It’s very rare for a Twin Cities neighborhood group to spend much time organizing renters. Despite their being half the population of Minneapolis and St. Paul, it’s hard to find renters on commissions, at public hearings, or at evening community meetings. The lack of renters in those places is a problem because, as a recent study in Minneapolis pointed out, the priorities of public engagement have long been skewed to helping homeowners.
Part of the problem is that, as I’ve written before, organizing renters is a difficult task posing all sorts of social barriers. But physical barriers can be important too, as Monica Bravo, the executive director of West Side Citizens Organization (WSCO), has learned. For over a year, WSCO, the District Council that covers St. Paul’s diverse West Side, has been running a “housing justice” campaign to organize around issues like anti-displacement and tenant rights.
“We have a tenant organizing strategy and program here at WSCO to work with tenants across the West Side so they are living in dignified and affordable housing without fear of displacement,” said Bravo.
As Bravo describes it, WSCO sends out volunteers to apartment buildings and places like laundromats where renters often gather. The goal is to share literature and information in multiple languages, helping renters understand their rights. Bravo hopes that, if renters can organize and share problems with each other, they will be better able to prevent displacement, rent hikes, and poor living conditions.
“What we’re hearing from the neighborhood is that displacement is happening, rents are rising, and folks are living in conditions that are really sub-par,” said Bravo. “We want to talk to people in those circumstances, facing potential evictions, bringing them together so they can organize for better living conditions long term on the West Side.”
The work has stopped for the time being, however, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic and because of difficulty with an area landlord. In response, last month WSCO, in cooperation with the Housing Justice Center, filed a lawsuit against a group that owns apartment properties on the West Side. As the complaint spells out, they are trying to make sure that their volunteer organizers are able to speak to tenants about their rights as renters, but have been harassed and prevented from doing so.
[image_credit]Courtesy of WSCO[/image_credit][image_caption]A 13-unit apartment building at 166 George Street. Recent photos of the exterior of 166 George Street show clear signs of disrepair and poor maintenance.[/image_caption]
Balancing the power relationship
Organizing renters is especially hard these days, and not simply because of the pandemic, economic depression, and the threat of evictions. St. Paul recently passed a new package of tenant rights that are some of the strongest in the country. These new rules don’t do much good if nobody knows about them, or if people feel too intimidated in a tight rental market to follow through. How to empower renters is a problem that St. Paul Council Member Mitra Jalali has made a focal point for her career.
“I ran a campaign that intentionally wanted to engage renters, because I believe that population overall is likely be newer to our city, and has different income levels than most people who participate in your average neighborhood meeting,” said Jalali. “They are more likely to be people of color, more likely to be diverse in age and in other ways, [and] that was a constituency that I found missing everywhere I went.”
There’s an unspoken assumption in many public conversations that people who own houses should be best served by public policies, zoning codes, street design, and other urban rules. (Actually, go to enough meetings, and you will likely hear this assumption spoken out loud.) The assumption that city policy should do things like protect property values or preserve sightlines comes directly from the idea that homeowners are “invested” in their community while renters are “transient.”
While it’s literally true that owning a home is an investment, as social inequality begins to eclipse other urban problems, many people are suggesting that the privilege of homeownership should not drive local politics. Jalali, who flouted St. Paul political conventional wisdom during her campaign by constantly talking about renters, is one of those voices in City Hall.
“If you rent, you’re more likely to be working long hours and less able to participate in hundreds of hours of zoning and planning meetings that ultimately shape the land use and wealth building in our city,” explained Jalali. “That feeds right back into this issue [of] economic and political exclusion.”
Door knocking felt like a violation
To be sure, organizing renters is a particularly difficult challenge. Years ago, when I was a canvasser registering voters, I dreaded the moment when I came to an apartment building. Walking down a street of houses, pushing doorbells and talking to people on the doorstep felt relatively normal. Door knocking apartment buildings, on the other hand, always felt like a violation. Even entering the building presented a challenge, and having conversations through a door buzzer was awkward at best. If I got inside, knocking on doors in a narrow apartment hallway felt like an invasion of privacy, even if state law makes it technically legal for political candidates.
The physical barriers of apartment buildings were part of the difficulty mentioned in the WSCO lawsuit. Filed in District Court, the WSCO suit cites the Minnesota Human Rights Act as justification for legal action.
According to the act:
It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged a third person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this section.
Drawing on the Act, the WSCO suit claims that preventing organizers in aiding people amounts to a form of discrimination. The case is currently in Ramsey County District Court.
