A week after the Minneapolis DFL hosted virtual ward conventions for City Council elections came the forum featuring candidates for mayor. Because of the pandemic, the entire Minneapolis DFL endorsement process was done online. Here, four takeaways from the party’s endorsements process and what it could mean for the November elections:
Another ‘no endorsement’
The DFL — the only political party that matters in Minneapolis mayoral politics — only endorses candidates who receive at least 60 percent of the vote in the final round of ranked choice voting.
[image_caption]Sheila Nezhad[/image_caption]
The results were somewhat reminiscent of the last time the city chose a mayor. In 2017, then incumbent Mayor Betsy Hodges was unable to muster as much support as two challengers, Raymond Dehn and then-Council Member Frey, and none of the candidates received the endorsement. Back then, Dehn got 32 percent of the vote, Frey 27 percent, and Hodges 24 percent. In the general election that November, Frey prevailed over Dehn after five rounds of ranked choice tabulations with 57.2 percent of the vote.
Maybe it’s not such a great gig
It could be good to be governor or senator these days. Mayor? Maybe not so much. The job is now considered one of the worst in all of politics, as blame for the pandemic and issues with policing and crime have tended to fall on cities’ most high-profile public officials. That’s not just in Minneapolis. First-term mayors in both Seattle and Atlanta have decided not to seek re-election this year, while Pittsburgh’s two-term mayor recently lost his reelection bid in that city’s Democratic primary.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Jessica Lee[/image_credit][image_caption]Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey[/image_caption]
All candidates for mayor were critical of the police. But there are big differences in their views on the future of traditional law enforcement.
In the candidate forum, all candidates used forceful language in condemning police violence against communities of color, especially the murder of Floyd. But most stopped short of suggesting the city would be better off without police.
“The city needs a both/and approach,” said Frey. “This is where I differ from some of the candidates in this race,” saying he believes the city should invest in a “comprehensive approach” that commits funding for police as well as alternative safety systems.
AJ Awed, currently the co-executive director of the Cedar Riverside Community Council, said in order to rebuild trust between “Black and brown communities” and the city, there needs to be a “transformative” change to Minneapolis police. “That doesn’t mean that our city does not need police,” he said. “That is a function of government. Law enforcement is gonna be here to stay.”
Knuth noted that “of course Black communities and communities of color don’t trust police because police actively harm communities of color.” Citing the higher rate at which Black motorists are pulled over for pretext stops, she suggested that traffic enforcement could be undertaken by another city department or by an entirely new public safety division. “The mayor has authority here and could be making progress here and we haven’t seen it.”
[image_credit]Kate for Mpls[/image_credit][image_caption]Kate Knuth[/image_caption]
Frey also differed with challengers on rent control (mostly)
Knuth said she is on board with changing the city charter to allow for rent control. Awed, whose main issue was rent control in his losing bid to win the Ward 6 council seat last year, said he strongly supports rent control.
Nezhad too supports rent control, and Sturm said he is for rent control in “some form.”
[image_caption]AJ Awed[/image_caption]
Among those seeking the endorsement, only Frey was opposed. “Most every major economist throughout the world has concluded that it hamstrings mobility and supply and it ultimately leads to increased prices,” he said. “They’ve concluded that it has not been effective, and I listen to experts.”
Still, Frey said he is open to considering policy crafted by council. “But, as a formal policy has not yet been put forward, I will review the Minneapolis language before making a final decision,” said Frey. “That’s what we should always be doing.”
Frey probably got re-elected mayor yesterday.
The opposition needed to coalesce around a single opponent. No endorsement means the DFL apparatus is sidelined.
Don Latimer, vfca lonely city turns its eyes to you…
AMEN. This is what you get when one party owns the town. Left, Far Left and off the charts Left. Last person out, please turn the lights off
Second at bat here, let’s see if this comment passes muster.
Wow, if you hate one party towns, it’s a pretty safe assumption that you would hate Red bastions like So Dak or Mississippi.
