Posted on

Post-It Note Sparks Collective Outrage Among Minneapolis Neighborhood Associations


  • Peter Bajurny (left) is the man at the center of Post-It-Gate

A coalition of 18 Minneapolis neighborhood organizations has been privately working for months to pressure the City Council and other officials to delete a public comment they disagree with from a draft community engagement report published by the city. This is according to a leaked email provided by a person close to one of the neighborhood organizations involved.

A single sentence critical of neighborhood organizations was included in a draft report put together by the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development. The author of the comment, which said “Abolish City recognition of neighborhood organizations,” has come forward to reveal that his critical feedback was originally submitted on a post-it note.

 
CPED spent 2016 doing public engagement in preparation for the City Council finalizing a new comprehensive plan (the “goals and policies that direct the logical and coordinated physical development of a city into the future”). As part of the process of gathering public input, CPED held events, attended festivals, and collected tweets.
 
Photo courtesy of the Bajurny family.
 
A draft of the Phase 2 Engagement Report, which compiled all feedback into a 22-page pdf, was released on January 6th. You’ll notice the comment from the post-it note was one of many items included in a long list of themes. (You’ll also notice the very next comment is pretty complimentary of neighborhood groups.)
 
 
One of the “Engagement Goals” put forth in the document is that the public should feel “their input has been thoughtfully considered and sees their contributions reflected in the plan.” I’ve been in contact with the author of the controversial comment, Peter Bajurny, and he says he feels especially gratified to see his input thoughtfully considered and reflected in the plan.
 
Who are the villains trying to deny Bajurny his moment in the sun? A group of 18 Minneapolis neighborhood organizations having a collective freak-out over a post-it note. They’re upset about the inclusion of public feedback in a document intended as an accurate summary of public feedback.
 
An employee writing on behalf of a group of downtown neighborhood associations sent an 1100-word email to a wider group of Minneapolis neighborhood organizations, detailing months of ongoing effort to have the dissenting comment deleted from the draft report. The group hopes to eventually have a total of 40 organizations sign on to the effort to delete the comment.
 
The email calls the post-it note a “very big deal” and “not valid statistically.” It also includes the detail that neighborhood organizations are seeking an investigation: “We are also asking Councilmembers to find out how the comment got there.”
 
The email’s author recounts one particularly dramatic scene where “CPED staff Beth Elliott and NCR staff Christina Kendrick defended for 75 minutes” the inclusion of the sticky-note comment.
 
This story has all the makings of a big, dumb Minneapolis neighborhood scandal:
 
  • The director of the city’s NCR Department, David Rubedor, running scared from neighborhood organizations, feebly explaining the comment as a “computer glitch.” (You’ll remember, I tracked down the actual post-it to its actual author. His name is Peter Bajurny. Mr. Bajurny is not a computer glitch.)
  • A whistle-blower. Neighborhood groups were tipped off to the offending comment “by a member of an ‘internal work group'” which had discussions about the “appropriateness” of including a public comment in a report summarizing public comment.
The author of the leaked email claims Council Members Jacob Frey and John Quincy have committed in writing to have the comment removed from the final version of the report (update: Frey says this claim isn’t true). That would be a shame because, whether or not you agree with the feedback written on the post-it note, it accurately represents a viewpoint I hear expressed by many: Minneapolis neighborhood associations are highly political, sometimes vicious organizations, that tend to prioritize the concerns of property owners over the interests of diverse neighborhoods, despite being publicly funded. You should either want to reform what currently exists, or end the system entirely and start over with something better. Neither of those ideas is unworthy of discussion.
 
Despite the problems with these groups, they are politically powerful enough to have recently extracted $9.1 million in funding from the city council during the height of caucus season. Neighborhood groups shouldn’t be given the additional power to delete public feedback from a city report because they don’t like what it says. If these groups are to receive millions from the city, they should at least be subject to all the scrutiny, criticism and reform that you can fit on a post-it.
 
—————–

Full text of the email sent to a number of Minneapolis neighborhood associations on behalf of a group of downtown neighborhood associations.

Dear Neighborhoods,

Here is where we are at.

We continue to pursue the Removal of ‘Abolish City Recognition of Neighborhood Organizations’ from the Phase II Civic Engagement Report for the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan 2040. Some at the City believe it is not that big of a thing. We believe it is. We believe that to allow this sub theme under the Theme of Governance in a published City document is a very big deal. Especially when there was only one such comment out of 1,100. It is not valid statistically to elevate one comment to such a level. We are beginning now to reach out to Councilmembers to keep the comment in raw data and remove it from the Document. We are also asking Councilmembers to find out how the comment got there. It was not due to a ‘computer glitch’. There were internal workgroups synthesizing the comments and developing this report. We heard about this in early December from a member of an internal workgroup.

