Google now has an app that will match your face to fine art. I have determined you can point your phone’s camera at a computer screen to match Minneapolis politicians to faces in old paintings. Disclaimer: much like DNA testing services provided by sites like ancestry.com, these results are not 100% genetically accurate.
Kevin Reich, Ward 1.
Cam Gordon, Ward 2.
Steve Fletcher, Ward 3.
Phillipe Cunningham, Ward 4.
Jeremiah Ellison, Ward 5.
Abdi Warsame, Ward 6.
Lisa Goodman, Ward 7.
Andrea Jenkins, Ward 8.
Alondra Cano, Ward 9.
Council President Lisa Bender, Ward 10.
Jeremy Schroeder, Ward 11.
Andrew Johnson, Ward 12.
Linea Palmisano, Ward 13.
Mayor Jacob Frey.
The ubiquitous unflattering Star Tribune photo of former Mayor Betsy Hodges shows a 50% genetic match to a boy playing the bagpipes.
Former City Council President Barb Johnson.
Former mayoral candidate Tom Hoch.
I tried to run the eerily human face of Andrew Johnson’s dog through the Google fine art machine, but it couldn’t find a match. However, Wedge LIVE computers calculate that Andrew Johnson’s dog is a 99% genetic match to a painting of an Ewok.
The mysteriously persistent proposal to allow more billboards in downtown Minneapolis has Planning Commissioner John Slack feeling as if he’d like to pour a bottle of antibiotics all over it:
For me this is like the rash that won’t go away. I don’t see how this supports any of the comprehensive plan goals, I don’t see how this improves livability in the downtown. All I see is negative and adverse effects.
As described by city staff person Steve Poor, “the ordinance is designed to allow for a robust building out of off-premise advertising” in areas of downtown near stadiums and along Hennepin and Washington Avenues. The proposal was unanimously rejected by the Planning Commission in September, with near-universal negative reaction from commissioners. In October, the proposal lacked the votes to pass the City Council’s Zoning & Planning Committee. Yet the plan came back stronger and more expansive in December.
Based on discussion at December’s meeting, the only Planning Commissioner willing to support it is Rebecca Gagnon, who failed to disclose that her daughter is a lobbyist for the company who would benefit most from the change. She afterwards provided a weak defense of her failure to recuse herself from the process.
In the time since I wrote about this last month, the Star Tribune editorial board has come out against the zoning change; city staff has further consulted with City Council members, including author Abdi Warsame and others who are no longer on the City Council; and a bunch of neighbors, previously unaware of the proposal, showed up to testify against it.
One of those neighbors is Joe Tamburino, Chair of the Downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Association. Tamburino said he spoke with the author of the zoning change, Abdi Warsame, at a retirement party for former Council President Barb Johnson. Warsame told Tamburino he doesn’t support the Washington Avenue expansion.
This raises a question I’ve had for a while: where is the political energy for this change coming from? It’s hard to find many who like the idea of more billboards downtown, and if you believe Joe Tamburino, even the nominal author of the change won’t support it entirely. There’s a confounding lack of transparency about exactly who on the City Council wants this and why.
Supporters of the plan like Barb Johnson and Warsame have been unable to articulate the public interest in easing the restriction on billboards, limiting their arguments to allowing companies like Blue Ox Media and Clear Channel to make more money from the upcoming Super Bowl in Minneapolis. (One might also speculate wildly, connecting the dots between Warsame and Johnson’s urgent arguments last October regarding the Super Bowl, and a leaked 2014 document detailing the Minneapolis Super Bowl Host Committee’s obligation to provide the NFL with 20 free billboards around the stadium, team hotels, and practice facilities.)
In order to give more chance for public feedback, the Planning Commission voted to delay a decision until the January 22 meeting.
It’s very likely Lisa Bender will become Council President. The other candidate is Andrea Jenkins.
The public vote for president is traditionally unanimous once it becomes clear which candidate has majority support. Privately Bender has had seven of 13 votes secured for a while: incumbents Cam Gordon and Andrew Johnson, joined by new members Steve Fletcher, Phillipe Cunningham, Jeremiah Ellison, and Jeremy Schroeder.
Andrea Jenkins had the support of Alondra Cano plus the four remaining incumbents who were part of President Barb Johnson’s coalition during the last term: Kevin Reich, Abdi Warsame, Lisa Goodman, and Linea Palmisano.
