Question 4:

The Governor of Minnesota will be asked to come up with solutions to a variety of issues that culminate in the tension between the need to protect the environment, and the need to sustain economic development. Solutions to conflicts that have arisen through issues such as the BWCA, timber resources, agriculture, including feedlots, and others will require making difficult choices and creating consensus. What are some of the tradeoffs you see in these rural and urban issues? In your rebuttal please respond to these two questions. Can you create consensus between these divergent Minnesota interests to work out some of these problems. If so, how would you create that consensus?

DAYTON Response to Question 4

During my ten years in the executive branch of Minnesota government, I served as Commissioner of Economic Development, member of the Environmental Quality Board, and member of the Land Exchange Board.

My conclusions:

1) There is no inherent conflict between good economic development projects and wise environmental protection and resource conservation.

2) There frequently is conflict.

Why the paradox?

It traces back to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, or to thousands of years of evolutionary separation, or whatever; the result is the same: human beings don’t speak the same language! They have a hard time understanding one another. They have very different beliefs, priorities, and life experiences. They have conflicting self-interests, especially financial interests, in different situations.

And here they live in a country which places higher premiums on individual rights than collective responsibilities. As Burger King exhorts, "Have it your way!"

Nevertheless, most of the disagreements among parties involved in development/protection disputes are resolved by the individuals or groups themselves. Thus the conflicts which gain public attention, and which government or the courts are asked to adjudicate, have usually been festering, are very controversial, and have emotionally aroused combatants on all sides. These combatants are certain that they are right and the others are wrong. Their financial interests, beliefs, and personal stakes in the outcome are very different and in direct conflict.

When the government agency or Governor is asked to intervene in this kind of dispute, it/she/he literally and figuratively steps into the middle of it. Most of the combatants do not want a "solution," they want "victory." They don’t perceive their self-interests: their financial gains, their organizations’ reputations, or their sincere beliefs to be served by "reaching consensus." They want to win!

To be continued in tomorrow’s rebuttal.