Second Ward, Minneapolis

MPR/Humphrey Ranked Choice Poll

2009-11-16T10:02:00.000-08:00

Minnesota Public Radio has worked with Larry Jacobs from the Humphrey Institue on a post-election poll asking voters (and non-voters) what they thought of ranked choice voting. I've had the opportunity to review the report that was written based on this survey.

(There are two things I should state for the record: first, I am a strong ranked choice voting advocate and serve on the board of FairVote Minnesota; second, Professor Jacobs applied for the contract to conduct the City's post-election poll, which was awarded instead to Saint Cloud State University.)

Here are some of the key take-aways:

- 56% of voters prefer ranked choice voting.
- More than 90% of voters understood how to effectively cast their ballots.
- 68% of voters think we should use ranked choice voting for Gubernatorial races.
- Ranked choice voting saw a significant bump in popularity (13%) among people who voted on November 3.
- More voters ranked a second choice than didn't (52% to 47% for Mayor)
- 10-18% of people state that ranked choice voting will make them more likely to vote, while only 5% state it will make them less likely.

But for some reason, the Humphrey report that lays out the details of the survey has chosen to focus on a different statistic: whether or not people who declined to vote this year - people who haven't used the system - prefer it or not. It found that 54% of these non-voters didn't like ranked choice voting, and would prefer to not participate using the old method. This was a main point that Professor Jacobs chose to make in the MPR story. I find this particular piece of information about as interesting as someone's bad review of a movie they haven't seen.

Fascinatingly, the report takes the overwhelmingly positive data collected by the survey and manages to spin it as "ranked choice voting falling short of expectations." This is clearly a case, in my opinion, of attempting to make the facts fit a preconceived narrative.

For instance, the survey cites that only 52% of voters in the Mayoral race ranked a second choice, while 47% selected only one candidate. He spins this as a rebuttal to the idea that a second ranking is helpful to voters.

This narrative might make sense if clear frontrunner Mayor Rybak hadn't cruised to reelection with 74% of the vote. To put that in context, it means that a large chunk of people who ranked RT first used a second ranking that they were fairly sure they didn't need.

I have a good personal example of this dynamic. In the Ward 2 Council race, unsurprisingly, I ranked Cam Gordon first. There were only two candidates on the ballot, and I was fairly sure that my first choice would win (as he did, with 84% of the vote). I chose not to use my second ranking on that particular race, not because I reject the idea of ranking second choices in general, but because I was confident that I did not need it. To prove this point, I used all three rankings for Board of Estimate and Park Board at-large.

Would more voters have ranked second and third-place choices in the hotly-contested Mayoral race between Rybak, McLaughlin and Hakeem in 2005? I suspect so. It will be very interesting to compare Council races this year where there was a clear frontrunner who received over 60% of the vote (2, 7, 11, etc) to more competitive races where the winner received 55% or less (1, 4, 5, 6, etc). My hypothesis is that voters in those more competitive races will have significantly higher rates of using second- and third-place rankings.

Here's another example: the survey concluded that 47% of voters thought that ranked choice voting would make their vote count for more, while 41% thought it wouldn't make a difference and only 12% thought it would make their vote count for less. The report's spin? That "many do not believe RCV makes their vote count for more."

That's one way of interpreting those data. Another way would be to say that more people believe that the method helps them than believe it doesn't make a difference. Another way would be to say that 88% of Minneapolis voters believe the system either helps or at least doesn't hurt them.

The most interesting information from the survey were the partisan crosstabs. There's a glaring difference between support for ranked choice voting among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Republicans reject the method 67%-31%, while Democrats embrace it 61%-33%. Most interesting of all, Independents are the group most in favor of ranked choice voting by 63% to 30%. This is one of the best proofs of the idea that Independents aren't necessarily in "the middle" of the political spectrum that I've seen. It's also interesting to put these figures in context: perhaps Democrats would be less excited about the idea and Republicans would oppose it less if it was a Democratic Governor who had won twice with less than a majority of the vote.

One major caveat to all of this analysis, both the report's and mine: this survey had a large sampling error of 5.7% for voters and 6.9% for non-voters, based on a low sample size of only 504 people. I can't remember the last time I saw a poll with a margin of error that high, and it undermines the credibility of the whole undertaking.

On the whole, this survey provides some good information. It's mostly consistent with the informal exit polling that was done on Election Day that shows Minneapolis voters made a fairly easy transition to RCV, and preferred it to the previous method. I look forward to the City-funded survey and evaluation report by Saint Cloud State - and commend interim Elections Director Pat O'Connor for choosing to contract with them - which will go into more depth, have a smaller sampling error, and hopefully present the facts in a more even-handed, neutral, and informative way.

Riverside Bike Lane Update

2009-11-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

A co-owner of the Hard Times Cafe brought an issue with the new Riverside bike lanes to our office's attention, and I'm happy to report it's been (mostly) resolved. 19th Ave S used to have two southbound left turn lanes onto Riverside - but after the 4-to-3 conversion, there's only one eastbound travel lane on Riverside. This forced drivers who turned from the righthand left turn lane to either merge during a turn (never a good idea) or drive in a bike lane until they could merge (also inadvisable).

We alerted Public Works staff, who went out and changed both the street markings and the sign at 19th and Riverside, turning that right lane into a right-turn-only lane. Thanks to alert small business owners and Public Works for getting this taken care of.

There's one other issue that needs to be addressed: a bus stop very close to the corner, on the right side of 19th. I suspect that buses will have some difficulty merging into the left lane to follow their route down Riverside, so we'll have to come up with a better long-term solution, working with Metro Transit.

Riverside Ave Bike Lanes

2009-11-13T11:10:00.000-08:00

Public Works staff has striped bike lanes on Riverside Avenue and 4th St S, all the way from 15th Ave S to Franklin. This was made possible - with no loss of off-street parking - by converting the road from a 4-lane to a 3-lane for much of its length.

Public Health Advisory Appointee Needed

2009-11-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

One of the few appointments I get to make directly is to the Public Health Advisory Commission (PHAC). For the last few years, that position has been filled by former Council Member Paul Zerby. Paul has decided to step down, and I thank him for his great service, bringing forward issues such as binge drinking and responding to Council areas of interest including phthalates.

I have been letting residents know that I'm looking for a new appointee, and applications have started coming in. I've committed to make a decision in December, so if you're interested in serving on PHAC, please fill out an application as soon as possible and send it into the City Clerk's office.

Hennepin and First Bike Lanes

2009-11-13T08:24:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of complaining both in the cycling community and from drivers in the local media about the changes to Hennepin and First Avenues. Those changes include allowing two-way traffic on both streets (which had been one-ways since the '80s), removing the middle-of-the-street bike lanes on Hennepin, installing new bus/bike/right turn lanes on Hennepin, and implementing an exciting, innovative new form of bikeway on First. This bikeway consists of a bike-only lane that hugs the curb. During peak hours, it's next to two lanes of moving traffic. During non-peak hours, parking is to the left of the bike lane.

I am basically supportive of this project, especially the lanes on First. I think some of the concerns we've heard have to do with the incomplete roll-out of the project (for instance, it was opened to traffic before the bike stencils were painted), and some of them are just folks reacting negatively to change. However, some of the concerns are more specific, and I'll go through them and respond.

The bike lanes on Hennepin don't work for most riders. I absolutely agree. Hennepin is now a good facility for experienced bicyclists who are comfortable traffic, and no one else. However, First is now much better than the old Hennepin lanes ever were. This is why my office pushed so hard, when this project was being designed, for good routes connecting Hennepin to First at the north and south ends. I'm proud to say those connections have been built, and they include some innovative best management practices (bike boxes at left turns, for instance).

The lanes on First are confusing. This is a fair point. Anything new and innovative is going to be somewhat confusing to all road users at first. This is the first time in history that drivers have had to park five feet away from the curb anywhere in Minneapolis. This is the first time that cyclists have had parked cars to the left of a bike lane. I believe that this confusion will subside as all road users get used to the new lanes, and we shouldn't be afraid to try new and innovative things.

Drivers are parking in the bike lane on First. This was especially true at first. However, as I noted above, as people get used to the new layout, drivers are getting better about parking in the proper place. Once the majority of people who regularly park on First figure out how it works, they will help establish a sort of 'peer pressure' on newcomers, by showing where cars should be parked. This is also an issue that the Police Department will need to watch carefully, especially over the next year or so; people who park in the bike lanes on First should be ticketed.

The bikeway on First is risky at intersections. This is a longstanding criticism of 'cycle track' type bikeways. The reasoning is that the most dangerous places for bikes are intersections, where they have to contend with left- and right-turning cars (creating accidents such as 'left hooks' and 'right hooks'). If parked cars are between them and moving traffic, they are less visible. And if they are less visible, the argument goes, drivers are more likely to turn into them. This is a valid argument. Cyclists using the First Ave bikeway during off-peak hours need to know that drivers may be less aware of them. However, there are some compelling reasons to believe this facility will be safer than most bike lanes in town. First, parking is prohibited within 30 feet of intersections, giving drivers a chance to see that cyclists are there before making a turn. Second, Public Works staff have followed national best practices by dashing the bike lane as it approaches intersections, indicating to drivers that they need to merge into the bike lane in order to turn right (rather than simply turning across it). Third, there are accidents that occur along streets, not at intersections. The most important of these is 'dooring,' an accident type that I believe will be much less common on the First bike lanes than most other bike lanes in the city, because most cars are still single-occupant vehicles and therefore the passenger doors are not as risky. Lastly, it's important to know that our staff tracks accidents - if it becomes clear that this facility is more dangerous than others, we will reevaluate it.

I commend Public Works staff for their courage in bringing forward this innovative project. Like any major change, it was always destined to be controversial, and to be criticised by basically everyone. I strongly believe that, as all road users get accustomed to it, it will become easier to use and more popular. I suspect that in a few years' time, the bikeway on First will be one of the most successful on-street facilities in town, and will be a model for how to safely and conveniently accomodate bicyclists on busy city streets.

Congratulations, Rep Kahn

2009-11-13T08:14:00.000-08:00

State Representative Phyllis Kahn, who represents a major part of Ward 2 (Prospect Park, Southeast Como, the West Bank and parts of Seward), has been named one of Governing Magazine's 2009 Legislators of the Year. Congrats, Phyllis!

First Ranked Choice Election Goes Well

2009-11-04T10:57:00.000-08:00

From all reports I've heard and read, it sounds like the first ranked choice election in Minneapolis history has gone very, very well. You can read more here, here, and here. It sounds like the ballot error rate is quite low, most voters had enough knowledge about how ranked choice voting works, and our Election Judges were more than capable of handling the new system.

It seems the advocates for ranked choice voting were right, and the naysayers were wrong: voters can figure out how to use this system without significant difficulty and our elections staff are fully capable of implementing it.

I give tremendous credit to interim Elections Director Pat O'Connor and his able staff. They took on a major, historic task, and met and exceeded all expectations.

I also want to recognize our staff's partners from Tipping Point Strategies and FairVote Minnesota, who worked on the campaign to educate voters. The familiarity of Minneapolis voters with this new system is a testament to their great work.

Turnout is low citywide, which is unsurprising due to the fairly quiet race at the top of the ballot, and the relatively few open Council seats.

It will be interesting to watch how the two Council races in which no candidate reached 50% play out, as well as the at-large races (though it's clear that at least one at-large candidate, Carol Becker, has reached the threshold).

I'm proud to have been a supporter of ranked choice voting both before I was first elected and since I took office. My office played a critical role in getting RCV on the ballot in '06 and moving the system towards implementation this year. It seems surprising in retrospect, given how well this election has gone, that there was ever a question as to whether the City would be able to implement this year.

Lastly, I want to welcome our sister city to the east to ranked choice voting. Congratulations to the St. Paul Better Ballot Campaign for winning approval for using ranked choice voting in their municipal elections. It was clearly a harder fight in St. Paul, with an organized opposition and support from only a few City Council Members (unlike our experience in Minneapolis in '06, when we had at least nine strong supporters on the Council). St. Paul's decision opens possibilities that our two cities can work together to find voting equipment that can handle ranked choice elections.

Board of Estimate Survives

2009-11-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

By a margin of about 65% to 35%, the Minneapolis voters have rejected the ill-advised attempt to abolish the Board of Estimate and Taxation. I advocated for folks to vote no, for a number of reasons:

- The Board plays a vital role in balancing the financial relationship between the City and the independent Park Board.

- It strengthens our democracy by including two members elected city-wide to our City government who can assist the City Council, Mayor, and Park Board in crafting and guiding financial policy.

- It creates a formalized space in which the City and the Park Board can negotiate about budgets, bonding and tax levies and is an excellent place to initiate and review audits of the City’s finances.

Most importantly, as we begin the constructive discussion next year about how to improve the ways that the City Council works with the Park Board, we should do so with the BET in place and ready to be reformed and more fully utilized to help make our City government more responsive, accountable, transparent and fiscally prudent. I look forward to working to make that happen.

Reelection

2009-11-04T08:04:00.000-08:00

I have been elected to a second term as Second Ward Council Member, receiving 84% of first-choice votes. While this blog isn't a place for any sort of campaigning, I feel that I'd be remiss not to thank the voters of Ward 2 for again giving me this honor, and this opportunity to serve. I look forward to working with you over the next four years to make Minneapolis the just, democratic, nonviolent, and sustainable city we all want to live in.

Solar on Convention Center

2009-11-02T10:22:00.000-08:00

After literally years of wrangling with a company called EyeOn Energy that was increasingly obviously incapable of finishing a major solar project, the City has gone out for open bids on the solar project on the Convention Center. I'm extremely supportive of this move. The most important thing is that we get this project - which will be the largest solar installation in Minnesota - back on track, and start powering our Convention Center with clean, renewable solar energy.

Local Food in City Hall

2009-10-23T09:40:00.000-07:00

As we're working on increasing the City's support for local foods through the Homegrown Minneapolis Implementation Task Force, it's great to be able to communicate an important and symbolic success: local food is coming to City Hall.

The old food vendor in City Hall (the Clock Tower Cafe) has chosen not to renew its contract. This created an opening to get both healthier options and more local food into that space. Along with my colleague Betsy Hodges and staff from the Department of Health and Family Support, I strongly advocated to the Metropolitan Building Commission (or MBC, the City/County organization that actually controls City Hall) that they write support for healthy, local foods into their Request for Proposals.

They did so, and my office helped connect them to the folks in the local food community who participated in Homegrown Phase I. Then we crossed our fingers and hoped that some local food entrepreneur would send in a good proposal.

Earlier this month, we received some good news from MBC staff: they have chosen to contract with a business called Local D'Lish, that focuses on local, healthy foods. I consider this a great step forward, and a fitting symbol of the City's commitment to the local food economy as we move forward on implementing the Homegrown recommendations.

2009-10-05T13:48:00.000-07:00

The Minnesota Daily has an informative article on NRP and future funding for neighborhoods that people might find helpful.

I does a good job of explaining and presenting different sides about a rather complex issue.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Affirmative Action Plan up for approval

2009-10-05T13:44:00.000-07:00

I wanted to call people's attention to a report coming up at the Executive Committee this Wednesday. Unlike years passed this committee now meets in the chambers and the meetings are televised and saved for web viewing.

The only agenda item is our Affirmative Action Plan and it is full of good information about well and how poorly we are doing in terms of diversifying our own City of Minneapolis work force and plans to improve.

There are some interesting charts showing how each department and job classification does in comparison to the Relevant Labor Market (qualified folks who live around here). We seem to be doing worst in terms of the lack of females in a number of job categories (this is shown most clearly in some of the charts around page 40 and then clearly outlined in the next 5 to 10 pages.)

I will also be looking into how this compares to the make up of the City's population.

Still Number Two

2009-09-25T09:28:00.001-07:00

The 2008 Census data on commuting has been released, and Minneapolis has retained our second-place slot in terms of bicycle mode share. We increased our ridership by about 12%, going from a 3.8% mode share in 2007 to a 4.3% mode share in 2008. However, our chief rival for the title of "bike friendliest major US city," Portland, increased even more rapidly, from 3.9% to a full 6%. That's a pretty staggering one-year increase of more than 50%.

To put Portland's achievement in perspective, it helps to look at our proposed new sustainability indicator for bike mode share, which calls for us to reach a mode share of 6% by 2014, with a milestone of 5% in 2011. If we keep that goal, we'll catch up with Portland's 2008 achievement five years later.

Perhaps this means that our goal isn't high enough. My staff has looked at the trend line over the last few years, and it's pretty clear that the increase we've seen is actually faster than our goal - if we keep adding mode share at the same rate, we'll reach a mode share of over 7% by 2014. I'll be keeping this in mind as we adopt the sustainability indicator and targets later this year.

Hennepin and First

2009-09-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

A date has been set for the conversion of Hennepin and First avenues into two-way streets: the weekend of October 10-11, weather permitting.

This change will take some getting used to for all road users - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Drivers going through downtown from north to south will be able to stay on Hennepin for their whole trip. Cyclists will have options. The old bike lanes in the middle of the road on Hennepin will go away, having been replaced by two, significantly more attractive, bike facilities.

For certain riders, a shared bus/bike lane both northbound and southbound on Hennepin, right on the curb, will work just fine.

For less experienced riders, the City is installing a truly innovative set of bike lanes on First, that I'm pretty excited to see in action. They will run along the curb, which in my opinion is the ideal place for bike lanes. During peak hours, they'll have a traffic lane to their left. But during off-peak hours, that next lane will be for parking, creating a physical barrier between bikers and cars. The lanes will use a different pavement color, to make them stand out to drivers (and discourage people from parking in them). If this facility is as successful as I think it could be, it could be a model that we replicate elsewhere.

University Sues Central Corridor

2009-09-23T08:38:00.000-07:00

Despite reports that the University and Central Corridor project (with help from the City and the County) have been nearing an agreement on vibration, noise and electromagnetic disruptions to U research on Washington Avenue, the U has decided to sue the Metropolitan Council over the project. They claim that this is due to the timing – if they don’t sue now, they’ll lose the chance, along with whatever leverage it brings.

The University appears to be the most significant potential obstacle to this important piece of environmentally sustainable transportation infrastructure. While I find it especially problematic that the University chose not to communicate with any of its partners on the Alliance – the City, the neighborhoods, or the business community – before taking this extraordinary step, I have asked for a meeting with a University Vice President to better understand the U’s perspective. I will continue to work to be a cooperative partner with all the neighborhood, community, business, governmental and institutional partners concerned with the Central Corridor.

Drazkowski's Fishing Expedition

2009-09-22T08:35:00.000-07:00

Conservative Republican state legislator Steve Drazkowski, who represents Steve Sviggum's old seat in rural southeast Minnesota, has filed a Freedom of Information Request for some that's got me wondering why. I wonder what he is after anyway. Here's some text from his request:

"Dear Mayor Rybak,

"This is a formal request under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, for access to inspect all memos, documents, files and emails in your or the City of Minneapolis' possession related to any expense reimbursements over the past five years, since January 1st 2005, to you as mayor and also to your chief of staff and any or all city council members.

"In addition, I wish to inspect any and all public data related to Community Planning and Economic Development grants to any nonprofit entities during those years.

"Finally, I am requestiong access to inspect any and all data related to the 'climate change grants' referenced in the city's 2009 budget."

My staff worked an hour this morning on this broad request, and we're not done yet. I shudder to think of the hundreds if not thousands of Minneapolis tax dollars that could be taken up by the time the City's response is complete.

I am concerned that this request, written on House of Representatives stationary, is political opposition research to use against Mayor Rybak, who has been accurately and effectively criticizing Governor Pawlenty's mismanagement of the State and misrepresentations about Minneapolis. (Speaking of misrepresentations, Rep. Drazkowski's campaign site states that "the last session of the legislature began with a $2.2 billion surplus.")

And then there's the content of the request. Is he trying to lay the groundwork to attack the City for partnering with nonprofits, which I'm proud to say we do all the time? Our nonprofit partners - including neighborhood groups, community development corporations, and service and advocacy organizations too numerous to mention - help us deliver vital services and work on some of the most intractable problems facing our communities. For instance, as part of our ongoing youth violence prevention program, we're partnering with nonprofit organizations throughout the city to prevent young people from killing one another. Is this the sort of partnership that Rep. Drazkowski will attack us for in the coming weeks and months?

Is he gather information to attack the city's extremely successful climate change grants? For very little money - one to ten thousand dollars each - these grants have mobilized Minneapolis residents to decrease both their expenses and their carbon emissions through simple actions like installing compact fluorescent light bulbs. This shouldn't be controversial.

But Rep. Drazkowski, according to his campaign website, believes that nuclear power should be considered renewable energy, so I can understand why it would be difficult for him to understand.

I fully support the Minnesota Data Practices Act and try to push the City to make sure that allour information is easily and readily accessible and am happy to comply with these kinds of requests, but I am also willing to share my reactions when such a requests gets me wondering and this one certainly did.

September 15th Comes and Goes Without Primary

2009-09-17T09:54:00.001-07:00

On Tuesday the 15th, voters across Minnesota went down to their polling places to vote in municipal primaries. In many of these primaries, turnout was at its usual abysmal level (an appallingly low 5% in St. Paul), allowing a tiny minority of voters to winnow the choices for the general election.

But not in Minneapolis.

Instead, the people of Minneapolis have decided to use (and the City has worked very hard to implement) ranked choice voting, which combines the primary and general election into one event on November 3. Every candidate who filed gets to run all the way to the general, and voters get to choose among the whole field.

In order to prevent minority (or plurality) winners, voters may rank up to three candidates for single and multiple seat municipal offices. When polls close, the first choice votes for all candidates are sorted and counted. If no candidate receives the required number of votes to win in a particular race, a process of eliminating candidates and considering subsequent choices begins. If you want to know more about how the system works and see a sample ballot, go here.

I've been a supporter of ranked choice voting for more than a decade, and worked to get it on the ballot, win approval from the voters, and get it implemented, and I'm thrilled to let Minneapolis voters go to the polls on November 3rd without bothering with the expensive, low turnout primary.

Target Center Green Roof is Complete

2009-09-17T09:22:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, the green roof on the Target Center was officially unveiled. Every year, these 2.5 acres of native plants will capture a million gallons of storm water and prevent it from entering the storm sewers and Mississippi river.

This green roof is the fifth largest extensive green roof in the US, at the time of design, and the largest in Minnesota. It's also the first green roof on a sports arena in North America. In addition to storm water drainage prevention, the roof will also help in mitigating the heat island effect in downtown Minneapolis.

The roof is planted with a variety of Sedums and Minnesota prairie plants, including Columbine, Prairie Coreopsis, Wild Strawberry, Dotted Blazing-Star, and Lupine. It includes lupines to target the Karner Blue Butterfly, a federally listed endangered butterfly that needs lupines to survive.

I'm proud to have made the motion in Community Development committee to pursue only green roof options for the Target Center, and I'm glad to see this come to such successful fruition.

Police Policy Manual

2009-09-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

For about a year now, my office has been working on issues relating to the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) policy manual. It came to my attention last year that the MPD had made at least two changes to the manual that, in my opinion, reduce the safety of Mpls residents and make it harder for us to hold officers accountable.

The taser policy that the Council, MPD and Civilian Review Authority (CRA) crafted together in 2006 was basically unilaterally scrapped by the MPD in 2007, and replaced by a reference to the training manual (which does not seem to include the language that was deleted from the policy manual). Later, in September of 2008, a new policy was added that essentially prohibits MPD supervisors from using evidence on squad car videos (like the beating of Derryl Jenkins in February of 2009) to proactively start disciplinary investigations. It is unclear to what extent the City Attorney's office had a role in assessing either of these changes before they were made, and the Council and CRA were not even notified that either of these changes had taken place.

Working with Council Member Schiff, in April I got the Public Safety and Regulatory Services (PS&RS) committee to pass a staff direction to MPD, requiring them to come back to committee by July 22nd and "propose a process for seeking input" from the Council, Mayor and CRA. This report back was delayed until yesterday, and even then the MPD had not prepared any sort of printed report until the day before the meeting.

I favored, and nearly had the support of the Police Cheif and Mayor's office, a process that would have the MPD send drafts of proposed policies (at lead those dealing with sensitive topics like use of force and use of video cameras) to the Council, Mayor and CRA at the same time that they distribute them to the Attorney's Office and Police Federation. I was also very interested in ensuring that the Attorney's Office must sign off on a policy before it is adopted.

Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. Instead, the committee chair moved a more cautious direction, which requests that the MPD inform the members of PS&RS and the CRA Manager when a given policy has been adopted. It also does not require that the Attorney's Office sign off on any proposed change.

Council Member Schiff attempted a substitute motion that would have required the Mayor to make an affirmative decision in support of a given policy change before it could go into effect. I supported this motion, but it failed (rather unsurprisingly) on a 3-2 vote. Don's motion then passed unanimously.

I'm disappointed that we couldn't get more opportunities for input and feedback inserted into the process for changing the policy manual. On the other hand, I'm hopeful that this is not the end of this discussion, but the beginning. It seemed that Chief Dolan left the door open to future conversations about how to get more buy-in from the Council and CRA, especially on the most controversial policies that the MPD adopts (such as use-of-force, vehicular chases, and squad car video). I look forward to continuing to work on this.

Policing Shake-Up in Ward 2

2009-09-03T09:50:00.000-07:00

The retirement of Deputy Chief for Investigations Valerie Wurster (who ably commanded the Second Precinct during my first year in office) has set off a cascade of promotions within the police department with some significant effects on the Second Ward.

Deputy Chief Rob Allen will take the Investigations position Wurster is leaving. First Precinct Commander Janee Harteau, whose work on crime issues on the West Bank I have appreciated very much, has been promoted to Allen's old job as Deputy Chief of the Patrol unit.

She will be replaced as Inspector of the First Precinct by Kristine Arneson, who has headed the Fifth Precinct in Southwest Mpls. Janee will be a tough act to follow, but I'm hopeful that Kris is up to the challenge and look forward to working with her.

In other MPD staffing news, longtime Crime Prevention Specialist (CPS) for the First Precinct Luther Krueger is moving to the MPD's Strategic Information / Crime Management unit. It's a good fit for him; he's done great work through the Virtual Block Club and other organizational tools to share crime statistics with residents and businesses. Renee Allen, who has already been working as CPS in the West Bank, will serve the whole precinct.

Park Board Amendment Kept Off Ballot

2009-08-28T12:22:00.000-07:00

This morning, I voted against a motion to keep a charter amendment off of the ballot this fall. The amendment, if placed on the ballot and passed by the voters, would have likely given the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board independent taxing authority, contingent on being granted that power by the State Legislature.

I voted against keeping this off of the ballot for a number of reasons, none of them having to do with the merits of the charter amendment itself. As I said this morning, I am not sure that I would vote for this charter amendment if it was on the ballot. More importantly, I am a strong supporter of the agreement, reached by Council Members Benson and Johnson, Mayor Rybak and Park Board President Nordyke, to establish a blue ribbon commission next year to study the relationship between the City and the Park Board. In fact, I had put forward a very similar suggestion earlier this spring calling for further study before any amendments considering the elimination of our elected boards were put before the voters. I would have preferred to have kept the amendment to eliminate the Board of Estimate and Taxation off the ballot and wish that the Park Board and supportive citizens had not felt they needed to move forward with a charter amendment this year until after such a commission could have been formed and study completed.

However, as some of my colleagues on the other side of this question noted several times, the decision before the Council this morning had nothing to do with the merits of the charter amendment itself. It was both a narrower question about the constitutionality of the amendment, and a broader question about how we respect direct democracy in Minneapolis. My reasons for voting “no” are as follows.

The petitioners followed the process. Minneapolis has an established process for citizens to place charter amendment questions on the ballot by petitioning. The advocates of the Park Board charter amendment followed this process – that is not in dispute. They submitted more than enough signatures. It is my strongly held belief that we, as a City Council, must meet a very, very high bar, both legally and philosophically, to prevent a legally certified petitioned question like this from being placed on the ballot.

The City Attorney did a very good job making the case that we did have the legal authority to not put it on the ballot. However, the fact that we have the power to do something does not mean that we should. My basic position is to always err on the side of respecting the will of voters, who have followed legal, established processes, and not let my own feelings about a given charter amendment rule.

Some of my colleagues questioned the level of knowledge of those who signed the petitions, or the honesty of those who gathered them. In my opinion, this is not relevant and the argument shows disrespect for the voters of Minneapolis, a sort of disrespect that is corrosive to the very idea of democracy.

I disagreed with the City Attorney’s opinion. The first three points of the City Attorney’s opinion are that 1) the amendment is unconstitutional, 2) it is preempted by state law, and 3) it is contrary to state policy. The fourth is that it is essentially a waste of time, because it would only take effect after an affirmative vote of the Legislature enabling it to take effect. In my opinion, the fact that the matter is contingent on legislative action negates the first three concerns. The legislature will not pass something in violation of the constitution. This makes our decision this morning purely about one question: should we place questions on the ballot that would change our Charter dependent on action by another unit of government? The City Attorney and Council majority clearly believes we should not. I disagree.

There were several key examples given by my colleagues to prove their point. One dealt with the medical marijuana charter amendment that came before the Council before I was elected. Again, in that case the Council clearly had the power to keep that question off of the ballot. If I had been on the Council at that time, I likely would have disagreed with the Council majority on that question as well. A group of petitioners followed the rules, gathered enough signatures, and the Council’s belief that it’s inappropriate to put something in our charter that would be dependent on state action is simply not a compelling enough argument. Another key example given was the City of Saint Paul’s decision in 2008 to keep ranked choice voting off the ballot, because they received a very similar City Attorney’s opinion telling them that a) they had the power to keep it off the ballot and b) there were constitutionality questions. I strongly disagreed with this decision by the Saint Paul Council as well, and felt that they overstepped their authority.

One more extremely important point to note is that, according to our City Attorney, absolutely nothing required the Council to keep this question off of the ballot. It was clear to me that we had the clear legal authority to allow this to be placed on the ballot.

We must not base these decisions on our personal positions on the merits of a charter amendment question. There is an established process for the Council to choose to place a question on the ballot because we decide it is a good idea. We followed this process to place ranked choice voting on the ballot. However, there is another process that exists for citizens to place a question on the ballot whether the Council thinks it’s a good idea or not. When responding to these sorts of petitions, we must be extremely careful not to allow our own personal positions on the question to motivate our actions.

For example, I strongly opposed the question that Council Members Ostrow, Remington, and Samuels brought forward earlier this year to abolish the elected Park Board. I would have voted against placing it on the ballot by a majority vote in the Council. However, if they had gathered enough signatures to place a question on the ballot, I would have voted to place it on the ballot.

I am concerned that many of the reasons my colleagues had for voting to keep this question off of the ballot had to do with the merits of the amendment. They think it’s a bad idea. In my opinion, this puts the Council in the unenviable and potentially dangerous position of appearing to have seized upon a convenient legal argument to kill an amendment that we wanted to kill for other, more policy-driven reasons.

There is a disturbing trend towards asking the Legislature, not Minneapolis voters, to make these sorts of governance decisions. Several years ago, I was the only Council Member to vote against asking the Legislature to abolish the Minneapolis Library Board. Similar to my reasoning today, my reasoning then was not based on my opinion that the Board should not be abolished – that wasn’t the question. The main question, for me, was whether these sorts of questions should go to Minneapolis voters, through the charter amendment process, or should be resolved by legislators from places as far away as the Iron Range.

I was also one Council Member to publicly call for a referendum on the imposition of a new sales tax for the Twins Stadium, rather than allowing the Legislature to decide the question without any input from Minneapolis voters.

I strongly believe that questions about Minneapolis governance should go to the voters first. This is what the amendment the Council majority voted to keep off of the ballot would have done. I see a clear pattern of this Council preventing the voters from deciding these sorts of issues, and I find it profoundly antidemocratic.

As I said above, I wish that we had not been in this situation. I wish that Council Members Ostrow, Remington and Samuels had not raised the specter of abolishing the independent Park Board earlier this year. I wish that the Park Board had not responded by gathering signatures to attempt to grant itself fully independent taxing authority.

This year the Council and Park Board have behaved like ships miles apart at sea, lobbing poorly aimed cannonballs towards one another. As we do so we make no progress solving the real problems and issues at hand. In my opinion, very little of what has divided us has been about a constructive vision for the future of our parks; on that question, everyone basically agrees. We want great parks and green spaces. No, the questions that have divided us have been about power: who’s got it, who wants it, who should have it, who can be trusted with it.

We can’t keep on like this.

It is time to call a cease fire. All of us on both sides of this divide need to come together and find a more constructive solution. As the likely lawsuit plays out and the November election concludes (with or without a Board of Estimate and Taxation remaining) I hope that both sides will return to the spirit of the agreement from earlier this year, and form a blue ribbon commission next year to study various options for working better together.

I also strongly hope that the results of this commission’s work, if they include any charter amendments, are then put before the Minneapolis voters, not simply the Legislature, before any changes are implemented. I will fight for this to be the process we follow.

Youth Violence Prevention Work Continues

2009-08-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

On September 8, a major initiative started by the City's work on youth violence prevention will begin: the City and the public schools will launch a new youth hotline, 1-800-SPEAK-UP, where youth can report (completely confidentially, via voice or text) weapons possession or potential threats.

We're making good progress on youth violence. We've had only one youth homicide so far this year, of an infant who was killed in July and whose father has been charged in the case.

In general, juvenile violent crime arrests are showing a clear downward trend, even more substantial than the overall drop in crime. Comparing this year to 2007, we see a 30% citywide reduction in violent crime arrests while total violent crime reports for juveniles are down 37% during the same period.

See here for more information.

Service Availability Charges

2009-08-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

In late July, I had the opportunity to weigh in on an important but complicated issue that faces small businesses in my ward. It has to do with a seldom-discussed but very expensive fee called the Service Availability Charge. This fee is imposed by the Metropolitan Council (but collected by the City) on new businesses that will generate an increase in sewer waste. It amounts to more than $100 for every new chair a restaurant puts in place.

I believe it's a sensible way to ensure that, as we grow as a region, we continue to fund our sewer infrastructure. However, the Met Council has, within the last few years, begun imposing this fee at its full value to new outdoor seating. This does not make sense to small businesses in my ward, and it doesn't make sense to me. A new seat in an indoor space will be used year-round, in all types of weather. On the other hand, a new outdoor seat will be used only in the warm months of the year, and typically only in non-inclement weather. No one wants to sit in a sidewalk cafe in January, or in a rainstorm. This places an undue burden on new outdoor seating, and that's not in keeping with the City's goals. Sidewalk cafes and outdoor seating areas are good for safety and neighborhood livability, and we'd like to see more of them.

The City raised these concerns, and the Met Council has responded to them. They have put forward a proposal to charge only half of the standard SAC fee for new outdoor seating. This is a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. These seats simply won't be used half as often as indoor seats. At their public meeting, I stood with small businesses and spoke for a reduction to a more reasonable 25% fee. I also spoke against a provision in their proposal that would charge the full fee to any outdoor seating that is in any way physically covered.

We'll see what impact my testimony, along with the statements of elected officials, staff and business owners, has on the Met Council's decision on this.

Tornado Hits Minneapolis

2009-08-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

A tornado hit the City last week, damaging some buildings in midtown and downtown, including the convention center. One of the more devastating effects has been the loss of over 250 trees in the public right of way.

I'm proud of the City's response to this incident. Public Works and the Park Board cleared the tree debris to reopen streets and alleys, street and sewer crews checked storm drains and catch-basins to ensure they were clear to prevent potential flooding, the police instituted extra patrols in the area as a preventive measure, Regulatory Services staff went out to ensure that tree companies and contractors were properly licensed and building repairs were being done correctly.

The City has also jumped in to try to mitigate the loss of trees. The CityTrees program earlier this year did not sell all 1,000 trees, leaving some excess capacity. The City has decided to make these trees available (for $25) to only those residents in the blow-down area. It will be some time before the new boulevard trees that the Park Board plans to plant and these City-supported trees on private land can match the canopy of the 250 mature trees we lost, but it's a step in the right direction.