The council will also elect a Vice President, a Majority Leader, and a Minority Leader.
Who will lead new committees?
It’s important to note the obvious: large turnover on the council means large turnover on many committees, both in terms of membership and who chairs those committees.
Here are some committees to watch for changes (previous committee chairperson in parentheses):
Community Development & Regulatory Services (Goodman)
Transportation & Public Works (Reich)
Public Safety, Civil Rights & Emergency Management (Yang)
Zoning & Planning (Bender)
Ways & Means (Quincy)
Assuming Bender is elected president, she will not be back as chair of Zoning & Planning. Because Yang and Quincy were not reelected, they will definitely not be back as chairs of their respective committees. Lisa Goodman wields a ton of money and power from her position as chair of CDRS. Does she hold on to it?
Watch for the creation of new committees. An example from the beginning of last term: Community Development was combined with Regulatory Services as a gift from Barb Johnson to Lisa Goodman.
Can I purchase a shirt to commemorate this momentous quadrennial event?
Acme Comedy’s remaining parking lot was half-filled during a Friday show last June
In 2016, Acme Comedy Co was the subject of the most high-profile movement to save a parking lot in recent Minneapolis history. If the owner of an adjacent parking lot was allowed to turn it into apartments, Acme’s owner predicted he would be forced to move his business out of Minneapolis to a parking-rich suburb. Nationally-known comedians rallied to Acme’s defense. Nearly 6,000 people signed an online petition to save a parking lot — in order to save a beloved comedy institution.
This dynamic plays out on a smaller scale every week in neighborhoods across Minneapolis. Parking concerns are pervasive in a changing city. But people don’t usually pay attention long enough to check predictions against reality. We get headlines that say Neighborhood Threatened by Change. We never get the follow-up headline years later: Oops, Things Are Actually Just Fine.
So it’s important we honor bearded soothsayers like Peter Bajurny, who was right all along. There’s one less parking lot in Minneapolis but the comedy business is booming in the North Loop. Go have your obnoxious “I told you so” moment, Peter — you deserve it.
The bulk of Gagnon’s argument has to do with a distinction between procedure and the merits. She says because she was only making a procedural argument, and not an argument on the merits, it’s no big deal.
The procedural argument was the ordinance’s only hope of making it from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The procedural argument was the whole ballgame. Whatever the Planning Commission recommended, yes or no, the City Council would have been free to ignore it. The worst possible outcome for supporters of the zoning change — and what Gagnon was trying to avoid — was for the issue to be continued to the next meeting, in procedural limbo with no action taken. As I wrote yesterday, that outcome created the very real possibility the zoning change would die for good.
Rebecca Gagnon says if the Planning Commission had actually proceeded to debate the merits of the billboard zoning change “it would have been germane to have noted publicly” that her daughter is a lobbyist for Blue Ox Media.
First, I don’t buy this argument. Gagnon should have disclosed the conflict from the outset and recused herself from the entire process.
It’s also funny to imagine if Gagnon’s colleagues had responded favorably to her procedural pleading last Monday. Now imagine if Gagnon then immediately said, “Oh by the way guys, before we get to the merits, I should let you know my daughter is a lobbyist for this billboard company.”
But if you are someone who believes in Gagnon’s made-up rule that you don’t need to disclose conflicts of interest until you begin making arguments on the merits, well, she did make an argument on the merits. As quoted in my original post, Gagnon said during the meeting, “Right now there’s a monopoly on this industry. You may or may not like that. I don’t like that.” Here’s video.
Gagnon says that while her daugher is a registered lobbyist for Blue Ox Media, neither her daughter nor the lobbying firm that employs her daughter was paid to work on behalf of Blue Ox Media.
I’m skeptical of the significance of this point. Blue Ox Media isn’t a charity and neither is Hylden Advocacy. CEO Tom McCarver was ambitious enough about his new business venture that he donated $5,100 to eight city council incumbents from July 18 to October 3. Prior to this 77 day period, I can’t find evidence that McCarver ever made a donation to Minneapolis city campaigns. That’s a significant investment of money, and the timing indicates it was directly related to the billboard zoning change; I’m sure he was hoping for a nice return on that investment. I don’t believe that while McCarver was spreading all that money around, there was nothing in it for Hylden Advocacy.
In addition to Samantha Gagnon and Nancy Hylden, Jackie Cherryhomes lobbies on behalf of Blue Ox. Is Cherryhomes’ lobbying firm also working for free? Is Hylden Advocacy literally donating their services for zero consideration while others get paid? (Someone please explain to me how lobbying works.)