DMNA and CLPC on behalf of the DT Neighborhood Groups brought this item to the January NCEC meeting. We discovered this bullet point from a draft document sent to us out of concern by a member of an ‘internal work group’. There had been discussions by this internal workgroup member since early December – before it was a published draft – on the appropriateness to have this comment in this City draft document – with CPED and NCR staff. At the January NCEC meeting, no one on the Commission was aware of the inclusion of this bullet point in the report. The Commission moved to discuss this at their February meeting and bring City Planning/NCR staff in to explain how and why this occurred. During the Commission meeting, DMNA President Joe Taburino pulls up the City’s website and we find out the this Draft Document is already posted on the City’s website. Director David Rubedor was at this meeting.

The day after the NCEC meeting, even with all the expressed concerns and challenge to validity of this comment, the Draft Document gets sent out to thousands via Gov Delivery.

The Downtown Neighborhood Groups then developed the Resolution and began to circulate it to other neighborhoods they knew and/or worked with. 

CM Lisa Goodman’s Policy Aide Patrick Sadler was requested by CLPC to find out how this Bullet Point got into the document. He talked to Director Rubedor who stated that it was a computer glitch, that CPED staff did not catch it, and that it would be taken care of. 

The Resolution was presented at the February NCEC Meeting in advance of the discussion with City Planning & NCEC staff. Several neighborhoods and MCTC were present. We find out at the meeting, even though there were concerns expressed in January and even tho NCEC/NCR was to be working with CPED on this community engagement piece, the Draft document in debate had been finalized. CPED staff Beth Elliott and NCR staff Christina Kendrick defended for 75 minutes the inclusion of this statement to ‘Abolish city recognition of neighborhood organizations’ in the document. Beth Elliott stated that she could not remove language from a finalized document. Director David Rubedor was not present. The new Deputy Director was.

Thank you to Downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Association, Citizens for a Loring Park, Jordan Area Community Council, Midtown Phillips Neighborhood Association, East Phillips improvement Coalition, Waite Park, and Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association for attending the February NCEC Meeting.

The NCEC Commission moved the Resolution for further discussion to their Committee of the Whole meeting, to the March NRP Policy Board meeting, and to a vote at their March meeting.

We plan to be present at the NRP Policy Board meeting. Once a meeting is set up, we will notify everyone.

Then, last week we discovered that CPED is taking the Comp Plan work to date to City Planning /City Council for Interim Approval. We expect that this Civic Engagement report will at that time, be ‘Received and Filed’ with the Bullet point in it.

So, now we are moving to discuss this with Councilmembers and to get this Bullet Point removed from the published city document.

See conversation with CM Jacob Frey below.

DJ Heinle, is a Charter Commissioner and has been active with the North Loop Neighborhood. North Loop Neighborhood is a participant of the Downtown Neighborhood Group which authored the Resolution. The Minneapolis Charter is about the Governance of the City. Charter Commissioner DJ Heinle offered a Resolution to ‘Establish a workgroup to look at the role of neighborhood organizations in the City of Minneapolis.’ This motion passed 7-3. The process and composition of the Workgroup has not yet been established, but as an Official Work group of the Charter Commission, all meetings will be published on the Charter Website and open to the Public. There will be transparency. You can sign up for Charter Commission notices via Gov Delivery.

What needs to be done now:

If your neighborhood has not signed the Resolution yet, take it to your Board for approval, sign it and send me the date of your board approval and a copy of the signed Resolution. We will contine to update the Resolution as Boards approve it.

We presently have 18 Neighborhoods signed on. We would like a minimum of 40 neighborhoods signed by the March NCEC Meeting.

Contact your NCEC Commissioner about the NCEC Committee of the Whole meeting. Ask them to support the Resolution.

Attend the March 27 NCEC Meeting at 5:00 pm at the DT Library when the Resolution will be voted on.

Talk to your Councilmember!! They need to ensure that this bullet point is removed BEFORE this Civic Engagement Report is approved by City Council. So far we have a written commitment from CM Jacob Frey and CM John Quincy to pursue this on our behalf. We need the language removed. This is very important right now. Read the attached correspondance to this email.

Plan to Attend the April 1st Community Conndctions Conference. This is supposed to be ‘the time’ that Neighborhoods can give input to the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan.

Know also that throughout this entire debate over the Civic Engagement Plan, the larger question is ‘Why have Neighborhoods who do and have done planning, not intimately involved with the 2040 Minneapolis Comp Plan development?’. NCR Neighborhood Specialists who have done neighborhood planning thruout 25 years of Neighborhood Revitalization are not involved and the NCR Staff assigned to the Minneapolis Comp Plan to represent all of us in this process is the NCR Access & Outreach Specialist for Senior Citizens.

