Such agreements could also prevent the periodic shutdowns of wind and solar farms when they produce more energy than local utilities can use.

“We could be drawing on the solar resources from the Southwest during the day, and then in the evening the wind resources in Montana and Wyoming are a great benefit,” said Austin Scharff, senior energy policy specialist with the Washington State Department of Commerce. “We have a lot of hydro resources, and we can help make sure the regional grid stays balanced when those are needed.”

Some industry leaders say such trading would allow states to pull in cheap electricity from elsewhere, rather than building expensive new power plants.

“When you have this bigger market, not everybody has to build to their peak in the same way,” said Leah Rubin Shen, managing director with Advanced Energy United, an industry group focused on energy and transportation. “Everybody’s able to share.”

Western states do trade electricity on a bilateral basis between individual utilities. Utilities spanning much of the West also transact through a real-time market that allows them to address pressing short-term demand issues. Some are poised to join a new day-ahead market that will conduct planning based on daily demand and production forecasts.

But some lawmakers and officials believe the region needs a larger vision that goes beyond moment-by-moment needs, a market that can plan interstate transmission lines and energy projects to serve the whole region in the decades to come.

“We’re facing really rapidly growing energy demand,” said Nevada Assemblymember Howard Watts, a Democrat. “The best way for us to meet that is to effectively move energy all across the Western U.S. The only way we can do that is through an RTO.”

Watts sponsored a bill, enacted in 2021, that requires Nevada to join an RTO by 2030. Colorado also passed a law that year with a 2030 deadline for utilities to join an RTO.

“Any future is better than our status quo, which is 37 separate grids in the West,” said Chris Hansen, a former Democratic senator who sponsored the Colorado legislation. “We can lower costs and provide greater reliability if we’re sharing resources.”

Hansen now serves as CEO of La Plata Electric Association, an electric cooperative in southwestern Colorado.

Related Articles

Today in History: October 19, ‘Black Monday’ on Wall Street

US will send survivors of strike on suspected drug vessel back to Ecuador and Colombia, Trump says

Today in History: October 18, ‘Mr. October’ hits three homers to clinch World Series

‘No Kings’ protests against Trump bring a street party vibe to cities nationwide

Trump offers US automakers additional relief from his tariffs

A new market

The push for a West-wide market had always faced one major hurdle: Any market would likely include the massive geographical footprint and energy supply managed by the California Independent System Operator, or CAISO. As the West’s largest grid operator, CAISO manages the flow of electricity across most of the Golden State. It’s governed by a five-member board appointed by California’s governor, and other states were unlikely to sign up for a market in which they have no representation.

The law passed by California legislators last month allows for a new organization with independent governance from across the region to oversee Western energy markets.

“This legislation is a key reset and has been the largest sticking point in building a regional market,” said Amanda Ormond, managing director of the Western Grid Group, which advocates for a more efficient grid. “This is a primary concern of a lot of folks that has now been solved.”

The law sets in motion a yearslong process that will task regional leaders with establishing the organization’s governance and navigating a series of regulatory procedures. The new market could be in place by 2028.

State leaders across the West say the California law is a long-awaited development.

“You get this really good benefit from being able to optimize across a larger footprint than an individual utility can,” said Tim Kowalchik, research director with the Utah Office of Energy Development. “Those resources can play really well together.”

Utah led a study in 2021, collaborating with other Western states, exploring the potential for energy markets in the region. State officials say the research has helped drive the current effort.

“It was fascinating how substantial the benefits were,” said Letha Tawney, chair of the Oregon Public Utility Commission. “The interdependence of the West started to become much more apparent, and it really changed the conversation.”

The study looked at a variety of market options and found that an RTO would have significant benefits, lowering costs for electricity customers and promoting clean energy. Based on the study’s projections, the market would produce roughly $2 billion in gross benefits per year, largely by saving utilities from building extra capacity.

Another study in 2022, conducted by a pair of consulting firms, found that an RTO would create as many as 657,000 permanent jobs and bolster the region’s economy.

