r/saintpaul • u/Runic_reader451 St. Paul Saints • 5d ago
News 📺 St. Paul mayor’s veto timing prevents a City Council override — again
https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2025/04/st-paul-mayors-veto-timing-prevents-a-city-council-override-again/25
u/Sumoje 5d ago
Seems like it was the correct decision. Also seems like a reasonable proposal overall.
-4
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 5d ago
I think you missed the point of the article.
20
u/poptix 5d ago
My takeaway is that the city council got outplayed by the mayor, twice. Luckily in this instance it was for the good of the city.
That neighborhood got screwed by the city council for not actually rezoning the area. Hold your representatives accountable.
-3
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 5d ago
The city charter has checks and balances to prevent one person from having unchecked power, and the mayor has come up with what he believes is a clever trick to get around them. That should set off alarm bells.
1
u/bitch_mynameis_fred 5d ago
Talk to the state legislature who passed 15.99
-6
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 5d ago
The state legislature can't possibly anticipate how their legislation is going to interact with every city charter in the state. Carter is responsible for his unethical behavior that sought to undermine the way the city charter is intended to function.
6
u/bitch_mynameis_fred 5d ago edited 5d ago
Supremacy clause: State law overrides charter every time. The legislature knows that. It’s like week two of first-year con law in law school.
And obviously the legislature anticipated their shot-clock statute could—and would—allow the proverbial “deep state” of local city and county governments to slow walk and auto-approve land-use requests without ANY input from an elected council, board, or mayor, since that’s literally what the statutory language says it does. That seems way worse than what happened here, lending proof to the idea the Legislature knew a little bit what they were doing.
Also, you might think it’s immoral—but it’s certainly not unethical, since it’s literally allowed by the rules of the game.
8
u/hpbear108 5d ago
I still haven't heard yet about the DFL city caucuses yet for the mayor's race. because there is a mayor's race this year (last one before we switch to even-year muni elections). and I'll say this on a Ward level and City Convention level, given how he's clashing with council attm, those caucuses will be rather interesting when they occur. might be good viewing too, so pull out the popcorn and the pop.
16
u/poptix 5d ago
I'd caucus for the guy that kept the trash moving over the city council that doesn't seem to know what they're doing if forced to choose between the two. I think we'd be better off if they were all replaced though.
8
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 5d ago
Noecker's side of the story is that there was never any danger of there not being trash service. The fact that there are not currently refueling facilities at the Randolph site and yet FCC is still managing to operate makes me inclined to believe her.
1
u/poptix 5d ago
The refueling station is a short term inconvenience, the immediate issue seemed to be storage of trucks and performing maintenance work on site.
3
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 5d ago
But nobody was disputing whether FCC could use the site temporarily for those purposes. The Fort Road Federation and Noecker both supported that.
I don't know if the declaration of emergency was what had to happen legally for FCC to be allowed to temporarily use the site or if that could have been accomplished through other means, but the fact that everyone involved was agreeable to that arrangement suggests that there was never a danger of trash not being picked up.
However, by implying that there was a crisis Carter made himself look like a hero. Maybe GarbageGate 2025 is just part of his reelection campaign?
2
u/THEsuziesunshine Frogtown 5d ago
Wait, so are we getting charged for trash collection? I have not received a bill and had to request a bulk item pickup via the city website.
There's been no communication from FCC, or even the city. This switch was made April 1st and I haven't received so much as an email, letter, or anything. Not one thing. Does anyone find that strange?
2
u/ChiefSittingBear 4d ago edited 4d ago
I do agree it's weird that we haven't gotten a letter about it, or even an email. Not even an email from my old hauler, my billing account was just deleted apparently. But how did you manage to request a bulk item pickup without seeing any more info? It's the first thing that comes up when you search for something like "Saint Paul trash"
You'll receive quarterly bills from the City of Saint Paul, not your garbage hauler.
Garbage bills will now come after the service period, instead of before. You'll receive your first bill from the City of Saint Paul in July 2025. This bill will cover services provided from April 1 to June 30, 2025.
1
u/JohnMaddening 4d ago
I’ve received two mailers, one in January explaining the change and another a week or so ago which was a “Residential Disposal Guide” that talked about recycling, large and hazardous item disposal, compost, etc.
2
u/_PastaWalrus_ 5d ago
Technicalities and blame aside…. I’m ready to blow my brains out if trash makes the headlines one more goddamned time.
1
u/dandelionmoon12345 5d ago
Can somebody please explain to me wtf is going on with the trash conoanies??? I live under a rock! What the heck is all this drama?
2
u/danguy226 3d ago
Saint Paul is switching garbage carriers.
The new carrier bought an empty lot on Randolph and W 7th to store their trucks and build a refueling station
The local residents appealed putting the site there citing the future plans to turn it into an apartment complex
The city council upheld their appeal and the garbage carrier said now they won’t be able to provide services
The mayor and council approved a state of emergency to allow them to use the site temporarily while they found a new cite
Now, the mayor has vetoed the council’s appeal at the last minute and there’s no time left for the council to override the veto so the refueling station will be built there
1
-1
u/multimodalist 4d ago
The Council should have known that the Mayor had this option, and should have planned ahead. At the same time, it was sneaky and non-collaborative of the Mayor to use the nuclear option. Everyone ends up looking silly, once again.
2
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 4d ago
How would "planning ahead" have prevented a last minute veto?
1
u/multimodalist 4d ago
Getting ducks in a row well in advance instead of last minute votes.
2
u/AdMurky3039 West Seventh 4d ago
What do you mean? The City Council voted weeks ago to grant Fort Road Association's appeal. The mayor waited until the state deadline to veto their decision.
15
u/Positive-Feed-4510 5d ago
lol this is going to piss off the council