ed092609

On the homepage

Scanners

Full-body scanners headed for MSP

Out There

Gas lines

10 years later, same fire, anger

Club Outdoors

Behind closed doors

Home | Opinion Exchange | Editorials

Editorial: U, Central Corridor should keep talking

Put lawsuit aside; state needs a negotiated solution.

Last update: September 25, 2009 - 6:50 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

RESEARCHER'S PLEA

"I am writing to ensure that the much needed light-rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul does not, at the same time, hurt U of M research. It seems to me that we can have a win-win situation by ensuring that proper mitigation of vibration is engineered into the corridor."

Linda McLoon, Ph.D., Departments of Ophthalmology and Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, in a letter to project manager Mark Fuhrman.

More from Editorials

Despite the soothing assurances that accompanied it, the University of Minnesota's move this week to take its Central Corridor concerns to court is disappointing.

It's disappointing that two state-chartered bodies remain at odds this late in the process of building what will be the state's most costly public works project. And it's disappointing that one party is so nervous about the other that it was willing to toss a lawsuit bomb into the middle of negotiations that both parties agree have been producing progress toward an accord.

Having been tossed, that bomb's fuse ought not be lit. The university ought to let its lawsuit quietly rest in Hennepin District Court and make the most of its continuing talks with the Met Council's Central Corridor planners.

If it does, chances are still good that a deal can be struck that will both safeguard the university's research facilities from light-rail interference, and keep the train on time and nearly on budget.

University general counsel Mark Rotenberg went so far as to argue that the lawsuit might be an aid to negotiations. "The university is just as willing to negotiate today as we were in the days leading up to the lawsuit. The filing of this litigation actually will speed this up," he said.

That's true, if negotiation means amassing a sufficient show of force for the Central Corridor managers to accede to every university demand. But the two sides in this protracted argument are both defending legitimate public interests. Those interests need to be balanced. Minnesota won't be well served if one completely trumps the other.

The university is right to seek to protect the sensitive research conducted in the 17 buildings that sit alongside the proposed rail line. Many hopes for Minnesota's economic future are invested in that research. Central Corridor planners concede that, and are willing to modify the line's design to shield against disruptive vibration and electromagnetic interference in those buildings.

But Central Corridor planners are obliged to look for the most cost-effective means of providing the needed mitigation and monitoring its performance. For example, is 24/7 monitoring necessary, or will periodic measurement suffice? And if it's the former, should the university help pay for it, especially after a start-up interval sets a performance benchmark?

That's the kind of balancing-act question that remains to be answered. It ought to be decided in an atmosphere of good faith dialogue, not legal threats and ultimatums. It might be settled more quickly with the help of people experienced in balancing competing public interests. Senior members of the state's congressional delegation come to mind, both for their negotiating expertise and for their ability to bring additional federal money to bear on a solution, should that be necessary.

Rotenberg has likened the situation in which the U finds itself to that of a farmer whose land is being taken for a highway, and is not adequately compensated for the loss. His analogy isn't quite fitting. Both parties in this fight are substantial enterprises, and both are in business to serve Minnesota.

The university will benefit greatly from Central Corridor, and it has abundant interest in prudent stewardship of the public purse. Likewise, Central Corridor has much to gain from establishing a good relationship with a vitally important and politically powerful neighbor. With so much reason to agree, this quarrel ought to be settled soon, outside a courtroom.

Recent Editorials stories

Editorial: Make the right choice for St. Paul - September 25, 2009

Editorial: Make the right choice for St. Paul - Capital city schools need a leader who will get the job done. More

Comment on this story | Read all 10 comments | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS