St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter: “In just the same way as we can find seemingly unlimited resources when we commit ourselves as a country to going to the moon or going to war, I would love to see us provide that level of mission clarity where the war on poverty is concerned.” Credit: MinnPost photo by Kyle Stokes

Since November 2020, the city of St. Paul has launched four separate pilot programs to study what happens when the government sends money to very low-income residents with no strings attached: a “guaranteed basic income.”

Mayor Melvin Carter has become a prominent advocate for guaranteed income stipends — and not just in Minnesota.

“Have you seen the reports from Stockton?” the 44-year-old DFLer asked, leaning forward in a chair in his wood-paneled office at St. Paul City Hall, referring to the central California city’s groundbreaking experiment with guaranteed income stipends.

The results in Stockton, Carter said, “are like, stupid positive, right? It’s ridiculously correlated to positive outcomes [like] social and emotional wellness and even increased employment opportunities.”

Carter has said early numbers from St. Paul’s first guaranteed income pilot — which gave 150 families $500 per month for a year-and-a-half — hint at similarly-positive outcomes. St. Paul has also already launched three more experiments with guaranteed incomes, including one aimed at the parents of very young children. (Minneapolis, by the way, launched its own pilot this summer.)

Carter sat down with MinnPost to discuss why he champions guaranteed income programs, as well as a few other priorities. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MinnPost: The median income of participants in your first pilot was $12,000 per year. Few people seem to understand what it’s like to live on that amount of money. 

Melvin Carter: Exactly, and in truth, there’s nobody in the world who could live off $12,000. Donald Trump could not manage money the way low-income single moms do; nobody’s more brilliant at money management than a low-income single mom.

One of the biggest trolls on this work is, you hear people say, ‘Why would anybody work anymore if you’re giving away free money?’ In actuality, they found in Stockton that people work more. Ask folks why and it becomes really clear: ‘I fixed up my truck so I could go to work,’ or ‘I put my child in child care so I could go to work.’

So our second pilot was geared around artists. A third one was geared around immigrants and refugees. Then both the first and the fourth initiative — the pilot we just launched — are subsections of our College Bound St. Paul initiative. So all the families have very low incomes and very young children born January 2020 or later.

The cohort we just launched is a study of 1,000 families, divided into three groups:

  • Every child born in our city get now automatically starts life with $50 in a college savings account — and the control group is just that: $50 in college savings accounts.
  • In the first experimental group, 333 families receive $50 in the college savings and a $1,000 boost to their college savings account.
  • In the second experimental group, 333 families get this $1,000 boost in the college savings account plus $500 a month for two years.

I’m a national co-chair and one of the founding members of Mayors for Guaranteed Income. As a part of this work, we created a research center to say, ‘Don’t take our word for it.’ Let’s create an independent third party to conduct independent empirical research on the impacts of this work. Former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs — I heard him say once that getting it right is more important than being right.

MP: This is my big question: You’ve got a smattering of cities around the country that have done similar pilot efforts, providing what supporters could call proofs of concept for guaranteed income — what’s next? Is the future more pilot programs? Or is a priority winning over critics? Or is the next step something even more ambitious, like overhauling state or federal welfare programs to include more guaranteed income initiatives?

MC: I would argue we don’t put enough resources into supporting folks, so it isn’t just a matter of organizing those resources differently. I don’t think anybody’s arguing we put enough money into housing or food supports, or child care support, or health care supports, etc.

In the wake of the pandemic, we as a country increased the federal child tax credit and brought hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty — and then we let it expire, and let those children and adults slip right back into poverty. A policy like that is very related to what we’re trying to do.

Right now, [Gov. Tim Walz] has a proposal to significantly expand the state-level child tax credit in Minnesota. We see policies like that as really building on what we’re demonstrating, which is if you give low-income families cash, they spend on rent, or buy bicycles for their kids, or groceries, and do all the same stuff we would.

As I have said from the beginning, I’m not arguing that St. Paul — within the context of our local property tax base — has the means to do something at scale, on a sustainable basis. I don’t think there’s many cities who could. We do have the ability at the state and federal levels to pass policies like this.

It’s incredible to me to compare where we are today to where we were five years ago. Five years ago, Mayor Tubbs was this voice in the wilderness doing this guaranteed income research that everybody looked at like, ‘That’s crazy,’ and kind of off-the-wall. Today, there are over 50 pilots around the country that have moved a significant amount of money to a significant amount of people at a time of the greatest need of our generation. That in and of itself is very worthwhile.

