Former Thomson Reuters Eagan campus could include housing, industrial uses under developer’s proposal

posted in: News | 0

Local real estate developer Ryan Companies has revealed its plans for 179 acres of the former Thomson Reuters site in Eagan and it includes a mix of light-industrial and residential uses.

Ryan, which entered a purchase and sale agreement with Thomson Reuters earlier this year, intends to redevelop the parcel to include light industrial uses like warehousing and distribution centers and up to 320 residential units, according to city documents.

The proposed plan would require a comprehensive guide plan amendment to change the land use designation from major office to industrial and low- and medium-density residential.

“The proposed project is contemplating redeveloping the site with a combination of residential and light industrial uses in a manner that would thoughtfully interact with the existing land uses surrounding the site,” the applicant’s narrative states.

As outlined in the proposal, 120 acres would be allocated to industrial use in the central and eastern portion of the site and could include a data center, research and laboratory spaces and an office showroom.

The remaining 59 acres would have a mix of housing types including townhomes, twin homes and single-family homes.

The proposal indicates that 35 acres at the southwest portion of the site would be marked low-density residential and could house 70 to 140 units while the remaining 24 acres at the northwest portion of the site would be marked medium-density and house 80 to 180 units.

Thomson Reuters, which relocated to a new 300,000-square-foot office near the Minnesota Vikings headquarters, still maintains its print manufacturing facility at the Eagan campus.

Still up in the air are the developer’s plans for the mammoth 1.2 million-square-foot office and data center building at 610 Opperman Drive that Reuters left behind.

“Ryan is currently evaluating solutions to preserve all, or a portion of the current office building and data centers located on the site,” the narrative states, but due to current market conditions, the developer notes “it is likely” the existing buildings may be replaced.

Thomson Reuters has been in Dakota County since 1996, when it bought out West Publishing for $3.4 billion. West Publishing had offices in downtown St. Paul until 1992, when they moved to Eagan.

Ryan is also the developer behind a 40-acre parcel of Rice Creek Commons in Arden Hills, which it plans to market to prospective tenants as a potential corporate campus, research and development center, or a mix of manufacturing and distribution facilities alongside retail and restaurant space.

The Advisory Planning Commission for the city of Eagan is expected to hear the developer’s  proposal for the Thomson Reuters site Tuesday night.

Related Articles

Business |


Supplier of fentanyl-tainted pills is spared prison in 2022 death of West St. Paul girl, 15

Business |


Salmonella cases, including four in Minnesota, linked to organic basil sold at Trader Joe’s

Business |


With new PFAS limits, some east metro cities have big water cleanup jobs ahead

Business |


South St. Paul mayor appointed to Dakota County workforce development board

Business |


Unlicensed St. Paul driver sentenced to 5 months plus probation for killing Burnsville priest riding bike

‘One with the Whale’ review: Climate change and animal activists threaten an Indigenous Alaskan community

posted in: News | 0

In the remote Alaskan village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea, students are allowed 10 excused absences a year for subsistence activities, primarily hunting. “If you don’t do subsistence activities, you die,” says the school principal in the documentary “One with the Whale,” airing this week on public television as part of Independent Lens.

Directed by Peter Chelkowski (whose credits include the NatGeo series “Life Below Zero: First Alaskans”) and environmental journalist Jim Wickens, the film is about many things at once: Climate change; poverty; parents worrying about their teenagers; trying to maintain traditions amid diminishing resources; and online bullying from activists when 16-year-old Chris Apassingok successfully hunts his first whale.

“One with the Whale” mainly follows the Apassingok family, but it also captures a broader context of life in Gambell, where the population is primarily Yup’ik Indigenous and numbers less than 700. Everything has to be flown in, which is expensive. When Mom goes shopping for groceries at the Gambell Native Store, she says they spend $300 to $500 a week on food. She holds up a box of Minute instant rice: $11.29. A six-pack of toilet paper is $13. Fresh produce is in short supply. As a result, more than 80% of their diet comes from subsistence hunting. A whale can feed the entire village for months.

Despite the prevalence of snow everywhere (there are no cars in sight, only four-wheelers and snowmobiles), out on the water Chris’s father is concerned about the lack of ice. “The walrus and the seal migrate with the ice. Without that ice, there’s no game and there’s no food.”

