Mayo boosts lobbying as funding bill advances

  • Article by: Jennifer Brooks , Star Tribune
  • Updated: April 22, 2013 - 9:37 PM

$585M request is cut deeply in House, Senate versions.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
gemie1Apr. 23, 1312:00 AM

Mayo needs to go and practice medicine! What are the lobbyists promising our elected officials on an individual level? Is anyone else tired of this elitist bull coming from Rochester? Mayo wants to attract the "haves" and those who do not have, will pay for it in taxes. We are the ones that will build Mayo's public city infra-structure. Rochester is a fine community and having a theater district is not what will attract the best residents, doctors and the rich and famous. Get back to medicine! If all these lobbyists are networking in our capital, that we the people pay and maintain, then we should know if and what every elected official is gaining or not gaining from their Mayo relationship. Wait, I have a better idea, let's vote them all out of office! Is anyone else here tired of people getting taxed out of their homes, over-sized class rooms, diminished snow removal in the cities, high taxes and a state government that has no backbone and has no problem promising OUR money to whoever with a NAME with their hands out for subsidies, tax breaks, etc. I am tired of hearing about well if we are building a Viking stadium than we should be helping Mayo's vision. The problem with this logic is that most people in Minnesota did not want it. We are finally getting back on our feet and our state government is promising a lot of our money to different enterprises that should not be asking for state tax money or such large amounts.

4
7
hamilton64Apr. 23, 13 1:19 AM

As a self employed insured resident of Minnesota, Mayo is out of my network. If I were to utilize their facility I would have to pay half or more of the medical service. With a recent cancer diagnosis I have traveled to Baltimore's Johns Hopkins for care. They are in my network. If Mayo wanted Minnesota funds they should have allowed every Minnesota insured resident to use their facility.

8
2
comment229Apr. 23, 13 6:05 AM

PS... I have thought long and hard about the Mayo Clinic issue and I do understand both sides of the issue. At first, I leaned toward the "no way" group of people and yes, I still understand their point. However, the bottom line for me is the amount of life time jobs it will create for the people of our state, and that is the trump card I guess for me.

6
4
EleanoreApr. 23, 13 7:09 AM

NO is the only answer that is acceptable here for so many reasons. Forcing citizens to subsidize the private non-profit of Mayo, or the profit of the private for profit businesses that mayo is lobbying to enrich is simply unethical and illigitimate taxation. We all need to be subsidized when we desire to be seems to be the standard they are setting with the NFL, Mayo, any number of other businesses. this will end very, veyr badly.

5
6
mbennett8799Apr. 23, 13 9:35 AM

Eleanore - your comments are inaccurate on several fronts. The money is not to subsidize Mayo; it is dispersed by an independent body to support infrastructure in the city of Rochester (e.g. roads, bridges, public spaces). Also, it's not a hand-out. DMC is asking to capture a percentage of tax money generated through growth caused by DMC. In other words, "we'll make you X million dollars through growth and investment, can we get Y percent of the incremental taxes generated to support the growth". It's truly an investment for the state of Minnesota, as the increased tax base from the construction and permanent jobs will pay back the state's investment and then some. To gemie, there's been a lot of research on what Mayo patients and visitors want. Your opinion on what people want or don't want is trumped by facts gleaned from that research. Let's not forget that Mayo is planning on spending billions of its own dollars to expand their practice, expand the number of lives they touch, and expand the tax base in MN.

5
4
EleanoreApr. 23, 1310:03 AM

mbennett8799 you're simply incorrect as shown in the fact that mayo is asking for a subsidy from the state in the first place. If they weren't Rochester would be standing in line with all the rest of Minnesota’s cities waiting patiently for their turn to address infrastructure needs based on our overall state plan. What Mayo, and Rochester are asking for is a subsidy, something extra. Not just moving to the front of the line but for an entirely new line only they stand in, and in the process the cost of that request will burden every Minnesotan by shorting the second class line they now find themselves standing in. Minnesotans understand this and have said no. Legislators though will be bought as they always are, and it will be up to us to vote out those who support this sort of corruption of our state funding process.

2
3
mbennett8799Apr. 23, 1310:37 AM

Hi Eleanor - I guess we can agree to disagree on what to call the Mayo/Rochester request. I see you commenting on many of these stories and appreciate your passion on the subject. I'm curious - do you see ANY role for government investment (not just for this, for anything)? I'm of the opinion that government should make reasonable investments for the "greater good" (however that's defined), which I think the Mayo/Rochester request fits into, but based upon some of your comments I believe you may disagree. I was wondering if that's an all-or-nothing viewpoint from you, or if you see some value in a subset of investments.

4
2
cutitbigtimeApr. 23, 1310:55 AM

My health insurance cost would be prohibitive if I go to the Mayo because it is "out of network". Has the Minnesota Government figured out how to pay for the Viking stadium befor they saddle us with another huge unfunded mandate for taxpayers?

5
2
EleanoreApr. 23, 1311:18 AM

"do you see ANY role for government investment" - Absolutely, the only legal standard as noted in the constitution is for "public use" not public good, or public benefit, but use. All kinds of spending falls under that, but none I can think of that takes from citizens their property (taxes) to give to other citizens for their investments. Public dollars are for needs and desires, but the desires must fall into that public use class and ideally once funded should not be encumberd with any special use fees, we've already paid).

1
4
EleanoreApr. 23, 1311:22 AM

The rochester request doesn't fit for me because it is asking for more, for extra, for something no community is entitled to...a new line to stand in apart from the rest of us. We can't afford that, and frankly when they explain what it's for and why, it's unsupportable on the surface. We don't NEED an atrium, neither does Rochester. It's not a NEED.

1
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT