Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota was hit with some unwelcome news recently when Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins announced he would not continue his career here, signing a contract with the Atlanta Falcons. While the big payday appears to be good for Cousins, it is an unfortunate loss for our state (Kirk's playoff record notwithstanding).

The Cousins family's decision echoes what has become a familiar pattern here in Minnesota, even when four-year, $180 million contracts are not at stake. Too often talented individuals and thriving businesses leave our state, or don't come at all, in favor of greener pastures elsewhere.

A recent report by the Minnesota Chamber Foundation shed light on the shortcomings of Minnesota's competitiveness and economic edge when it comes to business growth and retention. Due to our state's lengthy and overly onerous regulatory processes, our state is falling behind in the race to attract job-creating new industry opportunities in Minnesota.

According to the report, Minnesota's regulatory permit review times for air permits, which are vital for all large industrial projects, are 1.5 to 6 times longer than those of our Midwest counterparts. These air permits have the same federal requirements, meaning the standards are the same, but the time to get a permit decision isn't. The same report makes clear that this isn't an issue of staffing shortages, as other states process these permits more quickly with lower or similar staffing levels than Minnesota agencies.

This unnecessarily long permitting process is negatively impacting our economy and is one of primary reason businesses are choosing to grow elsewhere.

This should alarm all Minnesotans, and it has. Sensible leaders in the business and labor communities are coming together to streamline our regulatory processes. Reforming Minnesota's environmental permitting process doesn't mean compromising on quality, either. Other states have similar high environmental standards but have efficient permitting systems, and we can do the same.

Currently, there is consideration of permitting reform legislation that would cut some of the burdensome regulatory red tape. But the problem is that the legislation cuts red tape only for renewable energy projects. That would be a massive mistake. Jobs and wages in industries from timber, paper, mining, natural gas, oil, agriculture, food production, manufacturing and biopharma would benefit from permitting reform. And there is no philosophical or practical reason why a streamlined regulatory approach for one industry — renewables — should not be used for other industries.

Minnesota should be a state where it's easier for all businesses to do business, where businesses and the workers they employ are not treated by state government as adversaries. The state should not send the message that businesses other than renewable energy are not a priority, that their permit wait times, their projects and the jobs that come with them do not matter.

The list of instances where Minnesota has lost out on economic opportunity is long. Just recently, the Minnesota Reformer detailed a new effort to recycle existing Minnesota mining waste and turn it into pig iron which will eventually become taconite and then steel. But the pig iron processing plant and the steel plant will be built in North Dakota and not on the Iron Range where they could have been in a different regulatory environment. Last year regulatory delays ended a $450 million investment planned by Huber Engineered Wood that would have meant 150 jobs in the small town of Cohasset, Minn.

Lest there be any accusations of cherry-picking or bias on our part, a Biden administration website dedicated to showing public and private investment activity nationally during President Joe Biden's term shows that although Minnesota has some activity arising from utilities building renewable energy, there have been only three manufacturing or other projects so far in Minnesota. In contrast, other Midwestern and Southern states have seen meaningful investment in manufacturing and other projects. The game is not over. Minnesota needs to do more to strike while the iron is hot and bring these private investments to our state.

We are coming together as two leaders representing two communities — labor and business — that have not always been aligned. Yet Minnesota stands at a crossroads now in the face of serious threats to its economic future, many of which arise from anti-growth policies arising from the far left. On permitting reform and on economic policy more broadly, now is more important than ever for those in the business and labor communities who share concerns about economic growth to come together on behalf of the pro-growth reforms needed to generate jobs and investment and grow wages in our state.

The businesses and workers of Minnesota need decisive action. Just as applicants shouldn't wait years for a new permit, they shouldn't wait years for a broken system to finally be fixed. The time to improve Minnesota's permitting processes — for all Minnesota industries and all Minnesota workers — is today.

Jason George is business manager for International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49. Jim Schultz is president of the Minnesota Private Business Council. Previous Star Tribune Opinion coverage of this subject included "Clean-energy pursuit requires permitting reform," March 21.