Related Articles


Review: Lily Gladstone and Riley Keough shine in Hulu’s dark true-crime drama ‘Under the Bridge’


‘The Jinx – Part Two’ review: A filmmaker continues his investigation into accused killer Robert Durst


What the ‘Fallout’ show gets right about the post-apocalyptic video game series


Michael Douglas has a knack for unforgettable roles — here are 7 of the best


‘Diarra from Detroit’ review: Defying categorization, this new BET+ series is sardonic and self-deprecating

We learn that internet service came to Gambell fairly recently, but nearly everyone on camera has a smartphone. In 2017, Chris caught his first whale and the photos were shared on Facebook. Locally, he was celebrated as a provider. But hundreds of thousands of hateful messages and death threats came pouring in from people outside the community, primarily followers of Paul Watson, who is known for the reality series “Whale Wars.” A teacher at Chris’s school is aghast: “Telling a 16-year-old from rural Alaska — where the suicide rates are higher than any other part the country — to go kill himself is insane.” The experience has a visible effect on Chris, who is sweet and goofy but becomes withdrawn and morose. He doesn’t want to talk about it with the filmmakers or his mother, and it’s unclear if he felt he could talk about his feelings with anyone. This is a consistent outcome with online bullying, with the additional subtext that this close-knit community, new to the downsides of social media, is at a loss as well. (The filmmakers focus specifically on the people of Gambell and do not interview Watson.)

“Chris is just doing something his ancestors have done for thousands of years,” says the school principal. “It’s not like they’re going out and pulling hundreds of whales out of the ocean, not like Japan. They’re allowed two whales per year, according to the whaling commission, and this feeds the community.” Without that meat in the freezer, he adds, the village could die off.

It’s complicated. The Apassingoks are a loving family concerned about Chris’s wellbeing, while also dealing with universal problems around uncertainty and precarity. But the filmmakers leave certain details frustratingly vague. What is the texture and rhythm of daily life in Gambell? How do Chris’s parents earn money? What jobs are available on the island? Are hunters more guarded when sharing photos? How is Chris doing now, all these years later? What kind of mental health resources are available in a village this size?

In the film, oldest daughter Nalu is 18 and she’s itching to leave. “I’m not completely gay,” she says with a small giggle, “but I’m not really into guys either.” She’s still figuring it out — or how to talk about it, at least. Eventually she moves to Anchorage, where there are bowling alleys and Vietnamese restaurants and a girlfriend. Occasionally though, she’s homesick. “It’s amazing, not just that we survived for thousands of years, but that we thrived — at least until the white man came. Paul Watson’s attack on my brother is really nothing new. It started with the yankee whalers, who decimated our whale population and almost starved us to death. Then came the missionaries, with their crosses and boarding schools. ‘Kill the Indian, save the man,’ I think that was their motto. Now they brought us climate change. So Paul Watson and his followers are just the latest in a long line of (jerks).”

It’s worth noting the filmmakers do capture a successful whale hunt on camera, if that’s something you prefer not to see. Like any worthwhile documentary, “One With the Whale” is a window into the lives of others, and it’s handled with as much respect and sensitivity as you could expect from filmmakers outside the community.

“One With the Whale” — 3 stars (out of 4)

Where to watch:  8:30 p.m. ET Wednesday on select PBS channels as part of Independent Lens. (It airs again three more times before the end of the week.)

Nina Metz is a Tribune critic.

Red states fight growing efforts to give ‘basic income’ cash to residents

posted in: News | 0

Kevin Hardy | Stateline.org (TNS)

South Dakota state Sen. John Wiik likes to think of himself as a lookout of sorts — keeping an eye on new laws, programs and ideas brewing across the states.

“I don’t bring a ton of legislation,” said Wiik, a Republican. “The main thing I like to do is try and stay ahead of trends and try and prevent bad things from coming into our state.”

This session, that meant sponsoring successful legislation banning cities or counties from creating basic income programs, which provide direct, regular cash payments to low-income residents to help alleviate poverty.

While Wiik isn’t aware of any local governments publicly floating the idea in South Dakota, he describes such programs as “bureaucrats trying to hand out checks to make sure that your party registration matches whoever signed the checks for the rest of your life.”