Anti-poverty initiatives haven’t worked because they’ve been trying to solve for the wrong problem. When we say, ‘You can only spend this on this, or I’m gonna decide — from City Hall — what you’re gonna spend this money on,’ we’re saying, ‘We know better than you how to how to raise your children, or what your family needs.’ We’re saying implicitly that the cause of poverty is a lack of character or judgment among families who are low income, instead of recognizing that the cause is a lack of money. At the core, we’re demonstrating the impact that cash can have on people’s lives.

MP: Well, then, where do you think we’ll be five years from now?

MC: It’s a crazy question. Fundamentally I think we need a transformative, larger investment in low-income families, that as a country, and again, I think what we’re trying to demonstrate is that it’s a good investment that will pay dividends for us.

Our argument is going to be: In just the same way as we can find seemingly unlimited resources when we commit ourselves as a country to going to the moon or going to war, I would love to see us provide that level of mission clarity where the war on poverty is concerned.

MP: You’ve also launched the Inheritance Fund, which provides up to $120,000 for qualifying descendants of residents of the Rondo neighborhood — gutted decades ago by the construction of Interstate 94 — to buy a home in St. Paul. Do you see this as connected to that same idea as underlies the guaranteed income pilot?

MC: It’s a different piece, but it’s very much connected.

We’re really on this journey: ‘How do we help residents in our city as a means of economic development? How do we help residents keep money in your pocket, and achieve a goal like saving for college or starting a business? We’re gonna be talking this week about cooperative ownership models — cooperative, worker-owned businesses; resident-owned co-op buildings — and figuring out how we can facilitate wealth.

Equity is not about general feelings of fairness; it’s about money. It’s about people having access to assets that are appreciable and transferable. It’s about people being part of the decision-making process. And it’s about connecting our macro-economy to people’s ability to pay the rent.

In St. Paul, in 2020 — at the moment the pandemic began — in a city of 315,000 people, we had almost 100,000 claims for unemployment insurance. A staggering gut punch for a city like us, right? We saw our number of unsheltered residents increase by a factor of 10. That year, I saw an article that said CEO pay in Minnesota increased by 70%. Our chart economy is disconnected from people’s ability to feed their kids. 

So yes, the Inheritance Fund is all connected to the same wheel. We’re excited about something that’s pretty unprecedented. It feels like we’re going to create a new playbook.

MP: Where do you stand on the future of I-94? Are you in favor of building a lid over the route as the “Reconnect Rondo” group has advocated, or getting rid of I-94 altogether? 

MC: I love that people are willing to think differently and appreciate people’s willingness to think completely out of the box. I don’t know that I’ve seen the kind of plane landed on how you do that [get rid of 94].

I’m very much in the ‘Rondo land bridge’ camp. I have testified in the Legislature in favor of that concept. I remember old timers, when I was a kid, saying, ‘You know, the one thing they’re not making any more of is land, so if you get your hands on some land, don’t ever let it go.’ And it’s intriguing to me that through the land bridge, we’re literally creating more land. There’s enormous opportunity within that. 

MP: The other day, I watched you and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey share the stage at a joint local Chamber of Commerce breakfast. I was interested to note that you highlighted progressive policies, like minimum wage increases [and a plan to increase the city’s sales tax] — and I thought, ‘Wow, this is a Chamber of Commerce event?’ It made me wonder about your relationship with the business community of St. Paul and how you sell the city to them. Do you simply feel comfortable saying that to them and don’t care about backlash? Is it reflective of a different kind of business community in this region?

MC: It’s not that I don’t care. It’s that I think our business community deserves to hear from me straight what our ambitions are for the city. If we’re planning to do something that can’t withstand critical questioning, then it’s probably not worth the paper that we’re printing on — so we welcome the conversation.

I think of it as ‘the St. Paul way.’ We raised the minimum wage through a task force that had union leaders and the Chamber of Commerce president sitting at the same table, going through the pros and cons, coming to a policy that maybe not everybody loved every aspect of, but that we decided as a community that we can stick with.

Our journey around reimagining public safety — the exact same thing: Black Lives Matter activists and the police union president at the same table, working through this thing. I think sometimes we end up in this space where we like to pretend that, ‘That’s the guy that wants more murders in our city,’ or ‘That’s the guy that wants fewer kids to graduate from high school,’ you know what I mean? That’s very, very rarely the case. 

Our goal is to really commit ourselves to inclusive decision making processes. It gives us an ability to do a set of work that just wouldn’t be possible. We’ve gotten a lot accomplished in this administration in five years, but the truth is, I don’t think that pace is accessible to us, without this focus on engaging people and bringing people into the work — because the body of work that I love to brag on, isn’t my work. It really is our work as a community.

[cms_ad:x104]MP: It’s interesting. Governing ‘by committee’ usually means moving slower.

MC: There’s an intriguing balance. The appetite for helping out in the city is enormous right now. 

Also, one of my rules is that I don’t ask for community engagement around a decision that I’ve already made. I don’t think that’s respectful or authentic. So for example, around minimum wage — there were folks involved in the task force who said, ‘Do we really need $15 an hour? What about $14.95?’ or something. But I said upfront, ‘It’s $15. That’s the number.’ Let’s figure out what the timeline is. Let’s figure out what the ramp-up is. Let’s figure out if there’s a difference between big businesses and small businesses — whatever it is. But the number was $15.

The other ground rule that we always tell the people is, ‘The same way you want the mayor to listen to you, your rent for being at this table is listening to other people around the table.’ If you want to be listened to, you have to listen, you’ve got to be engaged in the same way as you want me to listen to you. And it’s helped us to do things by committee in a way that’s actually action-oriented. You won’t hear anybody say, ‘We only had like token representation of this group or that group or this group,’ and the recommendations of I think all had upwards of 60% and 80% approval from the groups. So we’re proud of our ability to move about with a group of folks.

Join the Conversation

33 Comments

  1. Excellent interview. I hope we continue to move towards direct cash transfers to support individuals and families, rather than the paternalistic and administratively-burdening way we’ve gone about it historically. I know it’s a cliché, but it is true that being poor is expensive, not to mention exhausting. Mayor Carter is absolutely right that “nobody’s more brilliant at money management than a low-income single mom.”

  2. would be nice if the author actually went out of their way to ask some objective questions.

  3. The words used within the article, ‘give and gave’ are misnomers and should be avoided. The trolls love to camp on those two words with their misinformation responses.
    Within the the Los Angeles guaranteed income program, applicants must be eligible income wise, exhibit a definite need, apply and successfully complete an interview, and agree to periodic monitoring throughout the year-long process before being accepted and then receive $1,000. per month for the one year program. They do not just walk in the door with their hand out, as the negative trolls would want you to believe.

    1. I think that’s a sensible process to have people go through if they’re going to be receiving thousands of dollars in cash every year and I’m supportive of a program like that. I don’t know if I’m supportive of the same cash distribution without any accountability at all. We seem to spend a lot of money on programs without following up to see if they’re working or worth the money we’re spending on them.

      I do wish the author would have linked to a less biased source than Vox. What I mean is when they say things like
      ‘… the people who received the cash managed to secure full time jobs at more than twice the rate of the control group…. the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group only saw a 5 percent jump over the same period’
      Really it was a 12% jump versus a 5% jump but it’s worded to make the impact sound larger. The article then, after declaring what a huge benefit basic income was, goes on to link to an article of a study with 16 times more participants showing that it didn’t encourage work at all.

      A more honest assessment would state something along the effect of while the Stockton results seem promising at basic income improving work opportunities, most studies to date show no significant impact.

      It’s also incorrect to say that only 1% was spent on alcohol or cigarettes when they don’t know where 40% of the money went. I think it’s completely within the rights of the study participants to grab a few beers over the weekend, but the assertion by Vox is false.

  4. As worthy as Mayor Carter’s causes may be, I seriously question addressing them at the city level, particularly a city as small as St. Paul. I wish our Mayor’s priorities were less lofty and more centered on snow removal, pot holes, and crime.

    1. Lot’s of money for these programs, but a 1% sales tax has been proposed for street and park maintenance. Meanwhile all winter the streets have been a rutty mess.
      I don’t think this is the purview of the city government and if Mayor Carter wants to work on these initiatives, he needs to run for statewide or federal office.

  5. So glad I made the decision to get out of St Paul and Ramsey County three years ago.

    Looking forward to leaving MN when I retire in 5-10 years.

    Stockton California, the first city to declare bankruptcy.

    1. Where are you planning to go? Am curious. I might be deluded, but I think Minnesota is pretty much above average.

  6. Equity is impossible to achieve, attempting it is useless. If you give $500 bucks a month to 100 people some would use it wisely, some would not. You wouldn’t have equity, you would have good decisions and bad decisions. This equity talk is ridiculous!
    There are more jobs than folks looking to work, why give out money to folks who are capable of working? There are way too many folks who made bad decision after bad decision and now want other people to pay them for their bad decisions. That makes no sense to me!

    1. We could start by simply expecting businesses to follow the same rules as individuals when it comes to paying for services. Have them taxed on how much money they bring in rather than profits, and actually charge churches and private schools/colleges property tax. The reason conservatives want to eliminate all government other than a police force that can murder at will as long as they help protect private property and a military largely used to protect cheap sources of energy is that it allows the uber-rich to pay a minimal amount to protect their wealth. They love a system that forces the working poor and middle class to pay the bills for billionaires. It goes back to the conservative ideology that considers slave-holding billionaire equivalents from the 18th century to be their paragons of liberty.

      One way to confirm that conservatives don’t actually believe their own rhetoric about personal responsibility or the idea that everyone has a fair opportunity is to see if they would support a strictly enforced 100% inheritance tax that went exclusively to national security. It would simply showcase their “bootstraps” belief and support the defense of the nation’s wealth. Of course, conservatives won’t agree to anything like that because their entire belief system is fraudulent and dependent on inherited wealth. They also need a lot of poor people to keep labor rates low.

      1. Dan, you are wrong. The top 10% of earners pay 71% of Federal taxes and earn about 48% of total money made in USA. All taxes fall to the top earners. When 90% of taxpayers pay 29% of taxes, explain how that is protecting “billionaires and punishing the middle class and the poor”? Bottom line giving money to the poor (welfare) has not lifted them out of poverty. After 23TRILION has been spent on welfare programs since 1965, same poverty level today.

        1. Of course, the fundamental dishonesty of conservative dogma will only allow you to relate federal spending and income taxes and omit the entire picture that includes property and sales taxes or other pieces of the puzzle, like the gas tax. Besides, you don’t even understand the context of the numbers you are using. The wealthiest 10% of the country holds 73% of its wealth, which means, by your own admission, they are undertaxed. The bottom 40% of the population holds less than 1%. This should be reflected in the overall tax burden rather than the poorly cherry-picked numbers you selected as a fig leaf.

          The wealthier you are, the less you proportionally pay in taxes. Conservatives are fine with shifting the burden of basic services like roads and national defense to the middle class while pretending that those in poverty are the problem. Usually, while calling anyone that wants the wealthy to pay their share a communist. Also, if conservatives actually wanted to reduce what they call welfare, they would cut funding to red states and counties, since those are typically the largest recipients of outside taxpayer support. The same states and counties which tend to be poorer, less educated, and more violent. Conservative ideology has shown itself to be a failure over and over and over across the entire country. But conservatives are proud of each one of the 14 characteristics that make them who they are and aren’t interested in improvement as much as finding a way to blame poor people for why they aren’t part of the top 1%.

      2. Somehow the Conservatives get blamed for the demise of St Paul? Explain that one to me.

        1. 23% of land in St. Paul is tax-exempt. Much of which is high-value property. St. Thomas, for example, has tens of millions of dollars to spend on building entertainment complexes for its largely wealthy student population but pays zero toward the infrastructure they use.

          Churches, nonprofits, private schools, and state, county, and federal property should be taxed along with everyone else so that the residents of the city where those things are located are not forced to support them.

          1. State property should be figured into the LGA funding formula. The state shouldn’t be expecting St. Paul residents to pay for services for state property.

            1. That’s a very good idea.

              Property tax and sales tax are regressive and are not the appropriate manner to fund the kinds of initiatives Carter has proposed. $50 at birth is not going to meaningfully change anyone’s life, but added together, it does take a budget chunk away from libraries and potholes and subsidized housing. We need to get sufficient funding into the City that is due for our large population size, as well as for maintaining infrastructure that benefits all of Ramsey County and the whole state. Carter should take his projects to the state level, where they can be properly funded (and designed.)

  7. Right before I read this article I read an article in the NY Times regarding a professor who thinks to post-covid work changes are threatening to push US cities into urban doom loops. To quote the article:

    “People with money, whose work no longer requires them to be in the city, move out, taking their tax dollars and retail spending with them. The steakhouse and dry cleaner close, leaving empty storefronts. The city curtails library hours and housing subsidies. Foot traffic in neighborhoods dwindles, except for the increase in homeless people. Crime and grime increase. More people feel unsafe and leave the city, leaving more storefronts and office buildings empty. More crime, more grime, more cuts in services. And so on. Downward and downward and Detroit 2013.”

    Oher than a refusal to cut library hours or housing subsidies (which could actually slow the doom loop), this is exactly what’s going on in Saint Paul.