But I’m gonna give the final word to random bearded Twitter guy, who says it better than I could:
Pro bono doesn’t mean lack of conflict of interest. Especially in the case of lobbying. Free now, reward later. 🙄
Back in September, the City Planning Commission (CPC) unanimously rejected (6-0) the idea of more and larger billboards in downtown Minneapolis.
“I still fail to see the public benefit of adding billboards in the downtown” said Commissioner Alissa Luepke Pier.
Commissioner Matt Brown expressed concerns about billboard blight in a part of downtown that’s rapidly changing for the better: “If we’re adding a lot of really large, kind of permanently mounted billboards, that can almost be a barrier to new development in an area where all of our policies suggest we’d like to see it.”
A man from an outdoor sign company called Blue Ox Media Group, Tom McCarver, testified in support of a more “robust” (meaning permissive) version of the amendment, saying it was “supported by people in the area and council member.” The council member in the area is Jacob Frey in Ward 3, though it’s possible McCarver was speaking of Abdi Warsame in adjacent Ward 6.
McCarver continued, “During committee of the whole we were looking at an ordinance that was a little more robust than this, talking about Washington Ave and parts of Hennepin. So we would encourage that discussion to continue and moving forward to Z&P as well.” Just as McCarver desired, despite a lack of political support at every step, billboard deregulation would continue to get more robust.
On October 26, the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee was split 3-3 on whether to approve the billboard district expansion (the same version rejected by CPC in September). Barb Johnson, Abdi Warsame, and Kevin Reich voted to approve; Lisa Bender, Andrew Johnson, and Lisa Goodman voted against. The committee then voted to send the zoning code change back to staff for modifications that might make it more palatable. This meant it would return to the CPC.
Last Monday, the concept of allowing more and larger billboards was back in front of the planning commission — only this time, the idea that was previously unacceptable to both CPC and the Z&P Committee had become even more expansive. The proposal now included allowing wall signs along stretches of Hennepin and Washington Avenues; and an expanded billboard district would go as far west as Portland Avenue, intruding into Commons park outside the new Vikings stadium.
If you want to read the details, you should be warned that the staff report has a number of errors. References to “painted wall signs” are actually meant to refer to “wall signs” of all types. Additionally, the map included in the report does not reflect the full scope of the proposed changes.
This lack of clarity in the staff report was the reason Commissioner Sam Rockwell said he was “profoundly uncomfortable voting for something where I don’t know what it’s supposed to be.” Rockwell’s motion to postpone the issue passed on a 5-2 vote. The billboard zoning change is now scheduled to be taken up again at the next CPC meeting on January 8.
Existing district in purple.
“Robust” billboard expansion discarded after CPC Committee of the Whole
“Modest” expansion rejected by CPC (9/18) & Z&P (10/26).
It’s back! Billboard Xtreme™ is more robust than ever!
Commissioner’s daughter is lobbyist for billboard company
Commissioner Rebecca Gagnon, who is also a member of the Minneapolis school board and candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives, was not happy to see the process delayed. Gagnon urged action: “This has just come to us so much, I feel like we should be able to make a decision on this.” (The commission had made a decision — a unanimous decision — to reject the zoning change in September. Gagnon was absent.)
Gagnon continued:
And there’s also urgency around, I know it’s not our business, but there is some Super Bowl thing coming here, and I think there was some decisions that people wanted made so work could be done, which was one of the reasons. Right now there’s a monopoly on this industry. You may or may not like that. I don’t like that. I think it also just… there’s no sense and one of the big reasons is because people just want to get some work done. [emphasis mine]
The company that wants to break up what Gagnon refers to as an outdoor signage “monopoly” (in the form of Clear Channel), is called Blue Ox Media Group.
It’s curious that Gagnon would be so outspoken on the obscure issue of billboard regulation. As a frequent viewer, I can tell you it’s unusual for Gagnon to be outspoken on any issue during CPC meetings. (It was so unusual that it prompted me to look into this story.)
During the meeting, Gagnon continued to pour on the urgency: “Is there a way since we’re already here at 7:38. We’re now getting paid $17 an hour. Is there just a way we can just move this forward, please?”