The economic gut punch of the pandemic and related assistance efforts such as the expanded child tax credit popularized the idea of directly handing cash to people in need. Advocates say the programs can be administered more efficiently than traditional government assistance programs, and research suggests they increase not only financial stability but also mental and physical health.

Still, Wiik and other Republicans argue handing out no-strings-attached cash disincentivizes work — and having fewer workers available is especially worrisome in a state with the nation’s second-lowest unemployment rate.

South Dakota is among at least six states where GOP officials have looked to ban basic income programs.

The basic income concept has been around for decades, but a 2019 experiment in Stockton, California, set off a major expansion. There, 125 individuals received $500 per month with no strings attached for two years. Independent researchers found the program improved financial stability and health, but concluded that the pandemic dampened those effects.

GOP lawmakers like Wiik fear that even experimental programs could set a dangerous precedent.

“What did Ronald Reagan say, ‘The closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a government program’?” Wiik said. “So, if you get people addicted to just getting a check from the government, it’s going to be really hard to take that away.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


Trump could avoid trial this year on 2020 election charges. Is the hush money case a worthy proxy?

National Politics |


Supreme Court will decide whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution. Here’s what’s next

National Politics |


Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on abortion and Trump

National Politics |


Crush of lawsuits over voting in multiple states creates a shadow war for the 2024 election

National Politics |


Local election workers fear threats to their safety as November nears. One group is trying to help

The debate over basic income programs is likely to intensify as blue state lawmakers seek to expand pilot programs. Minnesota, for example, could become the nation’s first to fund a statewide program. But elected officials in red states are working to thwart such efforts — not only by fighting statewide efforts but also by preventing local communities from starting their own basic income programs.

Democratic governors in Arizona and Wisconsin recently vetoed Republican legislation banning basic income programs.

This month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Harris County to block a pilot program that would provide $500 per month to 1,900 low-income people in the state’s largest county, home to Houston.

Paxton, a Republican, argued the program is illegal because it violates a state constitutional provision that says local governments cannot grant public money to individuals.

Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee, a Democrat, called Paxton’s move “nothing more than an attack on local government and an attempt to make headlines.”

Meanwhile, several blue states are pushing to expand these programs.

Washington state lawmakers debated a statewide basic income bill during this year’s short session. And Minnesota lawmakers are debating whether to spend $100 million to roll out one of the nation’s first statewide pilot programs.

“We’re definitely seeing that shift from pilot to policy,” said Sukhi Samra, the director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, which formed after the Stockton experiment.

So far, that organization has helped launch about 60 pilot programs across the country that will provide $250 million in unconditional aid, she said.

Despite pushback in some states, Samra said recent polling commissioned by the group shows broad support of basic income programs. And the programs have shown success in supplementing — not replacing — social safety net programs, she said.

The extra cash gives recipients freedom of choice. People can fix a flat tire, cover school supplies or celebrate a child’s birthday for the first time.

“There’s no social safety net program that allows you to do that.” she said. “ … This is an effective policy that helps our families, and this can radically change the way that we address poverty in this country.”

Basic income experiments

The proliferation of basic income projects has been closely studied by researchers.

Though many feared that free cash would dissuade people from working, that hasn’t been the case, said Sara Kimberlin, the executive director and senior research scholar at Stanford University’s Center on Poverty and Inequality.

Stanford’s Basic Income Lab has tracked more than 150 basic income pilots across the country. Generally, those offer $500 or $1,000 per month over a short period.

“There isn’t anywhere in the United States where you can live off of $500 a month,” she said. “At the same time, $500 a month really makes a tremendous difference for someone who is living really close to the edge.”

Kimberlin said the research on basic income programs has so far been promising, though it’s unclear how long the benefits may persist once programs conclude. Still, she said, plenty of research shows how critical economic stability in childhood is to stability in adulthood — something both the basic income programs and the pandemic-era child tax credit can address.

Over the past five years, basic income experiments have varied across the country.

Last year, California launched the nation’s first state-funded pilot programs targeting former foster youth.

In Colorado, the Denver Basic Income Project aimed to help homeless individuals. After early successes, the Denver City Council awarded funding late last year to extend that program, which provides up to $1,000 per month to hundreds of participants.

A 2021 pilot launched in Cambridge, Massachusetts, provided $500 a month over 18 months to 130 single caregivers. Research from the University of Pennsylvania found the Cambridge program increased employment, the ability to cover a $400 emergency expense, and food and housing security among participants.

Children in participating families were more likely to enroll in Advanced Placement courses, earned higher grades and had reduced absenteeism.

“It was really reaffirming to hear that when families are not stressed out, they are able to actually do much better,” said Geeta Pradhan, president of the Cambridge Community Foundation, which worked on the project.

Pradhan said basic income programs are part of a national trend in “trust-based philanthropy,” which empowers individuals rather than imposing top-down solutions to fight poverty.

“There is something that I think it does to people’s sense of empowerment, a sense of agency, the freedom that you feel,” she said. “I think that there’s some very important aspects of humanity that are built into these programs.”

While the pilot concluded, the Cambridge City Council committed $22 million in federal pandemic aid toward a second round of funding. Now, nearly 2,000 families earning at or below 250% of the federal poverty level are receiving $500 monthly payments, said Sumbul Siddiqui, a city council member.

Siddiqui, a Democrat, pushed for the original pilot when she was mayor during the pandemic. While she said the program has proven successful, it’s unclear whether the city can find a sustainable source of funding to keep it going long term.

States look to expand pilots

Tomas Vargas Jr. was among the 125 people who benefited from the Stockton, California, basic income program that launched in 2019.

At the time, he heard plenty of criticism from people who said beneficiaries would blow their funds on drugs and alcohol or quit their jobs.

“Off of $500 a month, which amazed me,” said Vargas, who worked part time at UPS.

But he said the cash gave him breathing room. He had felt stuck at his job, but the extra money gave him the freedom to take time off to interview for better jobs.

Unlike other social service programs like food stamps, he didn’t have to worry about losing out if his income went up incrementally. The cash allowed him to be a better father, he said, as well as improved his confidence and mental health.

The experience prompted him to get into the nonprofit sector. Financially stable, he now works at Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

“The person I was five years ago is not the person that I am now,” he said.

Washington state Sen. Claire Wilson, a Democrat, said basic income is a proactive way to disrupt the status quo maintained by other anti-poverty efforts.

“I have a belief that our systems in our country have never been put in place to get people out of them,” she said. “They kept people right where they are.”

Wilson chairs the Human Services Committee, which considered a basic income bill this session that would have created a pilot program to offer 7,500 people a monthly amount equivalent to the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in their area.

The basic income bill didn’t progress during Washington’s short legislative session this year, but Wilson said lawmakers would reconsider the idea next year. While she champions the concept, she said there’s a lot of work to be done convincing skeptics.

In Minnesota, where lawmakers are considering a $100 million statewide basic income pilot program, some Republicans balked at the concept of free cash and its cost to taxpayers.

“Just the cost alone should be a concern,” Republican state Rep. Jon Koznick said during a committee meeting this month.

State Rep. Athena Hollins, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, acknowledged the hefty request, but said backers would support a scaled-down version and “thought it was really important to get this conversation started.”

Much of the conversation in committee centered on local programs in cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul. St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, a Democrat, told lawmakers the city’s 2020 pilot saw “groundbreaking” results.

After scraping by for years, some families were able to put money into savings for the first time, he said. Families experienced less anxiety and depression. And the pilot disproved the “disparaging tropes” from critics about people living in poverty, the mayor said.

Carter told lawmakers that the complex issue of economic insecurity demands statewide solutions.

“I am well aware that the policy we’re proposing today is a departure from what we’re all used to,” he said. “In fact, that’s one of my favorite things about it.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Analysis: Voters got first true 2024 week with Trump on trial, Biden on the trail

posted in: Politics | 0

John T. Bennett | (TNS) CQ-Roll Call

WASHINGTON— The unprecedented 2024 election cycle came into focus last week, with President Joe Biden ordering milkshakes and sandwiches on the campaign trail while Donald Trump was admonished by a criminal court judge during jury selection.

Biden worked rope lines in Pennsylvania while Trump observed a lineup of potential jurors being questioned by his legal team and New York state prosecutors. The incumbent visited a steelworkers’ union and two popular Pennsylvania convenience stores. His expected general election foe spent most of the week in a Manhattan courtroom, but squeezed in a campaign stop at a Harlem bodega.

