Filed Under (MN House Race, *Top Stories, Minnesota, Video) by mmcintee on January-11-2008
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Partisan, obstructionist, and ideologue are just some of the words DFLer Elwyn Tinklenberg uses to describe Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in his interview with The UpTake’s Ken Avidor. Tinklenberg, who was Transportation Director under Governor Jesse Venutura, is seeking the DFL endorsement to run against Bachmann this year. If this interview is any indication, the Tinklenberg campaign plans to portray Bachmann as a do-nothing delayer who is more concerned about politics than results. Highlights of the interview in text after the jump.

Download ipod/Quicktime file

Tinklenberg on Bachmann and transportation:
She is about partisan polarization. She is about divisiveness. And the result is she has not been able to accomplish anything as a (state) Senator and she’s not accomplishing anything except in a negative sort of way in the district currently. We think we represent a strong alternative to that.

The district is the focus of some major chages in transportation, not only in terms of improvements to the existing system, but changes in that system. Northstar is a big issue. And I’m proud of the fact that I helped get Northstar started when I was at Anoka County. And now we’re making some progress on that. It’s disappointing to me that it’s five year later than what it should have been. It’s $90 Million more than when we introduced it back in 2000. Back then it was going all the way to St. Cloud, now it’s just going to Big Lake. So we’ve lost time, we’ve lost half of the line and we’ve increased the cost as result of the delays that came out of the Republican controlled House back in 2000.

I bring a record of having to do some things in transportation and some important things, the Hiawatha light rail line for example, as compared to Representative Bachmann, who when she was in the state Senate fought every transportation initiative that came along, has been a constant obstructionist for transportation issues in the state and has carried that on even now in her Congressional seat. She has voted three times to hold up funding for the reconstruction of the 35 W bridge. And I think that represents where her priorities are in relation to transportation issues .

She hasn’t been able anything done partly because of that kind of partisan, ideologue approach she’s taken to so many issues. But also she has used what support she has given to transportation, principally PRT or Personal Rapid Transit, as a way of really distracting the discussion of kind of delaying tactics in terms of transportation. PRT is not something that’s going to work to serve commuters. It’s not something that’s going to work to serve the transit interests and concerns and needs of Minnesota. And she’s using it simply as a distraction. She doesn’t really mean or intend to support any kind of increased funding for transit and she’s just using this as a way of diffusing the issue.

Tinklenberg on Iraq:
When I get to Congress the first resolution I will introduce is to demand that the next administration provide for the Congress a plan within three months of taking office, for the secure safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. I think we have become part of the problem and that we need to be moving in the direction of removing our troops in a way that protects their safety and security. But also in a way that encourages the surrounding countries to get more involved. They’re never going to take a serious role in the stability of that region as long as we’re there doing the job for them. It’s only when we set up a plan for withdrawal that the other countries are really going to have a stake in helping to build a more secure and stable region.

Tinklenberg on the mortgage crisis and health care:
People are feeling really squeezed. The families in the 6th district are seeing heating costs go up. They’re seeing gas prices go up. They’re seeing their property taxes go up. They’re feeling a kind of insecurity in terms of the cost of health care. The insecurity in terms of their retirement and then the mortgage crisis added to that where they used to be able to count on the equity in their home, and now their seeing the valuse of their home actually declining even while property taxes are goin up. So all of those things are really creating a tremendous amount of pressure on the families of the district. At the same time they’re facing a kind of stagnation in the wages of non-supervisory working people. So I think we need to find ways to address those issues. I think we need to define a tax policy that supports working families, that supports jobs and economic development and not the kind of tax policies that the Bush administration has put in place that really support the concentration of wealth among a smaller and smaller percentage of the public.



Comments
A Transportation Enthusiast on January 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm #

Wow, Elwyn Tinklenberg actually believes Ken Avidor’s anti-PRT propaganda! I wonder if he, like Avidor, is associated with rail construction interests? Has he received donations from any of Ken’s buddies at Light Rail Now?

Perhaps Tinklenberg should explain to us the basis for his assertion that PRT would not work, given that many respected transit professionals around the world have a completely different view, and that the only people who say it won’t work are those directly a$$ociated with a competing technology…

A Transportation Enthusiast on January 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm #

Well what do you know - I’m not the first to question Tinklenberg’s motives!