Think about making these topics for discussion if you are planning any Mayoral or City Council Candidates Forums/Debates.

We will continue to keep you posted.

Jana Metge, CLPC Coordinator
On behalf of the DT Neighborhood Group

Posted on

Minneapolis 2017: Campaign Digest #2

This will get you caught up on all the Minneapolis election news that’s happened since the last campaign digest.

Mayor

Jacob Frey recently spoke Somali in front of a crowd of Somalis, and you can see he’s feeling pretty triumphant about that.

Mayor Hodges came out against the tip penalty/credit. Stephanie March—who “eats out professionally, on multiple days every week”—responded with a poorly conceived open letter suggesting women who are sexually harassed in the restaurant industry knew what they were signing up for.

I got to the bottom of why Stephanie March is so bent out of shape over the minimum wage: she and her husband could’ve paid their restaurant workers zero dollars per hour and still gone out of business.

Ward 1

Incumbent Kevin Reich used a photo of himself behind Alondra Cano in a campaign email intended to promote his commitment to “diversity.” This is a strange thing to do because Reich is out of focus in the background, and Cano wants nothing to do with his campaign.

@WedgeLIVE I was never asked by his campaign to approve this nor do I endorse him. Im disappointed his campaign used my image in this way

— Alondra Cano (@People4Alondra) February 17, 2017

Kevin isn’t subtle.

Reich is touting his pro-bike credentials on his recently created Twitter account. He’s hoping the hashtag #Reich4Bikes will make us forget about his vote on 3rd Ave.

Ward 2

The poll, conducted in the Second Ward last week, was commissioned by Minneapolis DFL Chair Dan McConnell without consulting the central committee. The potential candidate who would run against Gordon is McConnell’s wife, Becky Boland, secretary of the Minneapolis DFL.

This is notable because the non-DFL Cam Gordon actually pushes for stuff that’s in the DFL platform, but actual DFLers Barb and Lisa Goodman roadblock. Also of concern is the fact that the DFL Chair is privately spending $2,000 on a poll to benefit his wife, while publicly saying the organization has barely enough money to pay for routine democracy, like caucuses and conventions.

Ward 3

In a profile of Ward 3 candidates in the Journal, Cordelia Pierson isn’t sure about her position on the minimum wage.

There’s more certainty on Pierson’s website, where she says, “I support a $15 wage for full-time workers…” But then you come to the next paragraph, and she’s back to hedging, saying she’s “firmly committed to shaping this policy” to avoid “negative results.” If you happen to run into Pierson, you should ask her about the minimum wage.

cordeforcouncil.com

Minneapolis’ most prominent Trump supporter, LA Nik, announced his campaign for city council. I was quick to demand an explanation for his gaffes, and he has done so in my YouTube comments.


Ward 4

Classic Barb Johnson Moment:

If you find that you’re experiencing too much Barb during this election season, you could support one of Barb’s opponents: Phillipe Cunningham and Stephanie Gasca.

— R↯an (@pyry) February 17, 2017

Find someone who looks at you the way the woman in Barb’s Facebook cover photo looks at Barb. pic.twitter.com/IbVWlnKcGf

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) March 4, 2017


Ward 5

Can you tell the difference between Blong’s logo and a shopping bag?

Blong’s logo is a shopping bag.

Ward 7

I checked whether Lisa Goodman’s website matches reality. I have determined that Goodman hates your annoying garden.

 

Ward 9

When we last checked in on Ward 9—after the trouble at Gary Schiff’s pancake party—I was telling you to not get involved. Since then we’ve gone from pancakes to puppets. Here’s what Gary Schiff wrote on his campaign Facebook page, firing back at accusations from incumbent Alondra Cano that he had perpetrated puppet impropriety:

…the dates for puppet-making workshops are Saturdays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays in April. The day of the convention is, in fact, the only Saturday before May Day that does not have a scheduled puppet workshop.

Ward 9 is expected to remain a hazardous area at least through April 4th. We see a high probability of “Open Letter” conditions on Facebook. We continue to recommend that civilian populations not get involved.

Ward 10

On February 15, Scott Fine announced he would challenge Lisa Bender for the DFL nomination. Over the next two weeks, there were no visible signs of a Fine campaign. Everything was not fine; the web developer candidate didn’t even have a website. Then, on February 27th he announced he was withdrawing from the DFL race, citing unspecified “recent events,” and would proceed straight to the November general election.