Gagnon is right that she’s only paid a very small amount per meeting. But it’s important to note that Rebecca Gagnon’s daughter, Samantha Gagnon, gets paid as a registered lobbyist for Blue Ox Media Group. Blue Ox Media is interested in easing restrictions on billboards in downtown Minneapolis. When Rebecca Gagnon talks about how she doesn’t like our current billboard “monopoly” downtown, she’s talking about helping one company in particular: Blue Ox Media Group.
Samantha Gagnon works for the lobbying firm of Nancy Hylden. When an issue in front of the city council has some inexplicable political force behind it, just dig a little, and you might find the Hylden firm on the winning side.
An example: the recent city council decision to abandon a five cent fee for single-use shopping bags. The ordinance was defeated even though the same council had passed an outright plastic bag ban a year earlier, which had included the same five cent fee for paper bags.
The author of the bag ordinance, Council Member Cam Gordon, was taken by surprise when so many of his colleagues changed their position to vote against his ordinance. And the only explanation offered for that change of heart — they didn’t like the five cent fee — didn’t make sense. As Gordon wrote at the time, “Under both proposals the bags you could get in a store would have cost five cents. Any argument that can be made against a fee applies to both ordinances equally.”
Urgency ahead of new city council and the Super Bowl
At the planning commission last Monday, city staff person Steve Poor was blunt in explaining why it was so urgent that the commission take action on the billboard zoning change:
I prefer not to get into this level of explanation of the mechanics of the city. But if the ordinance is not acted on, and is postponed, it will likely have to be adopted by a new council member moving in, or Warsame picks it up. So there’s a procedural thing here that’s going on, not to mention that we don’t have committee assignments. That is presumptuous to think that it will be on an automatic timetable going forward. I think I’ve spoken to the intent and will of this council before, but I don’t think you can make assumptions about if it doesn’t come out of here that it will just proceed on January 8. I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation to be blunt about it.[emphasis mine]
Commissioner Rebecca Gagnon echoed this, saying, “We’re going to have a lot of turnover on January 1.”
This is an important point. With five new members of the city council elected last month, a new council president on the way, and new committee assignments coming, there’s a good chance that a zoning change to allow more and larger billboards wouldn’t even make it out of committee.
At the October 26 city council committee meeting, Abdi Warsame (initiator of the zoning change) and Barb Johnson very strongly urged their colleagues to pass the billboard zoning change out of committee. Both explicitly noted the financial boon to outdoor sign companies during the upcoming Super Bowl.
Barb Johnson: “This modest expansion would allow for some revenue to come to the vendor in light of the Super Bowl coming.”
Abdi Warsame: “If we push this back there’s no guarantee that either party [Clear Channel and Blue Ox Media] will get any updated billboards for the Super Bowl, which is the intention that they had in the first place.”
On December 4, city staff person Steve Poor highlighted the Super Bowl as a motivating factor for certain members of the city council:
To be frank about it, this came back in short order because staff was told that this council wanted to act on it. […] There was a lot of intense discussion back and forth about that, but I think it’s fair to say the council felt they wanted to have a vote on this, whether it’s because of the large circus coming to town soon, or the super bowl, or what have you. I would just tell you that one of the reasons staff worked with some diligence to get this before you is because the policymakers directed us to do so.[emphasis mine]
Why Does Minneapolis Need More Billboards?
With all the talk about Super Bowl 52 and the financial well-being of Blue Ox Media and Clear Channel, I couldn’t find anyone making the case for why Minneapolis needs larger billboards in more places. A change like this, and any additional billboards it creates, would be with us long after the Super Bowl leaves town.
And why does this idea, that seems not very popular, keep coming back in forms that are less appealing, but more pro-industry? Maybe a friend of the billboard industry thinks they’ve rustled up enough votes to pass it — if only they can get it in front of the full council we currently have, but probably not the council we’ll have next month. I watched hours and hours and hours of public meetings to bring you this story. Please support that work by becoming a Wedge LIVE patron!
A duplex at 4257 Vincent Ave South was demolished recently. The land is zoned for single family, just like a lot of the Linden Hills neighborhood that surrounds it, so the duplex will be replaced with a single family home (I suspect this explains why nobody vigiled or tried to give the house a pedigree by researching a famous former resident). Many of the exclusive single-family neighborhoods that we know today, the kind dotted with small apartment buildings and grandfathered triplexes, have become that way because of some long-forgotten downzoning that made new multi-family housing illegal.
