Yet again Mayor Melvin Carter has
outplayed City Council in his posturing on the recently adopted rent
control ordinance. No matter what the Council does they look like
losers and the Mayor walks away the political winner.
Were this the first time Council was outmaneuvered it would be shame on
Carter. But it is the second time this year Council played it wrong so
shame on it.
Earlier this year City Council affirmed a decision by the Planning
Commission to deny a permit to Alatus to develop market-rate housing on the
Wilder property located at Lexington and Grand. Its decision was quasi-judicial
and under most readings of Minnesota law, it was not subject to a mayoral
veto. Mayor Carter then asked the Council to memorialize the decision in
a formal resolution which the mayor then vetoed (as he is allowed to do
under the law). Carter was able to turn an action by Council over which
he had questionable authority to override into one which he did have authority
to act. Lacking the votes to override the veto or the will or
resources to legally challenge Carter, Council gave the mayor a political
victory. Carter could argue he was championing housing and his veto sent
a signal to developers during the election that he was on their side and
presumably open to taking their money (which he had already done from
individuals at Alatus and Wilder). He comes out looking good, Council
inept.
Enter rent control in Saint Paul.
Several months ago, supporters of rent control in Saint Paul secured enough
signatures to place on the ballot on November 3, 2021, a proposed rent control
ordinance. It qualified for the ballot on or around June 15, 2021—nearly five months before
election day. Council knew, or should have known, it was on the
ballot. How could they not know? They had ample opportunity
to study it. Any reasonably prudent Council would have taken some time to
ask the “What if?” question. By that, Council should have asked what if
the voters approve rent control, what’s next? When would it take
effect? How will it be enforced? Who will enforce it? How
much money and what resources will be needed? All these are questions the
Council should have considered but there is no indication they did, even
though one could have predicted that the rent control proposal might be popular
and pass.
Enter Mayor Carter. In October, merely a few weeks before the election,
Carter announces he will vote yes on rent control but then seek to amend the
proposal to exempt new construction, despite the fact that
a legal opinion by the City attorney suggested that the ballot proposition
probably could not be altered for at least one year under local law. Both
moves by Carter were politically smart. Carter aligns himself as a
populist and makes it looks like he cares about renters by endorsing the
proposal, thereby helping him in his re-election bid, while also sending a
signal to developers he is on their side (and of course open to their political
donations and support).
Rent control passes and City Council is shocked. It is not ready for
it. It has lots of questions—many of which it was negligent not to
consider during the previous five months when they knew it had qualified
for the ballot and it could pass. As confusion mounts over the rent
control measure, Mayor Carter is again asking Council to exempt new construction,
contending that the new ordinance does not specifically refer to it.
Council has again been outmaneuvered.
By asking Council to change the ordinance Carter has placed them in a position
of doing something illegal (change the law) and run a court challenge from
supporters. Additionally, if they change the law they raise the
possibility of encouraging the rath of voters who supported it when the Council
members are up for re-election in 2023. Do nothing to exempt new construction
and if developers stick to their promise to halt new projects, it is City
Council that is at fault for any economic damage to Saint Paul. Council
loses no matter what.
Carter comes out in favor of rent control and then asks to amend it. He
wins as an apparent populist by supporting it. His call to amend it will
be forgotten by most of the voters but remembered by developers. He can
tell them he is on their side and that it is the terrible City Council that
failed to act if they do not vote to exempt it. If Council does act
to exempt he then gets to blame them for upending the will of the voters.
Carter gets to be populist and a friend to developers at the same time.
Effectively, Carter has shifted the blame to the City Council while he comes
out of this politically looking good.
