Preliminary studies pointed to how the change in zoning brought about increases in housing costs in low-income neighborhoods of Minneapolis — an early sign of speculation and gentrification.
Proponents who drafted the rent control ballot proposal made numerous mistakes in their policy design.
There are two causes explaining the rise of a new normal. The first is a growing ideological divide over the nature of government. The second is structural.
Refusing to enact evidence-based policy yields public cynicism toward government and sets reform up to fail.
The department needs to have a major cultural change that can only be effected by either state takeover of it or by merging it with (or having it taken over by) the county sheriff or placed under receivership and operation with another jurisdiction.
It is not clear that one can really extrapolate from less than 2% of the delegate count to infer much of anything.
It is not clear that this approach is desirable, and it leaves policy formulation up to the distortions of plaintiff legal strategy — and not one necessarily based on promoting overall sound educational policy.
Rent control alone is a crude solution to a serious problem. Used carefully and in conjunction with other strategies, it may serve as a partial tool to addressing the problem that a free-market delivery of housing produces.
The revelations of President Trump seeking to leverage military aid to Ukraine in return for the latter investigating Joe Biden changes the calculus.
There are several reasons. The first is polling data that suggest 64% of those surveyed by Gallup favor legalization, including in Midwest states such as Minnesota.
The divisions within the party are not new, but trace back to at least the 2016 Clinton-Sanders divide, and they are a lot deeper than policy, but also speak to strategy and tactics.
Fixing segregation demands a metrowide solution. Yet Minneapolis has acted on its own via its 2040 comprehensive plan to address historical discrimination.
There are several reasons for the increasing dysfunction in Minnesota politics, and they all played out in the 2019 session.
It is becoming clearer that “One Minnesota” has morphed into “Won Minnesota” and that the DFL strategy to move its agenda is premised less on consensus than on the belief that it won the 2018 elections and its agenda deserves to be enacted.
Assuming she’ll announce her candidacy on Sunday, perhaps Amy Klobuchar will defy the odds and win. One can wish her well. But an honest appraisal suggests the odds are against her.
While the focus going into the session has been Gov. Tim Walz’s plan to raise the gas tax to pay for long-term infrastructure maintenance to roads, bridges, and highways, four or five other taxes could shape the session and complicate the gas tax debate.
Is it time to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Minnesota? The answer may be yes, but when and how it is done in Minnesota is a critical issue.
Moreover, what the election demonstrated was how Minnesota served as a microcosm of national politics.
Once lies have been circulated, especially in a social media era, they are hard to correct, and evidence suggests deception travels more quickly and deeper than the truth.
The Constitution is proving to be able to address or anticipate many of the problems we are seeing. I do not see a constitutional crisis.