A few days later, an insider attending a Bender fundraiser sent me this:

🎶You used to call me on my scott fone.🎶

Looking ahead to March 8th, Lisa Bender will be hosting the Ward 10 Minneapolis Mayoral Forum. It might seem a little unusual for a city council member to host a mayoral forum, and to promote it with her campaign’s branding. Lisa Bender is an evil genius who’s gotten the candidates for mayor to appear with her, at her own event, giving the appearance they’re all endorsing her re-election (and they will surely regret it when Scott Fine gets his shit together).

Ward 13

Adam Faitek is mounting a late challenge to Linea Palmisano, a little more than a month away from the April 4th DFL caucuses. Faitek is positioning himself as the progressive alternative to Palmisano.

Posted on

Tenth Ward Preview: Scott Fine is running for Minneapolis City Council in Ward 10

Scott Fine is running for Minneapolis City Council against Lisa Bender in Ward 10.

We’ll start with a few things about our current council member. I find this endorsement of Lisa Bender very persuasive:

In three short years, she has passed more progressive ordinances than other Council Members have managed to pass in two or three whole terms. Parking reform, ADUs, flexibility for homeless shelters, a nation-leading Complete Streets policy, parklets, sick and safe time, relaxing regulations for beekeeping… I could go on, but won’t.

The quality I appreciate most in a politician is the sense that they are running for office because they care about policies more than just the idea of getting elected. Lisa Bender cares about policy; she wants to make those policies happen; and she’s talented enough to have been successful making them happen in her first three years in office. Most importantly, she inspires enough confidence in her colleagues that they’re willing to follow her lead.

Lisa Bender has a challenger in the 10th Ward this year. His name is Scott Fine. His campaign Facebook page describes him as a web developer who’s lived and rented in Ward 10 since 1970.

Guy on twitter makes this observation:

@WedgeLIVE “I’m a web developer.”
*Launches campaign with FB page only*

— Scott Shaffer (@scttdvd) February 16, 2017

In terms of Scott Fine’s policy, advocacy, or activist experience, this is all there is:

That sounds like I’m being unfair. But you can check for yourself.

Fine highlights “Democratic Neighborhoods” as one of his top three issues. I’ve been covering neighborhood politics since the last election in 2013, and I have never come across Scott Fine.
It’s also notable that Scott Fine is from the Wedge neighborhood. Ward 10 has many neighborhoods, including CARAG, Whittier, ECCO, and East Harriet. But recently, all our council candidates are Wedge-based. Lisa Bender is from the Wedge. Lisa Bender’s predecessor, Meg Tuthill, is from the Wedge. We should be very proud of this. Other neighborhoods should be ashamed for making the Wedge neighborhood do all the council membering.
You might be wondering:
  • Is Scott Fine’s candidacy propped up by the forces of the Wedge Shitstorm? I’m pretty sure.
  • Has HGTV’s Nicole Curtis “stockpiled” her money to write a $600 check to his campaign? I wouldn’t count on Nicole Curtis to pay up on her promises.
Posted on

What’s Going on in Ward 9?

(For Minneapolis election year news beyond Ward 9, read this post.)

Gary Schiff announced his campaign to challenge Ward 9 Council Member Alondra Cano a little more than a week ago. Schiff held the Ward 9 seat until running for Mayor in 2013. Since his announcement, a series of open letters have been addressed to Schiff on Facebook questioning the legitimacy of his candidacy.

All of these “Dear Gary” letters pretty convincingly argue that Gary Schiff is a white guy. The phrase “white supremacy” is used. Comparisons to Trump are made.

(Please note: Wedge LIVE isn’t getting involved in Ward 9.)

On Sunday, Schiff held his campaign kickoff/pancake party/birthday bash (happy birthday, Gary!). The event was attended by a handful of Alondra supporters, who refused to eat pancakes–but did pass out a printed copy of a “Dear Gary” letter originally posted to Facebook.

In the aftermath, Mayoral candidate and current Ward 3 Council Member Jacob Frey (who by all accounts did partake in pancakes), became embroiled in the controversy. A Facebook user who says he was among the people distributing the letter, alleges Frey checked the “endorse” box on the sign-in sheet at Shiff’s event. Frey denies endorsing Schiff.

Again, Wedge LIVE is advising readers to steer clear of dangerous conditions in Ward 9.

@IanAlltyr – didn’t endorse. Was there for his birthday as he’s a friend and I respect him.

— Jacob Frey (@Jacob_Frey) February 6, 2017

In other Ward 9 news: Alondra Cano releases City Hall security camera footage, along with a letter of reprimand from Council President Barb Johnson.

Yet more Ward 9 news: A Ward 9 candidate you may not have heard of is raising a lot of money and spending it in surprising ways.
Most surprising City Council campaign finance report is Mohamed Farah’s.

-Raised $23,000
-Paid $1200/mo in rent
-Held $3500 kickoff event. pic.twitter.com/ygityWGaU5

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) February 3, 2017


Ward 9 Fact: The Hennepin County emergency sirens that sound off at 1 p.m. on the first Wednesday of every month are intended to warn local residents of the threat posed by getting involved in Ward 9.

Continuing Coverage: Ward 9 Logo Disaster
New Gary Schiff Design Evokes Image of Man Beaten to Death With His Own Birthday Pancakes


CAUTION: After reading the Ward 9 update, you may be tempted to get involved–do not do so.
Posted on

Minneapolis 2017: Campaign Digest

First, a public service announcement: City Council incumbents of varying degrees of bad are being challenged in Wards 1, 4, 5, 7, and 11.

DFL caucuses are April 4th. Consider donating, volunteering and–especially–caucusing for one of the challengers in these races. 2017 is your last chance to decide which candidates get to spend the next four years making decisions about police reform, transit, zoning, bikes, and whatever other local stuff you care about.

City government is the easiest level of politics for one person (you!) to have an impact. This is your moment!

Ward 1: Jillia Pessenda, Zach Wefel (incumbent Kevin Reich)
Ward 4: Phillipe Cunningham, Stephanie Gasca (incumbent Barb Johnson)
Ward 5: Jeremiah Ellison (incumbent Blong Yang)
Ward 7: Janne Flisrand (incumbent Lisa Goodman)
Ward 11: Erica Mauter, Jeremy Schroeder (incumbent John Quincy)

Like the above races, Ward 9 is also competitive, but Wedge LIVE is advising the civilian population to evacuate the area. Do not get involved in this conflict. For details, read the Ward 9 update.

Fundraising. We’re still waiting to find out what Council President Barb Johnson spent on cable TV, internet, cell phone service, and landlines for her homes. Barb is traditionally late with her filing.

Yes Barb spends over $7100 in campaign funds on those things every year, but doesn’t pay anyone to file her reports on time. pic.twitter.com/cKguzYEF88

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) February 5, 2017


In Ward 7, Lisa Goodman has the biggest bank account of all the City Council incumbents. Fortunately, Janne Flisrand is challenging Goodman. Janne is the only candidate endorsed by Wedge LIVE. 

Here’s how Goodman is making her case to Ward 7 residents:

Lisa Goodman will probably spend $200,000 this year telling you how progressive she is, then spend 4 years acting like she never said it. pic.twitter.com/KpPhj7SmjA

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) February 3, 2017

Janne Flisrand is running against Lisa Goodman this year. You might find her flyer more believable. pic.twitter.com/TzxeizpH1u

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) February 3, 2017


Current Ward 3 Council Member Jacob Frey has decided to run for Mayor. His campaign got a boost when a campaign finance board ruled he could use the nearly $200,000 he raised as a City Council candidate for his Mayoral campaign.

The vacuum left by Frey in Ward 3 has been filled by a steady stream of candidates, most notably by Steven Fletcher (DFL), Cordelia Pierson (DFL), Samantha Pree-Stinson (Green Party), Ginger Jentzen (Socialist)–and many, many more.

The problem: nobody in the Ward 3 clown car is named Anton Schieffer. Schieffer is a nationally regarded YIMBY icon and fitness celebrity with over a decade of cyber security experience. Please join the “Draft Anton” movement by tweeting any of the following images using the hashtag #time4anton.



“Transgender candidates for Mpls. City Council seek a voice at the table.” The Star Tribune has a story about Phillipe Cunningham (Ward 4) and Andrea Jenkins (Ward 8). Neither wants to focus their campaigns on the fact that they are transgender, but both are aware of the historical significance of their candidacies.

Mohamud Noor is reportedly challenging Ward 6 incumbent Abdi Warsame. Drama.

Posted on

Our Winter Sidewalks Are Broken

Snow emergencies are a big deal here in Minneapolis. You hear about it on the TV news. There’s an app–tens of thousands of people have installed it on both iPhone and Android (“avoid the cost and hassle of a ticket and tow…”). People are very interested in not having their cars towed, so people become very interested in moving their cars to designated areas.

The reason the City of Minneapolis makes a big fuss and puts so many residents at risk of serious personal cost, inconvenience and unhappiness is that we’ve collectively decided to make it a priority to keep our streets plowed and safe. Individually, people comply with the rules because their personal interests (money and property) have been aligned with public safety (plowed streets).

Snow emergencies coincide with, but fail to address, another public safety issue: snow and ice-covered sidewalks. In good weather, we brag about walkable neighborhoods and bike lanes and transit investments; when it snows, we fail hard on the the basic thing that is the foundation of all the rest: functioning sidewalks.