[image_credit]Martin Hernandez/WSCO[/image_credit][image_caption]Another image from the June renters rights rally.[/image_caption]
“We will be doing some type of COVID door knock in the coming weeks, where we plan to wear masks, step back from the doors, use gloves or some type of prop to knock or ring,” said Bravo. “We’ll see if folks will open the door and have conversation with us making sure we have literature to drop.”
No doubt that, for canvassers in Minnesota, summer is the season to meet people and have difficult conversations. That goes double for canvassing during a pandemic.
“We plan to try that,” said Bravo. “In Minnesota, we have a short season to be outside and be face to face with anyone, so we’ll see how that goes.”
“…Actually, go to enough meetings, and you will likely hear this assumption spoken out loud…” is a statement that exactly fits my experience at neighborhood meetings as well as the housing and planning commissions on which I previously served. The planning commission on which I served regularly got letters from NIMBY homeowners railing against development in general, and not just the usual multifamily housing, but even single-family detached housing, because what was being proposed wasn’t large enough in square footage or sat on a lot smaller than the letter-writer thought appropriate to protect the value of the letter-writer’s property. That home ownership is a privilege, not a right, and largely a function of a combination of longevity and relative affluence, doesn’t seem to have occurred to some people. Anyone who’s been both renter and homeowner should be aware (but, sadly, often is not) of how the rules of the game are skewed in favor of owners, even though, in many cases, the actual owner of the property is the mortgage holder, not the person or family living in the structure.
Lindeke’s experience of apartment buildings while canvassing is likewise a duplicate of my own in that situation. Many people (me, for one) aren’t especially happy to see a canvasser at their door, and I think Lindeke is spot-on with his inference that knocking on an apartment door seems like an invasion of privacy, whether it meets the legal definition or not. As a homeowner, in campaign season (i.e., now), I confess I’m tempted to join some of my fellow-citizens in putting a “No Soliciting” sign on my front door, though such signs are largely ignored by canvassers who either don’t understand the word “soliciting,” or don’t care.
Place a sign that says “no political canvassing.” “No soliciting” is generally regarded as door-to-door sales or fundraising. Canvassing is protected free speech, so even a sign that says no political canvassing can be ignored. But most canvassers won’t waste their time with someone who doesn’t want strangers knocking on their doors. Once the owner says to leave the property, then private property rights prevail over free speech rights. I’ve door knocked for citizen petitions and many people with No Soliciting signs were willing to talk to me.
The assumption that some kind of “organization” is required is in-and-of itself an expression of a white affluent perspectives and expectations. This is a hierarchical design that assumes power doesn’t have to listen anyone until they get “organized”. It assumes that those who form organizations are entitled to be heard more so than others.
Why do these renters have to “organize?” I’m a home owner and I’m not “organized”. No one is telling me that if I want my voice to be heard at City Hall I have to organize my neighbors first. Instead of trying to organize renters, why not just encourage participation? If they’re not showing up at important neighborhood meeting or other meetings, reach out and encourage participation. The expectation that renters have to form or create some kind organization before they can participate or have a voice in local issues creates an additional and unnecessary barrier.
The whole idea that we can ignore renters UNTIL they “organize” is a form of institutional bias. Is there no way “planners” can make themselves aware of renter’s perspectives? Do planners not have a responsibility to make themselves aware of renter’s perspectives when they plan stuff? Do representatives have no responsibility to reach out and listen to their constituents?
I’m not saying organizations are a “bad” idea, but if they form them it will be organically, and that formation will start with basic participation. The idea that someone needs to go in and organize them for themselves is problematic yes?
I suspect that some basic outreach would be easier and more effective than “organizing”. If you’re having THAT much trouble getting organized, maybe that’s a hint. If planners and decision makers aren’t connecting with renters, why isn’t that a problem planners and decision makers have to solve?
Hi Paul. Thanks for the comment, and I think you make a good point. I think you might also be conflating two meanings of “organize.” Most of the time here, it’s a as a verb. Organizing renters means going out and talking to them and getting their input and connecting them with resources and information. It’s the role of people as community organizers
There are also organizations, like WSCO, that are doing that work. IMO, it really should be the obligation of the city, its commissions and committees, and all of the officially recognized neighborhood groups to go out and talk to renters, to seek out their voices and ensure they are reflected. I think that neighborhood groups should be required to do this work, in order to receive city funding or recognition. The problem is that if you don’t organize renters, and make an intentional commitment to doing reaching out, you will almost always have wealthier home owners show up at meetings, email comments, etc. There are a few District Councils that have designated seats on their boards for renters; that’s a good example of the kind of approach that is more equitable. But really, city organizations need to do even more than that if we want to include renters in policy conversations.