The week’s running drama, as Trump’s first criminal trial got underway, marked a new phase of the 2024 campaign, showing how the presidential election will play out in courtrooms as much as campaign rallies and impromptu stops at local businesses.

With the New York hush money trial marking the first time a former U.S. president was a criminal defendant, lawmakers and strategists described the side-by-side activities of the two likely nominees as striking, but argued predictions about November were difficult because there was no precedent in U.S. history.

Focus voters on opponent

Republican strategist Brian Seitchik said last week highlighted that the election will turn on which candidate can keep the voters focused on his opponent.

“The more it’s all about Trump, the better it is for Biden. The more it’s all about Biden, the better it is for Trump,” he said. “It’s really just that simple. If Trump wins, that means the election was a referendum on Biden. And if Biden wins, that means his campaign made the election a referendum on Trump.”

Some lawmakers were skeptical the surreal spectacle of a sitting president running for reelection against a former one on trial is what is on most voters’ minds.

“I think I can answer that question best in November,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. “With all the litigation fights that have been ongoing for months and months now, we just continue to see Trump’s numbers climb higher and higher. So there’s a point of diminishing returns because his numbers are continuing to climb as more and more Americans get frustrated with what’s happening in the courtroom.”

But when asked about Biden’s recent polling uptick, including in the swing states expected to again decide the next president, Lankford was more muted. “I mean, that’s just going to be the ebb and flow of a campaign,” he said. “It’s hard to get a good read on any day exactly what all the issues are.”

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a sometimes-Biden critic, said he thinks “it helps the president only to the extent that he’s talking about real issues that people care about — the price of food, the price of child care, the price of gas and what he’s doing to help lower those costs for Americans.”

“They want us to be talking about pocketbook issues. So in that sense, it gives the president opportunity to focus on what matters to people. I think we should be focused on addressing the economic issues, addressing the issues of national security, addressing the issues of having secure borders and yet being welcoming of immigrants. And also letting the legal process play out,” Khanna said.

Khanna, who last year criticized Biden and his aides for not allowing voters to “see the authentic President Biden,” said Biden’s recent polling surge is directly tied to what he detects is a recent communications strategy shift among senior White House and campaign aides. “Whoever wrote his State of the Union speech, and maybe he did himself, really did a phenomenal job,” Khanna said, citing a “recalibration” since that March 7 address to Congress.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, right, appears in court with his attorney Todd Blanche for opening statements in his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 22, 2024, in New York City. (Yuki Iwamura/Pool/Getty Images/TNS)

As Trump was drawing warnings from Judge Juan Merchan multiple times for muttering as jurors were speaking or violating courtroom rules by using his phone, Biden was taking jabs at his top political opponent.

Biden told supporters at a rally Thursday in Philadelphia that Trump “already promised to be the dictator on day one — his own words — and call for — you know, he means it — and he calls for another bloodbath when he loses again.” Trump earlier this year said his first day back in the Oval Office would be dictator-like, so he could seal the U.S.-Mexico border and open domestic energy drilling beyond the record level under Biden.

Tight race in polls

Recent polls have shown a very close race, both nationally and in key swing states — with Biden narrowing Trump’s advantage in several of those battlegrounds. A recent national Emerson College poll of registered voters gave Trump a 4 percentage point lead over Biden when other candidates were added to the question, and a 3 percentage point lead in a head-to-head matchup.

RealClearPolitics average of recent polls in seven battleground states gave Trump a lead of less than 1 point in those states — but the 45th president’s biggest lead was 4.5 percentage points in Arizona, according to the organization’s calculations.

At his stops in Pennsylvania, among the most important of a handful of swing states, the Catholic Biden continued the effort to make access to abortion a thorn in Trump’s and other Republican candidates’ collective side. And he kept up his descriptions of a second Trump term as eroding democratic norms.

“I see an America where we defend democracy not diminished,” the president said Thursday. “I see an America where we protect our freedoms, not take them away.”

Meantime, Trump was back in court on Friday.

“It’s a rigged case. And it’s a case that was put in very strongly because of politics. So instead of making Pennsylvania or Georgia or North Carolina or lots of other places today, I’m sitting in a courthouse all day long,” Trump said before the day’s proceedings began, according to a pool report. “This is going on for the week and it will go up for another four or five weeks. And it’s very unfair. And people know it’s very unfair.”

___

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. Visit at rollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.