(Now my first comment was more punchy, without being mean spirited or violating any of the rules here. But hopefully this one slides past the mods.)
Minneapolis would not be a one-party town if the Republican Party had not gone so utterly bat**** crazy over social and cultural issues. The rigid party discipline means that even a nice urban Republican who really does care about only economic issues is going to have to swear fealty to the lunatic element that now controls the party apparatus.
One-party town? Sorry, Republicans, you brought this on yourselves.
If you check, Betsy, I’m sure you’ll find that this one party “owns” pretty much every major city in America. And has ever since the Repub party sold itself lock, stock and barrel to a far right reactionary movement ironically called “conservatism”. A movement whose ridiculous tenets simply do not sit well with most urban Americans in the 21st Century.
Sad (for you), but true…
Who is Don Latimer?
A portmanteau of Frasier’s and Latimer ‘s names.evoking a time.with good city governance
I like it.
It seems to me that was a time when the towns had sober thoughtful leadership.
George , excuse me
These politicians jumping on the feel-good, rent control bandwagon are demonstrating a real lack of judgement and critical thinking. You have to worry that if they are this easily influenced by activists with such a radical agenda how they would react to other ill advised policies. While Frey has a lot to answer for over the last year I do appreciate that he’s willing to state the truth about Rent Control vs pander to the activists who have such a stranglehold on other mayoral candidates and a majority of the city council.
“We know that rent stabilization can work, it has a long track record in many other cities and we know that it doesn’t destroy markets”
Facts don’t matter. Truth doesn’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. These people are as bad as the Trumpers who think the election was stolen.
I couldn’t agree more. Rent control has never worked. It can only lead to reduced rental options, as landlords decide to invest somewhere else, and run-down rental stock as those landlords who stay can’t afford to maintain their properties.
Note the language they use – calling it “rent stabilization” trying to make it sound less onerous – but also sacrificing accuracy. If the ordinance was really about stabilization it wouldn’t be needed since tons of data shows that rents in Mpls have been stable for years. Yes there are outliers and the off landlord who raised rates a lot, but a competent city council would not write an all encompassing far reaching policy to address the behavior of a few landlords they don’t like. This is rent control, and they would like to put limits on what is done in the affordably priced older units of the city and the new lux units and everything in-between – because apparently now even highly paid professionals who can afford say $4000 a month should be protected from their landlords.
This language game is reminiscent of the minimum wage movement where politicians like Mayor Hodges and activists called the Tip credit a “tip penalty” – even thought they knew perfectly well how the trip credit works in calculating the minimum wage to be paid by employers, they used “tip penalty” to suggest dishonestly that somehow the employee came out worse by getting tipped.
Now if this rent control passes, and years from now renters come forward to complain that their buildings are not being updated or maintained as they think they should be (because the landlords have had to scale back given the impacts of rent control), the city will pass something like “rental amenity control” where they mandate what % of revenue must be reinvested back in the building, and what’s allowed, and how its documented, and maybe there will be a new department setup to track this, and a fee assessed to the landlords to pay for it, etc… because that’s how they solve problems that they themselves created.
Or what will happen is what has happened in other places with rent control. Landlords will withdraw from the market and sell their units as condos. Small landlords will sell their buildings to large out-ot-town entities that can upgrade and re-price them. Every landlord will automatically raise rent the maximum amount every year. And of course, rent control will dissuade developers from building new rental properties, thus exacerbating the underling housing shortage.
So Frey has done a pretty poor job of being mayor but I can’t see the other candidates doing any better.
So sad, but Frey is the best choice.
I think that is exactly right.
Agreed. And here we Minneapolitans sit, extremely discouraged. Frey (who is probably a decent guy, but this is not a popularity contest) will probably get reelected because no one has stood up and articulated that vision for the citizens of Minneapolis. What vision? We need cops, but they need a whole new culture, we need employment for non-degreed folks and especially youth, we need housing, we need to treat each other better, we need to continue to build bridges between people of different colors.