While Western leaders say the potential benefits are massive, no states outside of Nevada and Colorado have committed to joining a regional RTO. State leaders say they’ll be watching carefully to see what emerges from the new California law. While the decision on joining the market will largely be left to individual utilities, state regulators can play a major role by directing them to conduct an economic analysis of such a move.

State sovereignty

The push for a regional market has also faced opposition from skeptics who fear it undermines states’ power to set their own energy and climate goals. Some point to Eastern governors’ frustration with PJM Interconnection, the RTO that manages the grid across a swath of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

“It’s very dangerous,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a California-based nonprofit advocacy group. “We’re giving up control of our sovereignty. Once a state’s in, it’s not the state that has the control.”

Some experts fear that states with significant coal or gas industries may be hesitant to join a market that could incentivize their utilities to import cheap solar power from elsewhere. On the flip side, some climate advocates in California are wary of plugging into a market that could support coal power from out of state.

“Some states are parochial-minded: ‘This is a California thing, and we don’t want anything to do with California,’” said Vijay Satyal, deputy director of markets and transmission with Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit climate-focused group. “That one state’s government will not decide how a market will be operated, it’s a seismic shift in the industry.”

Backers of an RTO argue that it can incorporate states’ varying energy goals. They point to research showing that the market will support renewable power. But others fear merging fates with coal-heavy states could give federal regulators more leverage to intervene in favor of fossil-fuel power.

Even if Trump is out of office when the market comes online, the regulators he appoints to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will still be serving out their terms. Some believe FERC could set rules that require the new market to favor fossil fuel-powered resources.

“When you have a mixed market with a lot of coal plants, it creates opportunities for the Trump administration to rejigger the rules to favor coal,” said Matthew Freedman, renewables attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a California-based consumer advocacy group. “In another reality, this would have sounded like a hysterical concern, but it’s pretty obvious where [Trump’s appointees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] want to go.”

Freedman’s group pushed California lawmakers for protections that would have given states more flexibility to withdraw from the market, while also prohibiting “resource adequacy” mandates that could be used by the feds to prop up coal. While those elements were included in a Senate version of the bill, they were stripped from the Assembly bill that ultimately was passed.

Supporters of the bill say such concerns are overblown, and the new market is structured to avoid the pitfalls facing other RTOs.

“The simple economic fact is that right now clean energy resources are the cheapest in the world,” said Petrie-Norris, the law’s sponsor. “We’re going to see solar displacing dirty fuels rather than the reverse.”

Much depends on convincing states and utilities it’s in their best interests to join the market. The strength-in-numbers advantages of an RTO depend on widespread participation. While many Western leaders have long touted a region-wide market, the opportunity is arising at a time where energy has become a partisan issue.

Meanwhile, the long-awaited market emerging from California is facing new competition from the east. The Southwest Power Pool, an Arkansas-based RTO serving the middle of the country, is expanding its footprint in the West, with several utilities poised to join its day-ahead market.

“Anytime you have two neighboring utilities in different markets, you have seams that create a lot of friction and inefficiency,” said Rubin Shen, with the energy industry group. “Whether or not everybody can come together and be all-in on a full West-wide market, it’s too soon to tell.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Edward Lotterman

Economic news was incongruous this past week as three economists got Nobel prizes for their research on factors that determine how well economies grow over the long term just as President Donald Trump throws money to bail Argentina out of a short-run crisis very familiar to that nation.

Start with the Nobels. The three laureates’ work returns us to economics pioneer Adam Smith’s focus on “the nature and causes” of why some economies become more prosperous than others.

Joel Mokyr, a Dutch-born Israeli-American, got half the prize for exploring why technological innovation takes place and how cultures foster or retard this process. He sees modern science as key.

Prior to the scientific method, meeting challenges to new technology was piecemeal. An example would be that 200 years ago, the new, efficient Bessemer converter to make steel did not work with many iron ores. Modern chemistry found the problem was phosphorus content and that a different firebrick to line the converters solved the problem.

The other laureates, French economist Philippe Aghion and Canadian-American Peter Howitt, also took up the earlier work of renowned Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter, from the first half of the 20th century, 150 years after Smith.