    For the academic, the precipitating cause is pandemic related. For Saint Paul, it’s that plus skyrocketing taxes, third world quality infrastructure, and a rapidly narrowing tax based caused by corporate flight and non-profits scooping up formerly taxpaying real estate. And these problems are exacerbated by a mayor and city council who can’t spend enough on boondoggles, while doing nothing to increase the tax base or provide any tangible benefits to the average law abiding, taxpaying resident. When was the last time you heard the mayor and city council talk about bringing jobs and business to Saint Paul? Or even a more “progressive” attempt at fiscal sanity like the PILOT program promoted by the Urban League?

    Saint Paul: I love you but insolvency is on the way. Stockton indeed.

    1. It is going to be interesting to see what happens to downtowns. Most knowledge workers don’t need to be in the office and downtown real estate is expensive. Minneapolis still hasn’t come to grips with the fact that they’re going to have to adjust and instead are pressuring the remaining businesses to force their workers to come in more, which I don’t see happening.

      Commercial buildings can’t easily be converted to residential, workers aren’t coming back and despite assertions in the last few years about how people want to move into cities, I think that short-lived trend is gone.

      I’m not sure what the answer is, but pretending that the problem isn’t long term will not help. Property and sales taxes are already high in Minneapolis at least and as the tax base erodes, there’s going to be some difficult challenges to solve.

      1. James I could not agree more. My spouse and I are now both remote workers for non MN based companies and it would take a brinks truck full of cash to go back to commuting downtown. This is not unusual for the laptop class, and businesses are rethinking office space needs because of the work location change. It’s a win win, less cost for the employees and the employer. More importantly you stop wasting life commuting.

  8. Mayor, I think you are an honorable man, but you are spending (giving away money) that was taken forcefully from others. And you want to do more of this. My wife and I sold our rental property in St. Paul 4 years ago because of spending like this. We were not making money, we were not “greedy landlords”. Happily we sold a year before the pandemic or we would have had 2 years of renters legally not paying rent. This cannot continue if you want the city to “thrive” for middle income persons. Middle income flight will continue.

  9. Funny that the stats being used to promote the idea of ‘basic’ assistance are very short timed. Of course recent new money is going to be overly positive. But it begs to ask what happens in the long run? Who else is going to get the money? Where are you going to get it from when those that have it are leaving? (You already beg for LGA from the state – how about that gets cut off because it’s not good for the state)
    What the mayor needs to focus on is creating opportunities in his city. This will help long-term. When opportunities are leaving, you can dump more and more money into it while the results get worse and worse. Ironic about the description of the War on Poverty when that’s been happening for decades. Giving more and more money away is showing that it does not work in the long run. Now it’s just that only on steroids.

  10. The irony is, most of the people I know who have fled to Florida and Arizona voted DFL. Living off their government pensions. Freedom for me but not for thee.

  11. A document of significance in our country’s history says we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Note the qualifier – that we are expected to “pursue” happiness and should not expect that it is our government’s obligation to give us happiness. Similarly, a well loved President said, “ask not what your country can do for you…”

  12. Agree it is a long term problem and with the comment that probably state and fed governments are better equipped for even the temporary solutions Carter is doing.

    I can’t believe none of the comments or the article included these two major points:
    1. Keep in mind for the second time Carter has raised property taxes in double digits. Keep in mind the impact on low or fixed income residents. Keep in mind he has added millions to our expenses including hiring several people with 6 digit salaries upon taking office in new positions. Anyone looked at our snowplowing lately?
    2. Keep in mind Carter has truly not addressed crime with his “data driven” efforts- not sure what data he is using. Carter and school board did not want police officers getting to know students in our schools – look how that turned out in Central & Harding with all principals against this plan. Students are now asking for return of the officers and metal detectors. His limited approach to get more rec. centers as they are safe constructive spaces has also backfired. Our reduced police presence means we need to help our cops work smarter with tools like shot spotter (a gift Carter turned down) so it would save cops time and save lives. This knee jerk reaction also includes the state fair and the U of M that have now reconsidered their need to police presence. We need a plan now.

    Back to my original comment- think we need to look at President Clinton’s very successful 1994 crime bill as a template on what needs to happen.

    Safety is the number one priority for our elected officials and this article did not even address that huge elephant in the room. Why not?

  13. Smoke and Mirrors, how about addressing the real problems? Nobody wants to go to Downtown St Paul any more. Or go to school there, unless there isn’t any alternative.

  14. We are seriously getting equality confused with equal opportunity. This country was founded on equal opportunity.

Leave a comment