Lower Middle Class Ethnically – Nonspecific Privilege

A friend of the blog rights:

Re: St Paul trash referendum- I’m laughing at all of the Vote Yes Progressive Mac Groveland/Merriam Park people A- who are suddenly perplexed by the strong No vote on the East side and B- who called No voters on the East side “selfish wealthy homeowners” when it was brought to their attention that East siders said the vote No was a cheaper option for them (because trash collection cost would be shouldered by all property tax payers)
This is outrageously funny to me given how these same people support increasing taxes on “the wealthy” to pay for medical bills, cost of college, any other whim of the leisure class. It’s now selfish when it is opposite their viewpoint. But, I guess now we do have a clearer understanding of who they think are wealthy- Not them who are paying $2000 per month rent or buying half a million dollar houses. Nope. It’s the working class fool who lives in a house worth about $150,000, $200,000 at most. So selfish of them to be paying so little for housing, just making it living paycheck to paycheck. They could be racking up more debt and then perhaps they would feel more indebted to the ruling class, you know, if they had absolutely nothing.

Mac-Groveland, Crocus Hill, and pretty much all the Parks (Highland, Merriam, Saint Anthony, Desnoyer, Irvine) griping about anyone else’s “privilege” is one of those things that’s becoming an inside joke in “progressive” cities.

To everyone but…well, I listed ’em off.

Posted

November 7, 2019

St. Paul

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

15 responses to “Lower Middle Class Ethnically – Nonspecific Privilege”

Emery

November 7, 2019

I’ll give you credit for not using “voter fraud” as an excuse for the nearly 2-to-1 Yes ratio.

The Yes vote demonstrates what I have seen many times — that the noisiest faction is not always most representative of what most voters want. A small group made a lot of noise and cost the city a significant amount of money appealing a decision that the voters have now confirmed.

The City Council appears to have been adequately representing the will of the voters with their plan after all.
Bill C

November 7, 2019

St Paul got the government they voted for. Good and hard.
Joe Doakes

November 7, 2019

An illegal act was later ratified. Does that retroactively make it legal?
mjb003

November 7, 2019

“A small group made a lot of noise and cost the city a significant amount of money appealing a decision that the voters have now confirmed.”

I have read that a lot following the outcome of Tuesday vote. The Yes/No vote, which should have been a referendum on whether citizens wanted organized trash became a vote on who who would pay for the horrible system that the city negotiated. As the courts said, we were still on the hook for the 5 year contract. Just because the people voted Yes to not pass on their trash costs to small business owners and larger apartment complex landlords doesn’t mean everyone who voted Yes supported the stupid system.
Emery

November 7, 2019

Much ado about nothing. Organized trash hauling was, is, and will forever be, a good idea. Opposition by a small number of people, who then turned it into a monstrosity that made even less sense.
Swiftee Pinochet

November 7, 2019

“Organized trash hauling was, is, and will forever be, a good idea.“

Look at that witless little twat…plagiarizing Tony Soprano.
mjb003

November 7, 2019

“Organized trash hauling was, is, and will forever be, a good idea.”

Yes! Because making trash is a basic human right and the government needs to be involved in all aspects of that trash making and disposal. Why should we bother with reuse and reducing? Why should we haul away our own? Why should we share? Why should we shop around for a service that fits our needs? There are union jobs that need to be filled. What will those people ever do with their lives if they’re not hauling trash around? Let’s keep filling those cans- full full full.

Whatever. I can think of plenty of services that are a basic need, societal good. Trash hauling isn’t something that ever comes to mind.

As Joe mentioned above, the contract was set up illegally, against the city charter. But, honestly, in this city given voter apathy towards local elections, if the vote had happened before the council did the contract, Yes still would have won. The council, following the proper procedures, could have saved the city a lot of money.
Ian

November 7, 2019

Organized trash hauling was, is, and will forever be, a good idea.

A statement that betrays a narrow-bubble world view. My mother-in-law lives in a rural part of Iowa and (*gasps*) burns much of her trash. The Emerys of the world seem to think one size always fits all.
bikebubba

November 7, 2019

As I noted before, if it’s a huge deal that a neighborhood might have 5 garbage trucks per week instead of one, it’s an even bigger deal if that same neighborhood has dozens of city buses traversing the streets each day. Single company trash collection sounds like a good idea until one realizes what happens with monopolies.
Night Writer

November 7, 2019

Interesting timing. Today, two days after the vote, we find out that back in July the St. Paul haulers notified the city that they wanted to increase the rates they’re charging. For some reason, that information wasn’t made public until today.
Bill C

November 7, 2019

As I noted before, if it’s a huge deal that a neighborhood might have 5 garbage trucks per week instead of one

I’ve read a comment by a former Crystal city council member stating that the Crystal city engineer reported that multiple garbage trucks didn’t cause that much damage. The vast majority of road damage comes from freeze/thaw cycles of water and lack of preventative maintenance

I’ve heard a former area manager of MnDOT (who has forgotten more about streets/roadways/freeways and the associated politics of such than ANY poster on this blog will ever know), state essentially the same thing.
Joe Doakes

November 7, 2019

In a prior life, decades ago, I was City Attorney for a few small towns in Central Minnesota. Organized garbage was proposed to save the streets from the damage caused by driving heavy vehicles each Spring when the streets are posted for 10,000 pound load limits. The City Engineer asked if that would include school buses, which also exceed load limits and run far more frequently than garbage trucks. The motion failed.
jdm

November 7, 2019

lack of preventative maintenance

This, in point of fact, has always been a problem with governments because while people might vote against politicians who don’t fill potholes (aka maintain the infrastructure), people don’t vote for politicians who keep the potholes filled.

Governments don’t understand at all what’s important and what isn’t. Think of all the money that would’ve been available for maintenance if not for those stupid trains. But, of course, they would’ve wasted that money on something else then.
Greg

November 8, 2019

Gosh, a bad idea gets overwhelmingly approved by voters in a solid blue district. Whoever heard of such a thing?

Personally, I don’t mind it when idiots vote themselves into hell, it is their hell. It is also why I moved out of the Twin Cities.

What I do mind is when idiots try to vote me into hell and there is an answer to that, simply ignore their stupid notions.

See Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties

We need more of this….

You know, it is not just the left who can refuse to follow laws they do not like.
Loren

November 8, 2019

As both bikebubba and Joe Doakes point out, I have far more school buses on my St. Paul street every week day than I had garbage trucks in a week. And these school buses are the the long buses, not the short ones. 🙂