The house on Vincent Ave was grandfathered in as a legally non-conforming property, but now that the duplex is gone, it’s gone for good. Exclusionary single-family zoning means that conversions like this can only go in one direction, towards fewer units. If you think of housing like a game of musical chairs, wealthy Ward 13 just lost another chair. And our zoning code makes it really hard to build new chairs in the places where people most want to sit.
Stories of conversions from multi-unit to single-family homes were surprisingly common, and celebrated, when I documented the last 45 years of housing politics in the Wedge neighborhood. It’s not the story that usually comes to mind when people think of gentrification or displacement. It’s not the kind of big change people notice and complain about; it’s not six stories of apartments on a parking lot. It’s the slow, silent, unrelenting gentrification of a neighborhood — and we use the zoning code to encourage it.
Don’t let the apparent building boom in Minneapolis fool you — there has been a citywide, decades-long drift towards more restrictive zoning. Yes, we make room for big developers who build mega-buildings downtown. Yes, we build six-story buildings on certain major corridors, places lucky enough to survive the craze for downzoning over the last 45 years. This means we build the kind of housing (big buildings on pricey lots with dozens of units or more) that costs the most to build, and is therefore the most expensive to live in. This means we are largely a city that is off limits to affordable housing in our most desirable neighborhoods. This means many of our neighborhoods are unaffordable by design, and will remain so for decades into the future.
In the Wedge neighborhood (my neighborhood), this trend has meant multiple successful rounds of downzoning. At times when downzoning failed, activists pushed for historic districts (while openly admitting that historic districts were a backdoor attempt to accomplish the goals of exclusionary zoning). But it’s important to recognize this point: to the degree the Wedge has any racial or income diversity, it’s largely because of the people living in apartment buildings constructed between 1950 and 1975. These two-and-a-half story walkups were so despised by certain noisy neighbors that the city gave in to activists and made it illegal to build them.
The city downzoned large swaths of south Minneapolis in 1975. Today we celebrate those old apartment buildings as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing; we allocate precious public dollars to preserve them. We hope that, in the face of a housing shortage, with rental vacancy rates hovering near two percent, we can keep these affordable apartments out of the hands of investors who would renovate and upscale them. It’s a reminder that Minneapolis has failed to reckon with the ways our zoning practices work against our affordable housing policies.
That’s not to say there haven’t been small moves to reverse the trend. City Council Member Lisa Bender has legalized accessory dwelling units (or backyard/garage apartments) and eased minimum parking requirements. She also fixed a quirk in the zoning code that had effectively outlawed two-family dwellings in areas zoned in a two-family category (tale of backdoor downzoning: over the previous decades, minimum lot-size requirements had been increased to the point that you couldn’t build a duplex on a typical lot zoned for duplexes). None of this stuff would have happened without Lisa Bender as a champion; Minneapolis has led the way on land-use reforms over the last few years because of one person (which is impressive, but also scary when you imagine a world without her).
The politics of appeasing single-family voters can be compelling. Though I believe Lisa Bender is one of the most exceptional and principled elected officials in the country, both downzoning and historic districts have still come to my backyard in Ward 10 over the last four years (albeit in more limited forms than desired by some). It’s not because these are great ideas, but because energetic people got noisy to demand it.
The noise extends beyond my own backyard. A group of residents in downtown Minneapolis (who, in fairness, would tell you, “we don’t live in downtown!”), organized under the name Neighbors for East Bank Livability, sued to stop a 40-story condo tower. The punchline is that many of them live in 20 to 30 story condo towers. A judge ordered the group to post a $100,000 bond to offset developer costs in the event NEBL loses their legal fight (they will definitely lose their legal fight and all of this money). This money is in addition to legal fees they will incur. They had a surprisingly easy time raising (and flushing) all that money.
A group of residents in St Paul is fighting for low density zoning under the name Livable St Paul. Their cause involves the former site of an automobile manufacturing facility. Like their “Livable” counterparts in Minneapolis, they are well-funded and highly motivated. They disagree with the St. Paul City Council’s recent decision to allow medium- and high-density zoning at the Ford Site, including 20 percent affordable housing. They have reportedly collected enough petition signatures to put the Ford Site rezoning on next year’s ballot in St. Paul.
And then there are the smaller scale skirmishes. A few of my favorite examples, in case you missed them:
The unremarkable house in the Wedge that became the subject of a years-long battle, at city hall and in the courts, to stop a 4-story apartment building. Story includes cameo appearance by since-disgraced HGTV personality Nicole Curtis and a vigil 🕯️ in honor of a house.