Smith had argued that leaving resource allocation to market forces fostered efficient resource use. But why and how did this cause growth? Schumpeter found it was because free markets fostered “creative destruction” — the natural eroding away of obsolete businesses and technologies as newer, more productive ones take over. Efficiency and convenience drive market forces, market forces drive out less-efficient, less-convenient technology. Think automobiles replacing horse-drawn buggies and electric lights supplanting kerosine lamps.

Why, however, was such creative destruction more prominent in some countries than in others, say Japan or the United States versus Peru or Argentina? Did culture play a role in such activities? If so, which aspects? Aghion and Howitt used sophisticated mathematical models to tease out answers.

Thus, the work of this year’s laureates helps us understand differences in longer run trends for nations that perform better or worse than others.

Now, let’s relate this work to news of Trump offering a potential $40 billion rescue package to help Argentina. First, let’s note that Argentina’s problem is acute rather than its traditional chronic ones that have hindered the creative destruction needed to foster growth.

President Javier Milei, Argentina’s charismatic but mercurial leader, had been lauded until recent weeks for turning his nation’s economy around after 2023. He is much beloved by the even more mercurial Trump. Yet again Argentina is in deep financial trouble, and Trump sees an opening. Not only is Trump proposing a currency swap that is essentially a $20 billion loan from the U.S. Treasury, but he’s trying to strongarm another $20 billion from private financial institutions.

What’s happening here? Argentina is entering a “foreign exchange crisis,” essentially a subset of the broader phenomenon of “financial crises.” Start by understanding both.

In generic financial crises, that often appear quite suddenly, many individuals, businesses or governments cannot meet their financial obligations, whether payments of interest or principal on loans or simply paying for goods purchased or even wages due. Those stiffed in this initial round are rendered unable to meet their own bills and a vicious cycle ensues. Businesses go broke, financial institutions fail and economic activity shrivels. Like one icicle falling from an alpine crag onto an unstable snow cornice below, a small slide rapidly turns into a thundering avalanche.

The Wall Street crash of 1929 was a financial crisis. So was the collateralized mortgage debacle starting in 2007. Ditto for “panics” in 1873, 1893 and 1907.

A “foreign exchange crisis,” such as the European exchange rate crisis of September 1992, involves a country’s or countries’ need for foreign currencies to facilitate economic activity. In 1992, pre-euro, several European countries had entered an exchange rate “mechanism” to fix relative values of the different currencies across the continent. However, there is always a danger of a sudden shortage in some country of the other currencies it needs for payments to trade partners, financial institutions or governments.

Trump’s current Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, then a young protégé of financier George Soros (yes, the same now-noted target of right-wing political derision), thought in 1992 that the United Kingdom had pegged the British pound at too high a value. Soros bet that the U.K. would be forced to decrease the value of the pound relative to other European currencies and bought financial derivatives that would pay off if it did, essentially short-selling the pound. Other traders soon joined in. Britain did have to devalue after burning through billions of pounds trying to defeat the speculators. Bessent and Soros alone earned something over $1 billion. So our Treasury secretary understands exchange rate crises.

The European crisis was followed by the Mexican peso crisis in 1994-1995 and exchange crises in South Korea and other Asian countries in 1997. These also had affected many countries in the generalized Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s-1990s and in many African countries. Argentina has had repeated episodes.

Financial crises, including foreign exchange crises, resemble bankruptcies. They can stem from two problems. One is true insolvency — not having enough assets to pay all debts. The other is illiquidity, when the value of assets actually exceeds obligations, but assets like real estate or bonds cannot be converted to cash fast enough to meet demands. In the classic 1946 Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” banker George Bailey pleads to angry depositors that his small-town Building and Loan is only illiquid and not insolvent.

Any country whose currency, unlike the dollar, is not wanted by others to park extra cash, must wrestle with exchange rates. Fixing the rate reduces uncertainty. Businesses can grow with imported machinery financed abroad. Firms that use foreign raw materials or import retail goods can plan.

However, the nation with the fixed rate must always sell enough abroad to provide foreign currencies for those needing it. Or it must continually attract new investment from foreigners.

Yet maintaining a fixed exchange rate isn’t easy. If domestic inflation gets above that of other countries, imported consumer goods or industrial inputs get relatively cheaper in local currency. Retailers in neighboring Chile and Uruguay have booming businesses right now as Argentines snap up electronics, appliances and other goods now cheap in terms of Argentine pesos.