Unsurprisingly, the people most reliant on safe sidewalks are often those with the least power and money in our city: people without cars; people who walk a few blocks to the bus stop or the store; people with disabilities or limited mobility. Nobody comes to rescue them in a snow emergency.

Sidewalk users are at the mercy of property owners. In my experience, most are meeting their obligations, but in the days and weeks after a snow emergency, there are at least a handful of dangerously iced over properties on every block in my south Minneapolis neighborhood. Even if a majority of a block is cleared, some portion is still dangerously choked with ice.

I have good boots, legs that are long and strong (I am widely regarded as a hunk), and yet even I have slipped and fallen on icy sidewalks. Older people, those susceptible to falling or injury, people whose long-term health depends on not being shut away in their homes for months at a time–these people can’t afford the risk we put them in year after year.

You know how we sometimes laugh at the odd suburb that refuses to have sidewalks? As in, “Longtime Edina residents ‘up in arms’ over plan to build more sidewalks”? That’s basically Minneapolis for three months of the year. For some reason we seem to be OK with that.

Someone declare a sidewalk emergency. Minneapolis sidewalks in crisis. @lisabendermpls @MayorHodges pic.twitter.com/l5BtyXV3cn

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 28, 2016

Hey property owners, if you didn’t shovel, your sidewalk is now a beautiful, shiny threat to public safety. Thanks! pic.twitter.com/YJNsuNOJpk

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 27, 2016

Minneapolis 311

The system Minneapolis currently uses to resolve sidewalk snow and ice issues relies on citizen reports to 311, followed by multiple letters from the city to the property owner explaining their obligation, and can take up to 21 days to resolve. The ice is likely to melt before it results in the city sending a crew to clear the sidewalk and bill the property owner for the cost. This system isn’t working

Another reason our current 311 reporting system isn’t working: hopelessness. The sheer volume of non-compliance, coupled with the demoralizing ineffectiveness of enforcement (not to mention the frozen-ness of my fingers before I can tap out an address on my phone) creates a loop where it feels pointless to report. Ineffective enforcement leads to less reporting leads to even less enforcement.

The system we have doesn’t work because there is too little incentive to comply. Here’s how we might create a sense of urgency: any property owner who hasn’t shoveled within a reasonable time-frame (24? 48 hours?) should be at risk of immediately having their sidewalk shoveled by a city-hired crew and receiving a bill for the cost. Even if there are logistical barriers to making this a guaranteed outcome for every case, it should at least weigh on people’s minds as a possible consequence of not meeting their obligation.

If Minneapolis is going to continue to rely on individual property owners to clear snow and ice from sidewalks, then the city needs to communicate an Oh no, what if my car gets towed? level of urgency.

Posted on

13 reasons Minneapolis needs to move beyond Intentional Communities

In the videos below, City Council Members Lisa Bender and Jacob Frey make some compelling arguments for why we should ease occupancy restrictions for all people living in Minneapolis, and for why we shouldn’t limit housing opportunities to a select few who live in strictly defined “intentional communities.”

[For a detailed discussion of problems with the intentional communities ordinance, read my earlier post]

Thread of short clips for why this ordinance is terrible. First, the rule against against “transients” (my favorite euphemism for renter) pic.twitter.com/2vTM55IVtb

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

The requirement that ID match your home address which I can only guess is meant to target students for exclusion. pic.twitter.com/Dm6vfwjH9Z

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

The requirement that your household is a democracy with a constitution of some kind. That’s dumb. pic.twitter.com/Ww5kD8h0wX

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Sharing costs for food and other expenses. pic.twitter.com/azosXciKcU

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Here’s a good argument: why are we getting into people’s private business to dictate who can legally live with who. pic.twitter.com/K0fsfsD8UL

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

The racial implications of requiring people to comply with these rules and all the notarized paperwork. pic.twitter.com/gORUL38mNQ

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

We should acknowledge the racist history of zoning. pic.twitter.com/YBUEuPZkxh

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Good neighbors can live in all kinds of different housing types. pic.twitter.com/WH7HLIamJ4

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

There are already regulations related to nuisance properties. Enforce those. pic.twitter.com/VXBV3ik9p9

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

We shouldn’t force people to “notarize their situation” because 4 unrelated people want to live together. That’s obvious. pic.twitter.com/UJEQ2JKert

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Big old beautiful homes. Stop making assumptions about which kinds of people get to live in them. pic.twitter.com/pZTFCWsXwy

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

The city can’t enforce rules about these incredibly personal parts of people’s lives. pic.twitter.com/6VPJjWIog3

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Most important thing that’s wrong with this ordinance: it’s forcing Jacob Frey into showing how bad he is at coming up with fake names. pic.twitter.com/6gRgdgXSq1

— Wedge LIVE! (@WedgeLIVE) December 8, 2016

Posted on

“Intentional Communities”: A Path to Legal Status for White People

Over time, average family sizes get smaller, and old houses get emptier. But in Minneapolis’ lower-density zoning districts, no more than three unrelated people can live together as a household; in higher-density districts, the limit is five unrelated people. For people who want to live with three or more friends in a big old house, this is a problem. As a targeted fix, the City Council is on the verge of removing occupancy restrictions for a select group of residents who live in what are called “intentional communities.”