Cases of outrageous NIMBYism are wacky (and fun, I admit), but by no means typical. As much as I’d like to report that needed zoning reforms are opposed exclusively by an army of fancy clowns, it’s just not the case. Many people are capable of writing reasonable-sounding anti-apartment emails to their city council member — emails that often do not imply renters are subhuman and sometimes do not compare city planners to Hitler. Chances are pretty good that when an elected official reads that low-key complaint about parking, they already agree with a lot of it. And even for more enlightened politicians, bad policy can feel essential to political survival when it’s backed up by a stream of highly charged resistance to even the smallest neighborhood change.
So it’s time to get noisy. Talk to your friends about zoning. Start the conversation with your city council member — let them know you exist and that you are engaged. The Minneapolis city council will adopt a new Comprehensive Plan in 2018. This is a key document that will guide future zoning reforms in Minneapolis. Ask your council member how they plan to lead in the fight against exclusionary zoning.
As reported by Nick Magrino, this neat-o tool lets you offer feedback on the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan:
extremely neat-o: new comp plan feedback tool lets you identify specific areas where you’d like to expand housing and commercial choices, and opportunities to improve access for walking, biking, and transit @Mpls2040https://t.co/fjMDActkyjpic.twitter.com/NHJvT3yQe8
After being defeated in 2013, Council Member Tuthill transitioned directly from working as an elected official into an administrative position with the city’s Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) department. This allowed her to keep her old City Council email address, and become Meg Tuthill: Shadow Council Member.
One thing you learn when you request Meg Tuthill’s government emails is that she’s close with former colleague and current City Council Member Lisa Goodman (gives you a leg up when you’re looking for a job at CPED).
Here’s a conversation from January 2016, when Goodman wanted Tuthill to help her use the Healy Project to stop new multifamily housing in Goodman’s ward. Goodman wanted to “keep this out of the email” (a thing she said in an email) in order to avoid “litigation.”
Email related to multifamily housing proposal for 1900 Colfax.
The reason Goodman is seeking help from Tuthill’s friends at the Healy Project is because it’s the same tactic Tuthill used to fight apartments at 2320 Colfax during the latter part of her term on the council. There’s a reason Goodman is afraid of getting sued for organizing neighborhood opposition to a project she might have to vote on — she was sued for doing that very thing 10 years ago:
That pushed Hoyt over the edge. He filed his lawsuit on March 27, 2007.
Goodman hounded the Loring Park neighborhood group staff and board members to provide the group’s email list, so that she could send them the complaint. When they refused, she even threatened to cut off the group’s funding.
The court battle dragged on for two and a half years. Skolnick, Hoyt’s attorney, pursued a three-pronged legal strategy, essentially arguing that Goodman—and the city of Minneapolis—had deprived his client of fair and equal treatment.
The key question was whether Goodman had made up her mind before she voted on Parc Centrale. Unfortunately for Goodman, a flurry of email evidence showed she had taken a position, lobbied other council members, and even helped neighbors organize their opposition. She did all this weeks before she cast an official vote.
In another message, Tuthill consulted with Lisa Goodman via their government email accounts about Goodman’s rumored 2017 opponent, Will Bornstein. Bornstein is a former president of the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association, a group Tuthill has been involved with for five decades after helping found the organization in the early 1970s. (As it turns out, Will Bornstein did not run against Lisa Goodman in 2017.)
The Healy Project features prominently in Tuthill’s work life. In May 2015, Tuthill asks another city employee to help her edit a Healy Project tour invitation: “Would you please proof and make changes for me?”
Another thing you notice in these emails is that former Council Member Tuthill’s grudge against the current council member is keeping Tuthill from performing her job at the city. When Tuthill was asked in March 2016 to set up meetings with a number of city council members, Tuthill refuses to communicate with Lisa Bender’s office by responding: “Happy to do this. All but Bender. I’m sorry.” In another email Tuthill says, “Left messages for all the other [council members] except Bender.”
Other emails show a continued concern with Lisa Bender. In October 2015, Tuthill sent a message to the President and CEO of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, praising his performance in a radio debate with Lisa Bender.
The subject of the MPR discussion was Mayor Hodges’ proposed Working Families Agenda. Tuthill writes, “I want to thank you for your calm, reasonable approach to this disastrous idea from Glidden, Bender and Hodges.”