Those who export, however, find that for any given world price of soybeans, iron ore, automobiles or apparel, the limited local currency gotten for each shipment pays fewer for the same hours of labor, gallons of diesel fuel, electricity or facilities needed to produce the goods. This hits exporting producers hard.

Understand that a country can be on sound long-term footing in terms of its exchange rates, but still suffer temporary shortages of foreign currencies. Without help, the value of its currency must drop. Central banks help each other with “swap lines.” If Sweden, still using krona, runs short of euros or dollars to pay for oil or fertilizer imports, the European Central Bank or U.S. Federal Reserve may lend it euros or dollars. These usually are repaid in weeks or months.

It is crucial, however, to understand that such intra-central bank swaps are to counter illiquidity problems. They most certainly are not suited to any “fundamental disequilibrium” of insolvency.

That brings us back to the Argentina bailout. That Bessent and the U.S. Treasury, instead of the Fed, is making a $20 billion loan to Argentina shows the problem is deeper than a temporary shortage. The Trump administration’s “urging” private U.S. banks and investment funds to lend another $20 billion shows it wants these institutions to assume risks of large write offs later. Or is a future bailout by the U.S. Treasury to cover eventual loan losses for these same institutions?

The final kicker is that all sorts of financial institutions, including many run by donors to Trump campaigns, can do to the Argentine peso what Soros, Bessent  and others did to Britain in 1992 and what speculators worldwide did to South Korea and other Asian nations in 1997. The very financial firms Trump asks to join him and Bessent in lending to Millei’s government may be using derivative securities to force Millei’s government to throw in the towel.

Outraged U.S. soybean growers losing export dollars to Argentina and other South American countries make news, but why should the rest of us care? Well, while the reserve status of the dollar still protects us from foreign exchange crises, we hurtle hell-bent toward a federal debt crisis, perhaps in less than a decade, that will be the mother of all financial crises, not only for ourselves but for the world.

It’s a sad irony that the Nobel prizes were given just as Argentina, a nation rich in natural resources, is falling into yet another financial crisis. “Creative destruction” indeed. Despite highly unusual aid from our nation, an acute crunch including a devaluation of Argentina’s currency and a 10th default on its debt is very possible.

Yet we in the United States, a nation in its worst political crisis since 1860, cannot gloat. We rapidly are making our nation’s finances as dodgy as many a Third World country. A congressionally orchestrated government shutdown manifests the collapse since 2010 of a functioning legislative branch. Are we really all that different from Argentina, where political deadlock has for years begat stagnation? Might we, in fact, be on track for a debt crisis even more severe?

Related Articles

Real World Economics: How farm payouts violate basic principles

Real World Economics: Ignorance of Social Security’s problems is not bliss

Real World Economics: How bad is it going to get?

Real World Economics: When Fed’s mandates are in conflict

Real World Economics: Farmers always on the cutting edge

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — With the U.S. experiencing a significant hiring slowdown, it’s a daunting time to be looking for a job. Many workers are staying put instead of changing jobs to secure better pay. Artificial intelligence tools increasingly screen the resumes of applicants. Now may seem like an inappropriate time to request a raise.

But sticking around doesn’t mean wages and salaries have to stagnate. Career experts say it’s not wrong, even in a shaky economy, to ask to be paid what you’re worth. Raises aren’t even necessarily off the table at organizations that are downsizing, according to some experts.

“A lot of people think if their company has done layoffs, the likelihood of getting a raise is pretty low,” said Jamie Kohn, a senior director in the human resources practice at business research and advisory firm Gartner. “And that might be true, but the the other way to think about it is that this company has already decided to reinvest in you by keeping you on.”

Related Articles

Weeklong strike ends at South St. Paul tannery after agreement reached

Column: Look out, Uber. The future looks a lot more like Waymo

Working Strategies: Customize cover letters, but there are shortcuts

Is a continuing care retirement community right for you?

Trump offers US automakers additional relief from his tariffs

When should you ask?