Intentional communities are “a form of housing co-operative where residents form a household organized around an idea.” In researching a proposal to legalize these communities, City staff found that Minneapolis “is fairly unique in that occupancy is regulated in both the Zoning Code and the Housing Maintenance Code.” No other city defines the special legal category of “intentional community,” and many peer cities don’t specify maximum occupancy in their zoning codes.

Minneapolis’ 1924 definition of a family was surprisingly liberal.

Though it’s an improvement on the status quo, the proposed ordinance legalizing intentional communities uses some odd criteria in order to limit the kind of household that qualifies. If it passes the full City Council in its current form, here are some of the hoops you’ll have to jump through if you want to legally live together with a handful of unrelated people in Minneapolis:

  • A requirement that households have “an adopted set of rules covering democratic governance, maintenance responsibilities, and other household issues.”
  • A provision against groups that are “transient or temporary in nature” requiring intentional communities to remain together for “a period in excess of one calendar year.”
  • A requirement that “members of the household share expenses for food, rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household expenses.”

Additionally, the city would require multiple notarized statements from the property owner and a member of the intentional community, as well as submission of “legal documentation establishing the existence of the intentional community as a recognized and legal entity.”

The Chair of the Zoning & Planning Committee, Lisa Bender, expressed concerns about trying to “control, as a city, who gets to live together and who doesn’t.” Council Member Jacob Frey, the lone voice of dissent on the Community Development and Regulatory Services (CDRS) Committee, asked “Why does it make it a better household if people are sharing expenses for food?” Frey also spoke about the unlikelihood of enforcing these very personal aspects of people’s living situations: “If we’re not gonna get involved in these areas, and it sounds like we’re not, let’s not have them in the ordinance.”

As a thought experiment, you might wonder about the effort it would take to become a pretend intentional community. You’d find the right page on the city’s website; download the right set of pdfs; print those pdfs; but maybe you don’t have a printer, so you attach those pdfs to an email, and send it to the FedEx store; realize you need to figure out how an adult gets a thing notarized; spend a few hours on Wikipedia researching the world’s most respected parliamentary systems; appoint a Finance Minister to buy the groceries; then finally send your constitution to the city for approval.

This pain-in-the-ass level of effort is made more ridiculous by the fact that – aside from requiring you to submit the paperwork – these rules won’t be enforced. Nobody truly cares how you govern your household; in the same way we don’t care how the traditional married-with-kids family next door governs their household. Your chores, your bills, your business.

The city isn’t likely to monitor the intimate details of intentional communities. Despite rules mandating “democratic governance,” city inspectors won’t be entering homes like a bunch of hyperlocal Jimmy Carters ensuring free and fair elections. These unenforceable requirements aren’t about democracy; it’s about making sure the person who rents a room in the house next door is the Right Class of Neighbor: someone savvy and persistent enough to register her household with the city.

The only thing we’re really ensuring is the people who get access to this category of housing have the time and aptitude for paperwork. This ordinance leaves in place a barrier for many people who could benefit from sharing space with unrelated people in an unintentional community: people who aren’t comfortable navigating their local government bureaucracy; immigrants, new residents, and others without extensive pre-existing social support networks; lower income people who really, desperately, and without delay, need an affordable place to live.

I think Minneapolitans would strongly object to arbitrary barriers to voting. We recognize that voter ID laws have the impact of reducing the number of poor, minorities, and students who are able to cast votes. We naturally understand that the process of obtaining government ID is easier for some than for others. By this same logic, we shouldn’t accept arbitrary barriers to housing.

At a public meeting back in May, Council Member Cam Gordon, co-author of this ordinance, described how, many years ago, he lived with a bunch of roommates in a situation that was illegal. I assumed he told the story to illustrate the need for an ordinance to ease occupancy restrictions. You can’t deny Gordon’s good intentions, but the ordinance he’s proposing doesn’t legalize the situation he described; it simply sets out a path for clever people with time to game the system.

