Joe Spencer: St. Paul’s budget signals bold push for a stronger downtown

posted in: All news | 0

It has become increasingly evident to our whole community that Saint Paul needs a strong, vibrant and growing downtown for the health and wellbeing of the entire city.

Before the pandemic, Downtown St. Paul carried only 12% of the citywide tax revenues compared to peer cities, which had an average of 22% of tax revenues. The goal should not be to simply recover these tax revenues, but to dramatically increase the percentage of the tax load carried by downtown.

Strategic investments will unlock a tremendous benefit to the whole city. It’s exciting to see the City of Saint Paul make a meaningful commitment to moving this work forward. The approved $5 million increase to the Department of Planning and Economic Development budget dedicated to downtown vitality and housing in the core signals that we’re treating this issue with the urgency and seriousness it deserves.

The reality is straightforward: We can’t afford to let obsolete and underused towers sit empty, dragging down confidence in the heart of our city. At the Saint Paul Downtown Alliance, we anticipated the necessity of this transition and started preparing. In March 2024, we released the Downtown Investment Strategy — a blueprint to dramatically increase density, vitality and desirability in downtown St. Paul. We also commissioned a feasibility study showing that many of downtown’s buildings have floor plates and infrastructure that make them strong candidates for more efficient conversion. That gives St. Paul a competitive advantage over many other cities wrestling with similar challenges.

And we’ve already seen what’s possible. Landmark Towers’ recent transformation and the nearly completed Stella Apartments, along with the dozens of conversions in Lowertown, show that converting obsolete office space into housing doesn’t just fill buildings, it fuels street-level activity, supports small businesses and strengthens the case for essential amenities like cafes, restaurants, grocers and pharmacies. With Hamm Building’s conversion tracking toward 2026, and the Galtier conversion not far behind, momentum is building.

But we know these projects and the activity and tax base they fuel are only the start toward advancing the health and wellbeing of our entire city.

Our Downtown Investment Strategy calls for adding 20,000 new residents to the core. With apartment occupancy rates at 96%, demand is clearly there. More people living downtown means a broader tax base, healthier retail and restaurant ecosystems and more activity on our sidewalks — one of the most effective ways to enhance safety.

This new investment is critical because it helps attract a wider range of developers and investors.

Downtown’s recovery won’t happen on the backs of a few committed partners. It will take a broad coalition. That’s why the Downtown Alliance is deeply involved in a community engagement process right now, gathering input, listening and shaping a shared vision for the future of our downtown. That work will guide not only us, but also future development teams looking to understand what our community wants for their city’s center.

When community, business, government and investment work in sync, we unlock real progress toward improving our city for the good of our residents, businesses and the entire region.

To be clear, this $5 million commitment is not enough to stimulate a strong and rapid recovery of tax base for downtown that is critical for the health and wellbeing of our city. We’ll need more resources from the City, County and State in order to realize the full economic power for our city and region. Our Downtown Investment Strategy specifically calls out key development strategies and assets critical to this effort, such as developing RiversEdge, renovation of the Grand Casino Arena Complex, and the development of Central Station for example. However, this important start sends a clear signal that Saint Paul is ready to do the hard and creative work needed to build a stronger, more resilient downtown and city as a whole.

If you want to get involved with this vision, the Downtown Alliance just launched Reimagine Downtown Saint Paul: Transforming the Core — a comprehensive, community-driven initiative designed to inform the future of downtown’s economic vitality and urban experience. Learn more and provide input in an online survey at downtownstpaul.com/reimagine.

Joe Spencer is president of the Saint Paul Downtown Alliance, a nonprofit organization that represents downtown businesses, nonprofits, government entities, residents and entrepreneurs.

Related Articles


Tom Horner: Minnesota can win with AI. Consider these 3 lessons from mining.


Real World Economics: Making the case for bank regulations


Skywatch: Jumpin’ Geminids


Your Money: Meaningful conversations around the holidays 


Working Strategies: Deciding whether to job search in December

Marc Champion: Why Russia loves the new US national security strategy

posted in: All news | 0

Nothing about the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy should shock European leaders, still less the enthusiastic welcome that this confirmation of a revolution in U.S. foreign policy has received from Moscow.

It calls, after all, for a rupture in the Transatlantic Alliance that every Kremlin leader — with brief exceptions for Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin — has sought since 1945.

Why that is should be self-evident. Moscow has been fighting wars to expand or protect its westward borders and influence since at least the days of Peter the Great. U.S. interventions to help defeat Russia’s primary 20th century rival for continental dominance — Germany — were helpful to the Kremlin’s goals. America’s decision to stay on as guarantor of a new transatlantic “West” was not.

This much won’t be disputed by the U.S. strategy’s authors. It’s just that, unlike their predecessors, they believe American interests now align with Moscow’s when it comes to the European Union. Better it should be an atomized group of small- and medium-sized nations that can be pushed around and exploited for economic gain, than a $30 trillion-plus economic rival with potential to retaliate, especially on issues such as trade.