If you’ve taken on greater responsibilities at work and have received strong performance reviews, or if you’ve learned you’re paid substantially less than colleagues or competitors with similar levels of experience, then it may be the right time to ask for a pay adjustment.

“They know that you’re taking on more work, especially if you’ve had layoffs on your team,” Kohn continued. “At that point, it is very hard for them to lose an employee that you know they now are relying on much more.”

Another signal that it’s time to ask for an adjustment is if you’re working a second job to make ends meet or your current financial situation is causing angst that impacts job performance, said Rodney Williams, co-founder of SoLo Funds, a community finance platform.

“There’s nothing wrong with saying, ’Hey, I need to raise my financial position. I’m willing to do more,” Williams said. “I’m willing to show up earlier, I’m willing to leave later, I’m willing to help out, maybe, and do other things here.”

Some people view asking for more compensation as less risky than switching to a new job. “There is a sense of not wanting to be ‘last in, first out’ in a potential layoff situation,” said Kohn.

Know your worth

Before starting the compensation conversation, do some research on current salaries. You can find out what people with comparable experience are making in your industry by searching on websites such as Glassdoor, where people self-report salaries, or ZipRecruiter, which gathers pay data from job postings and other sources.

Three years ago, a lot of people asked for 20% pay increases because of price inflation and high employee turnover coming out of the coronavirus pandemic, Kohn said. Companies no longer are considering such big bumps.

“Right now, I think you could say that you are worth 10% more, but you’re unlikely to get a 10% pay increase if you ask for it,” she said.

Your success also depends on your recent performance reviews. “If you’ve been given additional responsibilities, if you are operating at a level that would be a promotion, those might be situations where asking for a higher amount might be worth it,” Kohn said.

Compare notes with colleagues

Many people view the topic as taboo, but telling coworkers what you make and asking if they earn more may prove instructive. Trusted coworkers with similar roles are potential sources. People who were recently hired or promoted may supply a sense of the market rate, Kohn said.

“You can say, ‘Hey, I’m trying to make sure I’m being paid equitably. Are you making over or under X dollars?’ That’s one of my favorite phrases to use, and it invites people into a healthy discussion,” Sam DeMase, a career expert with ZipRecruiter, said. “People are way more interested in talking about salary than you might think.”

You can also reach out to people who left the company, who may be more willing to compare paychecks than current colleagues, DeMase said.

Brag sheet

Keep track of your accomplishments and positive feedback on your work. Compile it into one document, which human resources professionals call a “brag sheet,” DeMase said. If you’re making your request in writing, list those accomplishments when you ask for a raise. If the request is made in a conversation, you can use the list as talking points.

Be sure to list any work or responsibilities that typically would not have been part of your job description. “Employers are wanting employees to do more with less, so we need to be documenting all of the ways in which we’re working outside of our job scope,” DeMase said.

Also take stock of the unique skills or traits you bring to the team.

“People tend to overestimate our employers’ alternatives,” said Oakbay Consulting CEO Emily Epstein, who teaches negotiation courses at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley. “We assume they could just hire a long line of people, but it may be that we bring specialized expertise to our roles, something that would be hard to replace.”

Timing matters

Don’t seek a raise when your boss is hungry or at the end of a long day because the answer is more likely to be no, advises Epstein, whose company offers training on communication, conflict resolution and other business skills. If they’re well-rested and feeling great, you’re more likely to succeed, she said.

Getting a raise is probably easier in booming fields, such as cybersecurity, while it could be a tough time to request one if you work in an industry that is shedding positions, Epstein said.

By the same token, waiting for the perfect time presents the risk of missing out on a chance to advocate for yourself.

“You could wait your whole life for your boss to be well-rested or to have a lot of resources,” Epstein said. “So don’t wait forever.”

Responding to “no”

If your request is denied, having made it can help set the stage for a future negotiation.

Ask your manager what makes it difficult to say yes, Epstein suggested. “Is it the precedent you’d be establishing for this position that might be hard to live up to? Is it fairness to the other people in my position? Is it, right now the company’s struggling?” she said.

Ask when you might revisit the conversation and whether you can get that timeframe in writing, DeMase said.