During the November 29th CDRS Committee hearing, Gordon mentioned that it’s taken him a long time to get to the point where he “doesn’t have the opposition of a single neighborhood association.” That he negotiated with his most privileged constituents (white, single-family homeowners), and they find this plan won’t cause them any discomfort, does not necessarily mean it is the right or equitable solution.

At a Zoning & Planning Committee meeting on December 1st, Council Member Lisa Goodman (the other co-author) addressed concerns about the ordinance by saying “we’ll know an intentional community as regulatory staff when we see it.” The City of Minneapolis shouldn’t be applying a “know it when we see it” standard for deciding which Minneapolis households are legal. For the largely white constituency this plan is designed to help, getting the benefit of the doubt from people in authority may come easy; but not everyone in our city enjoys that privilege.

At the CDRS Committee, Goodman cited “deterioration” caused by old-style “rooming houses” in the 7th Ward’s wealthy single-family neighborhoods as a reason not to have a less restrictive ordinance: “You’d have an outcry of people in R1 neighborhoods.” She went on to say that “people who already have problems with rental housing, potentially could have more problems, and we already have so many problems and not enough staff to deal with it, for example on the north side.”

Those very nice, very exclusive neighborhoods of Goodman’s Ward 7 could use some less expensive housing options. And it would be a shame if we capped the number of available housing units simply for a lack of housing inspectors; we can always budget for more housing inspectors. If the health and safety of tenants and neighbors is at stake, we should regulate landlords. But let’s stop using the zoning code to regulate how people form communities, and what constitutes a family. Minneapolis should go back to the 1924 legal definition of a family: “any number of individuals occupying a single housekeeping unit” that isn’t a boarding house or hotel.

We need to be blunt about this: Minneapolis is about to reform housing occupancy limits by legalizing largely white, hippie communes made up of people who are up to the task of paperwork and process. This ordinance will have the impact of opening up housing opportunities for some groups and not for others. When you consider that so many other cities don’t see the need to regulate the definition of family in this way, it’s a real shame that Minneapolis won’t go further.

If you live in Minneapolis, contact your Council Member with feedback before Friday’s vote.

Posted on

70s-Era Planner Confesses Role in Decades-Old Downzoning Plot

In commenting on the city’s current plan to downzone the Wedge neighborhood, former Minneapolis city planner Perry Thorvig has given us some historical perspective. He starts off by celebrating the results of the 1975 downzoning:

The zoning scheme adopted in 1975 must have worked. It was gratifying to me and I’m sure many neighborhood residents, including former council member Meg Tuthill, that the recent study by city planner Brian Schaffer found that very little new development has occurred in the neighborhood since that rezoning was done forty years ago.

(note that while Mr. Thorvig appreciated the 1975 downzoning, he worries the 2016 proposal may go too far in creating non-conformities.)

Message from a historical city planner.

The kind of housing the city and activists stopped from being built decades ago–the 2½-story walk-up–is what is now referred to as naturally occurring affordable housing (built with private rather than public money). As a result of what we did way back then, we now have less affordable housing.

Today, there’s lots of local renter advocacy happening around the 1970ish 2½-story walk-up. Many such buildings are being sold and renovated with rents higher than current tenants can afford. This has led to local government allocating money to purchase these buildings in order to preserve some tiny portion of what’s become a dwindling supply of affordable units in the region. To the extent we devote public money to saving them, we value the benefits these buildings provide. But are we moving towards a zoning code that matches those values?

Look at these headlines and the very similar buildings pictured underneath:
1972
2016
After all these decades we’re still pursuing a policy (restrictive zoning) aimed at pleasing low-density property owners who would very much not like to have their beautiful, desirable neighborhood “destroyed” by dense multifamily housing; and on the other end we’re forced to mitigate the effect of that policy (painfully expensive housing) by spending a woefully inadequate pool of public housing money.

What are we doing?

It’s 2016 and we’re still downzoning.

If you’d like to weigh in on downzoning the Wedge, it’s item 5 on the agenda for the next meeting of the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, Tuesday, Nov. 1st, at 4:30 PM.
Posted on

Who gets to live on our nicest streets?

Alex Cecchini has written a nicely comprehensive post outlining all the reasons it’s a bad idea to force dense housing out of neighborhood interiors and onto the most noisy, polluted, dangerous streets in the city.

It’s a timely post because the Wedge neighborhood is about to be downzoned. As Alex writes, the last time the neighborhood was downzoned, in 1975, it was happening in parallel with an equally successful movement to force dangerous high-speed car traffic out of the neighborhood’s interior (a good thing). In other words, the city and neighborhood activists were making the neighborhood interior nicer/safer at the same time they were telling a certain kind of person in a certain kind of housing they have no business living there.

Read Alex’s post for all the reasons why that’s a problem.