A second interest that President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin share in Europe is perhaps less obvious: Unseating the liberal, pluralist leaderships that continue to run most European states — because they pose a threat to the domestic political narratives that both are dependent on to stay in power. More bluntly: When it comes to the culture wars, Trump and Putin are allies; liberal Europe is the enemy.

The reason Putin was so triggered over Ukraine in 2013, when it sought to sign a trade deal with the EU, was that the Kremlin couldn’t afford to have so similar a neighbor achieve Polish-style prosperity and liberties in the bloc. What might Russians then think about the necessity of their own authoritarian system? Putin had to suppress a Russian pro-democracy movement less than two years before and could ill-afford for Ukraine to rekindle it by providing proof of concept.

Trump, likewise, needs liberal Europe to fail if he’s to persuade future voting majorities of Americans that he offers the only solution to their problems. Hence the extraordinary acknowledgment in Trump’s new security strategy that the U.S. feels it has the right and obligation to interfere in European politics to ensure that MAGA-style leaders come to power there, too.

Like so many ideologues, including Karl Marx, Trump and his co-authors are far better at diagnosing the ills of a troubled system than proposing effective remedies. It took decades for many on the left to realize that just because capitalism had exploitative and disruptive tendencies didn’t mean this must lead inevitably to proletarian revolution and socialist utopia. Similarly, I suspect it may take a while for the penny to drop on what the far right is offering today.

The attempt to close the vast gap that quickly opened between Marxist doctrine and reality led to industrial-scale Soviet gaslighting and repression. You can see echoes today.

To pick just one example, as early as February, Trump’s Vice President JD Vance took to Munich the new administration’s idea that it was here, in “woke” liberal Europe, that democracy and freedom of expression were under threat. Never mind that his own boss had sought to overturn an election he lost in 2020, was imposing personal political control over independent democratic institutions, was trampling over the constitutional separation of powers, and has since gone on to abuse the power of both the National Guard and federal funds to impose his will on cities and universities that disagree with him.

It simply isn’t true that you can restore democracy by bending all institutions to the will of a leader, or improve freedom of expression by suppressing academic independence. Nor can you deliver peace by demolishing international institutions and reverting to an age of great power spheres of influence. We know this from most of human history.

So, the gaslighting is needed to maintain these fictions. The same goes for Trump’s empty claims on bringing peace to wars that either continue or were already over, and in particular his casting of Europe and Ukraine as the villains of Putin’s 2022 invasion.

Viktor Orban has done the same in Hungary. Poland has shown how hard it is to restore the independence of courts and other institutions once lost, even if a political opposition can overcome a tilted playing field to regain power. From the UK to Germany, far right mini-Trumps are waiting in the wings to take power across Europe.

At least some will succeed, because the populist diagnosis of what ails liberal democracies is largely accurate. Europe is indeed weak. Its democracies are struggling to restore dynamism lost to years of disarmament, poor demographics, bloated welfare states and complacency over deindustrialization. Some insurgents from the right, like Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, will prove astute political operators who reject populist policies they know can’t work once in office. Others won’t.

In the meantime, there’s nothing to suggest Europeans will have the courage to voluntarily cut their overdependence on U.S. arms and tech, a move fraught with economic risk from the trade war that inevitably would follow. Easier to go on pretending the U.S. is a briefly errant ally, because to do otherwise would involve alliance shifts and a butter-to-guns policy revolution so dramatic it would put Trump’s new doctrine in the shade.

Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.

Related Articles


Pierre Lemieux: The increase in polarization mirrors the growth of government


James Stavridis: Five reasons why the boat strike debate matters for the US


Matthew Mitchell: Fueled by federalism, America’s economically freest states come out on top


David M. Drucker: The GOP’s next leader will need more than populism


Trudy Rubin: The question Trump and Hegseth won’t answer: Why is that flotilla in the Caribbean in the first place?

Pierre Lemieux: The increase in polarization mirrors the growth of government

posted in: All news | 0

Politicians and policy experts like to talk about the “root causes” of crime, homelessness, poverty, rising prices and other problems. If they want to understand the root cause of political polarization, they might want to consider the whole picture and look in the mirror.

In a book published 40 years ago, economist and political philosopher Anthony de Jasay (1925-2019) proposed an explanation that did not receive the attention it deserved. Born in Hungary and trained as an economist at Oxford University, de Jasay spent most of his professional life as a banker and financier in France. He published his first book, “The State,” in 1985; it was republished in America in 1998.

In de Jasay’s view, politics is necessarily polarizing. It is just a matter of degree. The larger the scope of the state (the entire apparatus of government), the more politics you have. And more politics leads to more polarization.

With the state extending its reach nearly continuously since what de Jasay called “the brilliant 19th century,” you may even be surprised that polarization has not yet reached the breaking point (though some may argue it came close with the advance of communist parties in Western European countries after World War II).

The link between the size and scope of the state and the growth of political polarization rests on a simple fact: Individuals are not identical. We have different desires, needs, tastes and values.

Government policies, however, are necessarily one-size-fits-all. They impose, or aim to impose, the same laws and rules on everyone, creating dissatisfaction and discontent among those whose preferences are ignored or rejected.