Referring to paid sick time, Tuthill tells him, “I find this frightening. Acting as a union for the private sector is not the job of government.”
One last thing to note: Meg Tuthill lives up to my stereotype of extremely concerned residents, wielding her influence at CPED to demand access to the Star Tribune comment section.
This has been your update on the once and future leader of the Ward 10 government-in-exile. The post-election period could be a wild ride (just like four years ago) as the Wedge neighborhood’s Tuthill faction grapples with the idea of another four years in the wilderness. Just keep in mind that our bike lane battles aren’t always about bike lanes.
A meeting of the Whittier Alliance neighborhood organization was overrun on Monday by a group of Wedge residents eager to voice concerns over a proposed bikeway on 24th Street.
Staff from the city’s Public Works Department found it hard to even begin their presentation, as former Council Member Meg Tuthill — notorious “Nazi Lane” protester, accompanied by about a dozen energized loyalists from the Wedge — interrupted the introduction by snapping “first of all, who are you?”
Tuthill at left, participating in “Nazi Lane” protest.
Tuthill, who was defeated by Lisa Bender 64 percent to 30 percent in 2013, tag-teamed the meeting with another former Minneapolis elected official, Audrey Johnson. Johnson, a former school board member, is known for hurling insults (“Bendrification”) at Lisa Bender while giving public testimony at the City Planning Commission.
The Wedge contingent interrupted, sidetracked, and generally monopolized the discussion, in a way that reminded me of every poorly conducted Wedge neighborhood (LHENA) meeting I’ve been to over the years. Also in attendance was the Tuthill-endorsed city council candidate who lost to Lisa Bender 64 percent to 20 percent in last week’s city election. Yes, the meeting felt like an extension of election season.
Prior to the start of the Public Works presentation, State Rep Karen Clark conducted a (non-bike) Q&A that went on longer than expected. Audrey Johnson, seeming like she couldn’t wait to lay the hammer down on Lisa Bender, peppered Clark with questions about the city’s rental vacancy rate. Johnson told Clark, “we’re being lied to” by the city council, in order to justify the construction of more housing.
The primary concern expressed about a potential bikeway was parking. One person said the parking study was not valid because it happened in July when people are out of town. Another said the study wasn’t done at the right times of day. Another wanted the bikeway on 25th Street (an option that would remove more parking). Other attendees said they were unhappy that this would be the only public meeting (in reality, there was a meeting two months ago, and more meetings will happen next month).
Other concerns included, but nobody bikes, and sure, we all bike, but what about winter?
The Q&A, which turned into an unproductive bike-gripe session, was cut off so that the meeting could move to the next agenda item. As Public Works staff exited the room, they were pursued and pinned down for more questions in the lobby by Tuthill and company.
Meg and co have cornered public works staff in the lobby as they were leaving, as Whittier Alliance meeting continues in the other room. pic.twitter.com/7eENQORhU8
Left unheard were many other bike lane supporters and skeptics in the room, both groups deprived of a meaningful opportunity for feedback or understanding of the project.
It should be mentioned that the 24th Street bikeway has been a part of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan since 2011. Meg Tuthill served on the city council that adopted the bike plan seven years ago, and according to meeting minutes it was passed on a voice vote without her objection.
We’ve come to the end of a long, weird, grueling election season. I’ve had some days off. The team is newly invigorated.
We’re pleased that Tom Hoch wasted an unprecedented amount of his own money not becoming the next mayor of Minneapolis. My pumpkin, Mayor Betsy Hodges, is off to the compost bin. And the actual Betsy Hodges is probably planning a Hawaiian vacation. No more Barb, no more Blong — a striking change in leadership for north Minneapolis. John Quincy lost his seat in Ward 11, and on the bright side, I imagine he probably never had strong feelings either way about that.
You can send a message that you’re serious about us doing serious coverage in 2018. Seriously!
Did you know 32% of the Wedge LIVE! audience is millionaires? That’s what Twitter says. Twitter don’t lie. So pony up, cheapskates. It’s time to Wedge to the MAX. Subscribe today!
Finally, a sincere thanks to all our existing subscribers! You’re amazing. Anyone who says people won’t support hyperlocal news with real dollars is a liar. (And if Carol Becker is reading this, I want to make it clear that not a dollar of subscriber money was spent on my vanity write-in campaign for Board of Estimate and Taxation. Call off the lawyers, Carol.)