I chose Minneapolis as my home and I want to stay here and help make it a better city. I am very concerned that with the lack of leadership we currently have, and no promise for anything better, people will start leaving.
The usual vague comments from politicians ‘we need unarmed crisis responders, etc. etc.’ reflect once again most of them haven’t a clue on what has been going on in the city or what resources are already in place. The county has crisis responders, Chief Rondo has asked the city council to expand the program further and also to embed social workers in precincts; however most of the council is intent on reinventing the wheel. Also newsflash–even with the best therapists or social workers, you can’t force someone to seek help. And then there is the issue of many calls have limited information and trying to hire someone unarmed to go into these situations is not easy and you need people with expertise and knowledgeable of the systems. I don’t care much for Frey, but at least he’s trying and appears to be learning from his mistakes.
Lisa we agree,
“‘we need unarmed crisis responders,”
Worked real well in Kansas
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cop-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-multiple-times-while-doing-welfare-check/ar-AALeQSo
Reality is a lot different than re-imagining, anybody recall why a 911 and 311 system was created ? To get folks out of the confusion who do you call, and what are the bone heads trying to do again? Create a Baskin-Robbins set of departments each of a different flavor for every possible flavor situation, and who has to figure out what flavor goes with what situation?
Perhaps unintended consequences of well-intentioned panaceas are a thing? Or are you trying to suggest one-size-fits-all approaches are the best solution to EVERY problem.
Perhaps it is that left wing-nuts ought to give some thought to stuff before they propose and implement it as the panacea re-imagined world of tomorrow.
So in your assessment of the one-size-fits-all plan, you determine the occasional (or more) uneccessary death of a mentally ill individual is an acceptable price for YOUR safety? It’s a bold assessment, to be sure.
So in your response, “Perhaps it is that left wing-nuts ought to give some thought to stuff” before they push out BS concocted and contrived ideas with no basiss in the previous conversation.
Exactly.
Do you know what a social worker does when they go to a home and someone is holding a gun or a knife?
Calls the cops.
So honest question. Absent front end mental health reform, which isn’t coming, we are just to accept the mentally ill being killed by police in violent confrontations, regularly? This is an acceptable solution?
Honest answer: Its a crazy world out here, how does anyone know that you are dealing with mental illness vs, criminal behavior, the voices in their head are making them kill other folks (just happened in Brooklyn Center) , OK, now what, soft music and chamomile tea?
So, shoot ’em all, pay off the families of the innocent later? Seems like an expensive plan.
Most police shootings do not result in payouts. Floyd and Damond did because the cops involved actually committed murder. There will likely be a payout in the Daunte Wright given those circumstances, but it will go to Wright’s numerous victims, not his family.
No, deal with reality! Reality is messy and riddled with unforeseen events and behaviors, good and bad, try to get a clue on dealing with reality!
Short answer, yes.
I would like to see cops trained to try to de-escalate situations. And I of course want to see the Derek Chauvins removed from the force altogether. But when someone is threatening harm to others with a weapon, sometimes cops are going to have to shoot those people.
Do you remember the case a few months ago where the cop showed up and shot and killed a teenage girl? The reason he did so was that she was about to plunge a knife into another woman. It was all on video. There was a lot of talk about de-escalation and some really ignorant people claiming she was unarmed. If the cop hasn’t shot her, she would have stabbed the other woman. These are the kinds of tough decisions cops have to make. And that was the right one.
I have talked to some social workers about this, and the idea that they are the answer to dealing with armed, mentally ill people is absurd. These mayoral candidates are living in the neighborhood of make believe.
So then you’re willing to go down the road that the lives of the mentally ill are less valuable than yours or mine? If that’s the case, what’s to stop someone of the mindset that such people should be locked up preventatively for our “safety” from going down that path. Mind you this isn’t some slippery slope rhetorical device, it was lived reality for millions of people, for the better part of the last century. You REALLY think that best way to deal with people in the throes of disease is to shoot them when their illness causes them to become violent? I’m sorry, if you think this is some “real world”, “pragmatic” response, you’re as great a threat as those you seek safety from, probably moreso, because your’s is a conscious decision.