Laura Kreller, an executive assistant at a university in Louisiana, recently earned a master’s degree and asked for her job description to change to reflect greater responsibilities and hopefully higher pay. Her boss was kind but turned her down, citing funding constraints. Kreller said she has no regrets.

“I was proud of myself for doing it,” she said. “It’s better to know where you stand.”

Share your stories and questions about workplace wellness at cbussewitz@ap.org. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well

I have lived in the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul for nine years now, and the business I own, the queer soccer bar The Black Hart of Saint Paul, just celebrated its seventh anniversary. On my three-block walk to work, on one of the busiest streets in the city, I pass by three empty lots and I stare at a wall of empty storefronts. Just a few more blocks away is the derelict CVS that has become a lightning rod of neighborhood fury, a monument to gross neglect.

Most of us who live and work in Midway can imagine so much better for our neighborhood: vibrant streets filled with more housing and more dynamic, locally owned business. There is no single panacea that will spur more development and investment, but there are a few tools to bring about that vibrant future that are incredibly basic and simple.

The fact is that our local government has been deliberately handcuffed from being able to take action on derelict spaces in our neighborhoods.

Unlike all other big cities in Minnesota, when a commercial property owner leaves their property to crumble, St. Paul cannot fine them. The city can send them a sternly worded letter and then eventually take the owners to criminal court. There is nothing in between.

In the spring, our City Council finally voted to give the city tools to operate between the harsh warnings and criminal charges: financial penalties that can be right-sized for the situation — and don’t go on anyone’s criminal record — called Administrative Citations. The city was finally going to be able to address the owner of the CVS building or others like it in the future. But then a small group of loud voices took those tools away and forced us to wait for a citywide vote to implement them.

Most small businesses owners like me are community-minded and do our best to play by the rules. Let me give you an example. In 2023, Black Hart built a patio next to our bar (it’s gorgeous, you should visit) after a long approval process. Around the same time, we saw another patio created without a single construction permit. Likewise, a major hardware store installed an illegally tall fence that also cuts off pedestrian access. I spoke to an inspector about the hardware store who said they had no luck getting beyond an automated phone service to get anyone to address the situation — meaning that, just like the CVS building, nothing was going to happen.

They broke the rules, with absolutely no consequences. Let me clarify — no consequences for them, but lots for the community. The city’s inability to enforce its ordinances for bad actors brings down the surrounding neighborhoods, makes the city less safe and less pedestrian- and transit-friendly, all of which are a drag on the city’s image and the small businesses on University Avenue.

The current system incentivizes scofflaws and penalizes people who obey the law. What incentive do business owners like me have to follow the rules?

This November, we have the opportunity to change this. In the current St. Paul city election, if we vote yes to approve an amendment to our city charter, we can give our local officials the authority to fight back against bad actors who make our neighborhoods suffer. That will kick off a public process in which the City Council will carefully consider which violations warrant the use of of administrative citations and how the fines will be scaled. They will be established by new, specific ordinances, each one evaluated by an equity committee and adopted through a public process that allows residents to weigh in. This approach will ensure that this tool is aimed at giving the worst offenders a financial incentive to operate by the same set of rules as the rest of us.

Related Articles

Skywatch: The great flying horse of the sky

Working Strategies: Customize cover letters, but there are shortcuts

Mark Glende: In grand tradition, like Oktoberfest … it’s MEA Weekend!

Sheletta Brundidge: Seeking solutions as a job crisis looms for Black women

Real World Economics: How farm payouts violate basic principles

Today it’s the CVS building, but there are a large number of derelict spaces throughout the city. Many are owned by far-away speculators who are happy to turn down offers from local start-ups that want to improve the neighborhood, and instead let their properties molder while they wait to cash in when property values rise. Our community cannot continue to simply hope that these situations will turn themselves around someday. Many small businesses won’t make it that long.

St. Paul residents deserve thriving, walkable communities now. The city desperately needs this tool, making a vote for Administrative Citations common sense. We need to untie the city’s hands, so it can push back against absentee landlords, employers who steal employee wages, those who violate the conversion therapy ban, and other egregious rule-breakers.

Wes Burdine, St. Paul, owns The Black Hart of Saint Paul in the Midway.