Vote Yes and Yes

 MINNEAPOLIS VOTES …

Minneapolis, MN, USA will be voting on two key issues in the November election.  A Question 2 is about replacing the police department with a Department of Public Safety, which will have police within it – though the odd language makes this optional, which is not the intent.  Question 3 is to approve some form of rent Control.  See the pics for fliers I got about each issue – one for the new Department, one against rent control.  As you can see left-liberal forces have lined up for the new Department, while the main Democratic Party and Republican Party forces back the present situation.

Given the role of Minneapolis and St. Paul in the rebellion around the police killing of George Floyd, the Public Safety amendment, no matter its weaknesses, will be an indicator of where the population in the city is going.  In fact both ballot questions are political thermometers.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Both these votes amend the City Charter.  The language on the Public Safety question, Question Two, was hotly debated by the City Council, who came up with it after several versions were proposed one after another.  The Council is all Democrats and one Green. All versions were opposed by the centrist Mayor Frey, then the question itself was involved in a lawsuit brought by Democratic centrist / rightist Don Samuels, a former alderperson.  A lower court upheld his suit which would have stopped even a vote, then the Minnesota Supreme Court denied their conclusion, saying the City Council language was in the purview of the City Council.  (Seems logical!) The ferocious fight over the language is a tip-off that some of the powers-that-be were upset… even though this amendment will not do many of the things anti-racist activists want.  The present Minneapolis City Charter oddly mandates a minimum number of police, the only city in the state to do this. If this change is adopted, that will be removed.  It also removes the Mayor from complete control over the police and Public Safety, putting this power in the hands of the Council.  No wonder Frey is pissed!

The attack on the amendment is mostly lying about how it ‘gets rid of police’ or it will enable crime.  Poverty is going up, so crime is going up, along with increased gang activity.  This is what the Right is using to panic the voters.  Logically, if police stopped handling issues like homelessness, public urination, ordinary traffic stops and citations, mental health crises, some domestics and even low-level property crimes, they would have much more time to deal with violent crimes, rape, dangerous situations, assaults and real property crimes like armed robbery, car-jackings and the like.

RENT CONTROL

The issue of rent control was first brought up by Ginger Jentzen of Socialist Alternative (SAlt), who ran in one northeast ward for City Council and won the first round of ranked choice voting, but not the second.  SAlt and others have angered the real estate and construction industries in the city, which have normally had almost free reign over property prices, rents and building. Voting Yes on Question 3 is framed as 'rent stabilization' by its Democratic supporters, which seems to be some kind of euphemism.  That is the source of the hysterical flier posted here, which claims that the Question 3 will also affect homeowner house prices too.    Always humorous to see capitalists resent that some kind of elected body might have an impact on their profits! 

ThinkTwiceMinneapolis, who put out this "No" flier, is probably a combination of landlords and property developers.  These groups are having a field day in the city with extremely high rents while building upscale apartment buildings downtown, along with tear-downs to make way for enormous houses in modest neighborhoods.  Minneapolis is one of the least affordable cities in the country for rents right now. The previously adopted Minneapolis Comprehensive 2040 plan allows developers to build apartment buildings anywhere in the city, as long as they promise a few apartments might be ‘affordable’ – a word that is very fungible and has already been fought by developers.  This question paves the way for solid rent control laws according to left-wing housing activists.

What is clear is that hysteria, bullshit and lies are central to both ‘no’ campaigns.   If the “Yeses” win it will be a signal that the capitalists and their enforcers are seen as needing limits on their behavior by the populace.  The ultimate goal should be housing for everyone on public land, which is what rent control could point towards.  Real rent control would limit the power of the rentier class and help working-class people. The ultimate goal for ‘policing’ is a people’s police based on the power of democratic proletarian assemblies – something not yet in the cards.  But the organized defense of neighborhoods by citizens during the 2019 Floyd rebellion points the way forward.  This change in the Charter could reign in the present police, and orient them towards what they should be doing, not what they should not be doing.

However, the real problem is the class system and poverty endemic to an unequal racist and capitalist system, which we find ourselves in.  Poverty and color caste are key here, and they are part of the class system. Until that ends, street crime will continue while the criminals and thieves in the boardrooms and their allies get off scot-free.

Vote #1 No, #2 Yes and #3 Yes!

Prior blog reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left to investigate our 14 year archive:  "Minneapolis 2040 Housing Plan," "Capital City," "Detroit," "It Was Only a Matter of Time," "Ferguson Facts" or the words "gentrification" or "police."

Red Frog

September 23, 2021