You are attacking a strawman by trying to make this about all mentally ill people. Most mentally ill people are not violent.
I am only talking about people who engage in violence. That when someone is being threatened with violence, when someone is brandishing a gun or other weapon and threatening harm, that sometimes the cops need to shoot people to prevent harm to others. Its not the best way, certainly, but sometimes its the only way.
No, I’m talking about the stated purpose for the “social workers” you are deriding as “unrealistic”. The mentally ill ARE disproportionately affected by police violence, and police should NOT be the first source of intervention in disturbances caused by mental illness. I understand it disagrees with your need to be “tough on crime” but it’s simply fact.
I am saying that in cases where the mentally ill person has a weapon and is threatening harm – the situations that lead to police violence – social workers by themselves are not a realistic solution.
Also, I note you seemingly have an aversion to the mental health aspect of this argument by attempting to steer the discussion back to instances that in my recollection, have never been suggested to be related to mental health problems. As far as I know, the idea that unarmed mental health professionals be dispatched to EVERY call for police intervention has never been suggested, but rather to those in which such individuals are better equipped to manage the situation than police. Would this require a more nuanced approach to dispatch than what exists currently, sure, but see my reply to Mr. Wagner in that regard. Attempting to conflate the issues police have in regard to racial equity with those involving mental health issues is disingenuous and diminishes the individual importance of each.
If I have steered the discussion away from the mental illness component, its because the recent high-profile cases don’t involve mental illness. Winston Smith and Daunte Wright weren’t mentally ill, or at least not identified as such. They were criminals and violent felons, men who beat women and ruined other black lives. Guys like that are always going to require actual cops with guns.
The Kobe Heisler case is one where the social worker discussion is more relevant. Heisler was a young autistic man who was threatening violence against his family, who called 9-11. At one point he lunged at one of the cops with a knife, and after the tasers failed, they shot and killed him. You can’t send an unarmed social worker into a situation like that. Not without an armed cop.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kare11.com/amp/article/news/local/no-charges-against-brooklyn-center-officers-in-fatal-shooting-of-man-with-autism/89-c8d2299d-d54e-4ae8-a034-930b12aef045
I wish there was a better solution, because that case is truly tragic. I feel awful for his family. But no one is out marching for Kobe Heisler.
Actually I’m pretty sure there were. “Tragic” is a cop-out for giving up in the face of difficult circumstances. It’s unacceptable. There are solutions to every problem, what’s lacking is the will to actually do what is required to solve them. I, for one, am more than willing to pay whatever it takes to ensure every mentally ill person gets the medical care they need. You think that’s pie-in-the-sky crazy talk. I am willing to try a different approach to policing the mentally ill. You are good with seeing them shot and killed in interactions with police, then lamenting the “tragic” circumstances after they’re dead.
You are pretty sure? Ok. Well, no one closed any streets and got a protester killed. The National Guard did not have to come out for the Kobe Heisler march. That kind of thing only happens for criminals who torture women and traffic in illegal guns.
I would absolutely pay for more mental health treatment. And I’m not good with mentally ill people getting shot. That’s why I used the word tragic. I just recognize it is sometimes necessary. That when people are a danger to others – even if it is due to mental illness – that changes the calculus.
Every city in America is now imploding as a result of the pandemic and the irreversible tsunami of firearms and heavy weaponry.
Of course no politician in their right mind wants to be a hapless “mayor” of a major city. It’s crisis managment, 52 weeks a year.
I was unaware artillery was now being used. What is the field piece of choice. Apparently t hff e weapon of choice here us a handgun.
No endorsement is unsurprising. Every candidate brings their own delegates and few break ranks to endorse someone else. The strategy is deny the endorsement if you can’t win it.