See: http://www.residualforces.com/2007/11/26/the-tale-of-the-twin-porkers-twin-ports-to-twin-cities-passenger-rail-tinklenbergs-conflict-of-interest-oberstars-earmark

Tinklenberg heads “The Tinklenberg Group” which has made hundreds of thousands of dollars as a rail transit consultant! Is it any shock that he’s promoting the anti-PRT propaganda of Ken Avidor? If PRT wins, he loses money!

I was a little shocked when I first heard Tinklenberg’s remarks here, but now knowing his financial conflict of interest, it makes perfect sense. FOLLOW THE MONEY…

A Transportation Enthusiast on January 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am #

More developments on this…

Mr. Grant has written an excellent post analyzing Ken Avidor’s interview with Tinklenberg:

http://innovative-transit.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-perfect-mock-journalist-part-iv.html

The crux of it is this: Ken Avidor has publicly questioned Tinklenberg’s association with SEH, a transportation engineering firm which Avidor has criticized for years:

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/05/elwyn-tinklenbergs-troubling-ties-to.html

So why didn’t SEH come up in Avidor’s interview? One would think it would be Avidor’s first question to Tinklenberg given that Avidor himself wrote that blog post two years ago.

Most likely answer: two years ago Tinklenberg was not publicly against PRT; today he is. For Ken Avidor, PRT is the litmus test. If you come out against PRT, all past sins will be forgiven.

Another irony here: Ken Avidor has tried to link SEH to PRT for years now:

http://innovative-transit.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-perfect-mock-journalist-part-iv.html

His thesis was that SEH was an evil highway construction firm; SEH was associated with PRT; therefore PRT is a scheme to promote highways. But the ties to PRT were always tenuous - yet here we have a RAIL CHAMPION with DIRECT TIES to SEH, and Ken Avidor doesn’t mention a word of it.

I have followed Ken Avidor’s writings for two years now, and I even have a blog dedicated to analyzing his tactics. I can tell you this with certainty: PRT is his litmus test. If you support PRT, Avidor will vilify you; if you come out against PRT, Avidor will support you. Tinklenberg knew this, told Avidor what he wanted to hear, and thereby guaranteed a friendly interview.

Now I’d like to know from Ken: is SEH “not so bad” now that it is associated closely with a rail proponent?

Avidor on January 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

Old news.

1) SEH gave money to Taxi 2000 before the lawsuit in 2005. A documents in the lawsuit says SEH tore up its memo of understanding with Taxi 2000. The SEH logo was removed from the Taxi 2000 website. As far as I know, SEH no longer supports PRT. It recently worked on a report for the city of Mpls about streetcars.

2) SEH’s lobbyist is Ed Cain and Bachmann has a picture of Ed Cain on her congressional website.
If you search for Ed Cain on the DB blog, you’ll learn that Ed Cain is also the lobbyist for Taxi 2000.

I hope that answers your question. If it doesn’t you’ll have to ask someone else.

A Transportation Enthusiast on January 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pm #

Just to clarify: Avidor has claimed for years that PRT was a scam perpetrated by the highway industry, and as evidence of that, all he provided was the Taxi2000 link to SEH. So, in other words, according to Avidor, PRT was a scam BECAUSE OF its association with SEH, not the other way around.

Now that SEH is DIRECTLY involved with a huge light rail proponent, SEH is apparently no longer evil in Avidor’s eyes.

Can anyone spot the circular argument here? For years, Avidor said PRT was evil because of its association with SEH; but really, deep down, he believed the opposite: SEH was evil because of its association with PRT, and now that they’ve broken ties with PRT and are in bed with light rail proponents, SEH is no longer evil!

So I now have two questions for Avidor:

- What evidence do you now have that PRT is a scam? Your sole piece of “evidence” (flimsy as it was) was the link to highways through SEH, but now that SEH has been redeemed in your eyes, you have absolutely NOTHING to support your 4-year-old “scam” claims.
- What does it say about light rail that one of it’s top level proponents has a close business relationship to the SEH highway engineers? Is light rail transit a stalking horse perpetrated by the highway lobby to kill PRT? By your logic, it MUST be, right? :-)

Post a comment
Name: 
Email: 
URL: 
Comments: 

*Comments that contain personal attacks
or are not pertinent to the story
will not be published.*