Understandably, the discontented then demand laws — subsidies, tax preferences, affirmative action and other legal privileges — that favor their side. Especially in democratic societies, this leads politicians out of power to seek to regain it by promising to grant these favors and privileges, which triggers new discontent on the other side.

This messy process continues, with each side constantly upping the ante.

Consider a “cultural” example. The left mandates diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, even imposing them on private companies and organizations. The right prohibits DEI, including private DEI. Each side employs the power of the state to prevent the discrimination it doesn’t like. In the process, government power grows, becoming more threatening to everybody.

Virtually all politicians try, in their own interest, to satisfy their political constituencies, party or tribe. Politicians become drudges trying to pull promised miracles for their clients, who remain dissatisfied and ungrateful. Despite their favored stations in life, politicians are also not happy and complain nonstop.

In short, the more the state intervenes in the economy — that is, in people’s lives — the more it becomes true that it cannot help anybody without hurting somebody else.

The state — what de Jasay calls “the adversary state” — takes sides in all disagreements. As a result, polarization increases, and increases again, and again.

What will be the endgame? De Jasay was not optimistic. Being continuously asked to give without taking anything away, to intervene without harming, the state will finally have to nationalize the whole economy, he suggested.

It could look like “state capitalism,” starting slowly with a handful of companies, such as U.S. Steel, Intel, MP Materials and Vulcan Elements. However, the more workers are directly or indirectly employed by the state, the more they will vote for themselves less work and higher wages. At some point in the brave new world of state capitalism, de Jasay suggested, democratic elections will be abolished, and we’ll all become property of the state, as slaves were owned by their plantation masters.

Impossible in America? Perhaps. Let’s hope.

Yet, given the government’s relentless growth in both size and power over many decades, the end of individual liberty is not as utterly inconceivable as many had thought. That’s why polarization is likely to increase, rather than decrease, in the years ahead.

Pierre Lemieux is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and an economist with the Department of Management Sciences at the University of Quebec in Canada. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related Articles


Marc Champion: Why Russia loves the new US national security strategy


James Stavridis: Five reasons why the boat strike debate matters for the US


Matthew Mitchell: Fueled by federalism, America’s economically freest states come out on top


David M. Drucker: The GOP’s next leader will need more than populism


Trudy Rubin: The question Trump and Hegseth won’t answer: Why is that flotilla in the Caribbean in the first place?

Other voices: Pardon of Henry Cuellar erodes justice, again

posted in: All news | 0

Americans can be forgiven if their faith in our justice system is shaken.

We have now seen so much naked partisanship that has nothing to do with truth and justice that it is becoming ever harder to place faith in this pillar of our democracy.

Yes, President Donald Trump has been the victim of partisan prosecution, with Manhattan’s district attorney promising to find something, anything to stick on him.

But Trump is the person most responsible for the ongoing degradation of American belief in fair and impartial justice.

Every week, it seems, we see another outrageous abuse of the presidential pardon power in absolution of personal and political allies, donors, sycophants and those who are otherwise somehow useful to the president.

Of the long list of pardons Trump has issued, that of U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a relatively conservative Democrat from the Texas border, is among the worst.

Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, were accused of accepting $600,000 from an oil and gas company owned by Azerbaijan and from a bank headquartered in Mexico City in exchange for official acts on Cuellar’s part to benefit Azerbaijan and the bank. The payments were allegedly routed through a shell company owned by Imelda with fake consulting work as the cover.

The Cuellars maintained their innocence. Trump called the prosecution a political weapon the Biden administration used to bludgeon Cuellar because the congressman advocated for tough immigration enforcement on the border.

But Trump’s own Justice Department reviewed the charges this year and pressed forward with 12 of 14 counts in the indictment. They dropped two charges based on a Trump-driven decision to sharply limit prosecution under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a tool that helped prosecutors bring cases against foreigners seeking to corruptly influence U.S. officials.

Career prosecutors and top officials in the Justice Department decided that the underlying facts of the case nevertheless indicated corruption. Those charges will never get their day in court.

Trump, apparently, saw his pardon as the quid in a political quid pro quo. Because when Cuellar announced he would remain a Democrat, the president was furious. How can anyone believe in a justice system where a pardon is part of a political deal?

Lest we think this is only a Trump problem, it is assuredly not. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House leader, described the indictment against Cuellar as “thin.” It wasn’t. It represented an exhaustive investigation and prosecution effort under the Biden and Trump administrations.

We are increasingly in a pick-your-own-truth world. The president makes it worse every time he undermines the pursuit of justice in the name of his political and personal interests.

— The Dallas Morning News

Related Articles


Trump led Republicans to power in 2024. But 2026 could be a different story


Trump pardons former Colorado elections clerk, but it alone won’t free her from prison


2 Wisconsin congressional redistricting lawsuits may not resolve by 2026 midterm election


Trump signs executive order to block state AI regulations


Amtrak’s 18,000 workers to receive $900 bonuses, funded by executive cuts