Thanks for the Response and clarification Bill. Bear with me for a second: As Mr. Farland mentions, one of the problems with getting feedback from renters (specially those in apartment settings) could be the transitory nature of renting. You probably know better than I but I seem to recall seeing somewhere that average tenant only stays for around three years. My experience as a renter and a homeowner is that some people want to connect to the neighborhood and community, and others just want to be left alone. So the challenge is to connect with those who want to be connected, some kind of outreach should be possible with that demographic, unfortunately I can’t tell you how to do that.
It’s also possible that renters in different parts of the city are approachable in different ways. For instance, perhaps NOC might have some ideas about connecting with renters on the North side?
But maybe a bigger systemic issue is the fact that property owners essentially make apartment living transitory because they automatically raise rents every year. The practice of offering “deals” to new renters while driving current renters out may be a significant factor discouraging neighborhood or community participation. Who gets invested in a neighborhood when they know they won’t be staying there?
The article ignores what those of us who have been active in neighborhood organizations and who have tried to reach out to renters know, that most of the renters are not interested in participating. This is because they are often in transit or they do not feel they have a stake in the issues being addressed. Also, many of them have work hours that conflict and/or have other interests. Lisa Bender would like to tie the amount of City support to neighborhood organizations to how well they include renters and people of color. She is tired of long-term residents opposing her policies for greater density and modifying our streets for bicycles. Yes, renters should be encouraged to participate but they don’t need to be “organized”.
I disagree with you here, Gary. Of course renters have interests and concerns and thoughts and desires about what the city should be like. We need to change the expectations about what “participation” looks like.
I think Ms. Bender (and others) might be taking some liberties with her assumptions. The idea that everyone wants to ride a bike and other “density” assumptions have always struck me as white affluent set of assumptions. I’m not sure for instance that a majority of renters would actually support policies that eliminate street parking and requirements for parking spaces. The assumption that EVERYONE wants to ride buses or ride bikes to work and nobody needs or wants a car or to drive isn’t a data driven assumption. It’s also possible that savvy renters may be sensitive to the effects on their own rents if density policies promote gentrification. Renters in old uptown apartments have no doubt noticed their rents rising up along with all the new apartments that have been built there. It’s entirely possible that Bender’s density agenda would get just as much resistance from renters as it gets from some home owners.
My experience with Urban Studies is that they always have “visions” of ideal urban environments, but those visions tend be rather monochromatic in the sense that they don’t emerge from diverse perspectives.
Adding new housing does not increase rents on existing housing. Adding supply to high demand will, and has, reduce prices.
It also overlooks the fact that some people may logistically have needs such as children who need to be in various places or working odd hours and not feeling safe on transit as reasons as to why they may opt out of mass transit. Also helping people build equity is important; not every person who is below the upper class and/or a person of color wants to be in high density apartment living. Again this goes back to more equitable state/city funding for education and other areas so all areas have equitable resources vs endless attempts at social engineering that never seem to do much. You also need to define gentrification. Bender and others tend to tell vs engage for starters. A strength of Mpls has always been a strong middle and working class and that is a key to a functional mid size city; lose that and you start to have issue and even further disparities. The current council does not seem to recognize how to meld that with meeting the needs of renters and affordable housing.
Bender understands that part of it just fine. What it comes down to is that a lot of so-called progressives who opposed the 2040 plan were just NIMBYs and racists.
It always entertaining when so-called liberals project their own mental garbage onto progressives. Decades of inherent and institutional neoliberal racism has created some the most segregated and unequal conditions in the country for people of color… but we’ll blame it on progressive NIMBY’s.
If anything reveals the mythic nature supply and demand promises to yield affordable housing or reduce prices, it’t decades of continually rising prices. Doubling down on magical thinking won’t lower rents or even stabilize them at current levels.
Point me to the American city that has actually built a meaningful supply of housing. Minneapolis might even be the best example: https://streets.mn/2020/06/28/new-housing-lowers-rents-in-minneapolis-st-paul-not-so-much/
Tell me exactly how many units we need to build and in what time frame to produce affordable housing? If this is so predictable then tell us the ratio between new building and lower prices. How much will prices decrease per new unit built?
The fact that the housing we’ve built thus far hasn’t yielded you’re promised results is just a circular argument; no matter how much we build it’s not enough. The fact that building hasn’t lowered prices doesn’t prove that we haven’t built enough, it proves that building doesn’t lower prices. We’ve been following this magic formula for decades- where’s the affordable housing?
Maybe I am being overly sensitive but as a person who has a mortgage (“homeowner”) since late 2004 I am not sure that I felt very privileged paying on an underwater mortgage for more than a decade.
Sounds like the real issue here is how to get the disinterested involved with their community. Not sure that any particular public policy can remedy that. This is a long standing issue with the functioning of the US representative democracy/republic.