In blunt words aimed squarely at the Minnesota Legislature, the president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic warned Tuesday that the hallowed medical institution has “49 states” eager to have Mayo’s planned multibillion-dollar expansion if the state is unwilling to pitch in.(Must. Avoid. Lame. Joke. About. Name. Noseworthy. Too. Easy.)
“We’re never going to leave Minnesota, and we don’t want to leave Minnesota,” Dr. John Noseworthy said in an interview at the National Press Club, where the CEO made a pitch for federal investment in health care and medical research. “But we’ve got to decide where we’re going to put the next $3 billion.”
That money would be part of a $5 billion, 20-year expansion in Rochester dubbed “Destination Medical Center,” which would require a half-billion dollars from state officials for infrastructure improvements.
“If they say yes, that’s great, we want to stay in Minnesota,” Noseworthy said. But, he cautioned, “If they say no, or you’re going to have to go for a bonding bill every year for the next 30 years, we’ll have to rethink about whether that’s the best use of our money.”
Maybe the good doctor knows of places that have an extra $500 million lying around, but a little skepticism is in order here. We'll know they're serious when you see dudes wearing lab coats and Helga Braids showing up in Mark Dayton's breakfast nook.
4 comments:
Let's see, one one hand we have a private entity demanding that the public pick up the biggest share (well more than just "infrastructure") of a $1 billion+ seasonal stadium while paying its own share out of petty cash. On the other hand we have an organization putting up $4.5 billion of a $5 billion project and asking the public/state to pay $500 million in infrastructure costs to build it a new home. If it truly is just "infrastructure" - roads, technology, services - to support the growth I think that is within the public purview, especially if the organization is footing 90% of the bill for something that will benefit the public a lot more than a stadium will.
If it truly is just "infrastructure" - roads, technology, services - to support the growth I think that is within the public purview, especially if the organization is footing 90% of the bill for something that will benefit the public a lot more than a stadium will.
The "if" is pretty big on this one. The public threats and steamrolling are what arouse my suspicions.
On balance, I agree that giving Mayo infrastructure would benefit Minnesota a whole lot more than what's going down on Chicago Avenue. And the larger issue is that because we've committed public dollars to that boondoggle, it's going to be more difficult to muster the resources and the political support required for what likely is a more useful project.
I don't like public subsidies, but if you've ever been down here, you'll see quickly that it's a lot harder than it ought to be to get to the Mayo and Gonda buildings, even by the standards of big hospitals and such. Mayo is more or less asking for funds to remedy what Rochester has neglected for decades.
Mayo is more or less asking for funds to remedy what Rochester has neglected for decades.
And therein lies the public policy question to address. What incentive does Rochester have to develop any remedies if it can count on a Dayton ex machina bonding initiative for infrastructure?
Post a Comment