A Tale of Two Saint Pauls

 It was the best of times in Saint Paul, it was the worst of times, it was the age of affluence, it was the

age of poverty, it was the epoch of opportunity it was the epoch of squandered chances, it was the season of progress, it was the season of the status quo, it was the spring of competence, it was the winter of partisan incompetence, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us.

Saint Paul is a challenged city that has made a lot of mistakes.  It has overused Tax Increment Financing (TIF), rendering it fiscally poor and unable to perform basic city services such as snow plowing, filling potholes, or reconstructing and repaving streets.  The TIF also impacts the City’s schools, impacting their taxing capacity to fund programs.

In addition, stretching over several administrations and city councils, there just does not seem to be a priority or interest in addressing core city services.  For years I used to argue that one could get elected to local office anywhere in the US by running on core services such as streets, sidewalks, parks, fire, and policing.  But that no longer seems to be the case, at least in Paul.

In part due to the polarization and nationalization of American politics that extends down to the local level, voters seem less interested in these issues than before and candidates for local office run on national or global issues such as world peace or climate change.  Public officials in St. Paul seem uninterested in local issues, unwilling or uninterested in the nitty gritty of what local government is supposed to be about.  Single party rule, where there is no chance that come November this year when city council faces re-election, renders the threat of losing less than a viable check to force officials to focus on what is important as opposed to what is needed or essential.  Partisan and interest group capture have corrupted the decision making process.

But St. Paul officials also seem bent on simply making choices in the absence of evidence. This is the case now where the City and Planning Commission are preparing to eliminate single-family zoning.  

There is a fashionable belief among planners now that elimination of single family zoning will decrease residential segregation and housing costs. There is no evidence that densification will do that.  We already know in Minneapolis and from larger macro studies across the US that densification has not improved housing affordability and it has done little to increase overall supply.  Moreover, we see signs in Minneapolis that the elimination of single family zoning has led to venture capital buying up undervalued property in undervalued neighborhoods (mostly populated by people of color).  Eventually the new unit produced will be for more affluent users  because developers will build those units which are most profitable, and not necessarily those that are the most needed or affordable.

Think of the elimination of single family zoning as government-sponsored property flipping.  It is a new version of redlining that will foster gentrification in St. Paul.  The neighborhoods that will be most affected by the elimination of single family zoning will be Midway, Frogtown, Rondo, and perhaps the Payne and Arcade areas of the city.  Some of these neighborhoods have already experienced the largest property tax increases in the city; again an early city of gentrification.

But there are other reasons to question the elimination of single-family zoning. Jane Jacobs, whose Death and Life of Great American Cities is perhaps the best book ever written on planning and cities, points out, cities are generators of diversity.  They thrive on diversity in all forms, including architecture, design, and lifestyles.  Cities need many different types of neighborhoods and housing to be successful.

Years ago I consulted with one local city.  We realized they had a problem.    They were a bedroom suburb that had only one type of housing.  What they lacked is housing for everyone and for the cycles of our lives.  Cities need housing for singles, young couples, families, empty nesters, and then older people.   If one does not provide this diversity of housing people leave.

Cities need to retain all types of residents, including middle class individuals who wish to own their own home. There are all kinds of reasons to encourage home ownership, ranging from wealth building, producing neighborhood stability, to maximizing lifestyle choices.

In moving to eliminate single family zoning, St. Paul will do little to rectify the intense economic and racial residential segregation that exists.  Instead, it will only exacerbate existing gentrification and development patterns characteristic of the city for the last generation or so. What is needed is a change in policy and in how the City is run, but this decision is not an example of what positive change should be.  It is another sign of uniquely the problems St. Paul confronts.

Alas, all well-run cities are alike; each badly run city is badly run in its own way. 

The False Promise of Housing Deregulation: Why Densification Policies will Fail to Produce Affordable Housing

 Minneapolis is the city de jour when it comes to housing policy.  Planners across the nation herald the elimination of single-family zoning as a terrific move that will lead to the construction of more housing.  More housing, as the story goes, will lower housing costs and perhaps desegregate.  In effect, densification produces more and cheaper housing.

St. Paul seems to believe this too.

If only this were true.  I find it ironic that erstwhile so-called progressives have bought into the idea that simply deregulating land use laws will produce more housing construction, especially that which is affordable.  I can not think of two many other areas of social policy where progressives believe less regulation is good and that letting market forces operate will produce equitable solutions.  Yes, in many cases and places markets make sense, but does it when it comes to housing, especially housing that is affordable for those of low and moderate income?

I have been a repeated critic of the direction Minneapolis is taking in terms of housing–specifically arguing that Minneapolis’s 2040 plan is highly flawed and naïve.  The idea that “Let them build it and they will solve the housing problem” is a mantra of many.  I have argued that the simple deregulation of housing markets will not produce more affordable housing. Left to their own devices, developers will build high-end housing for the rich and not units for low to moderate income people because the former is more profitable.

Such an approach is simply a neo-liberal pro free market approach.

Housing markets are segmented–the market for high end units does little to depress costs for other types of units. If we want more affordable units we need to build them, or create incentives and structures to do that–simply dezoning or deregulating housing markets will not accomplish that.

The best evidence to support my claim is a recent article that appeared in Urban Studies (a pre-publication version is found here).  In a study by researchers at the Urban Institute they found that easing land use restrictions may not increase housing supply or decrease housing prices.  Their study was based on generate(d) a dataset of a variety of land-use reforms across eight US metropolitan regions encompassing 1,136 cities from 2000 to 2019.

Their major conclusion: Let us quote:

“We find that reforms that loosen restrictions are associated with a statistically  significant, 0.8% increase in housing supply within 3 to 9 years of reform passage, accounting for new and existing stock. This increase occurs predominantly for units at the higher end of the rent price distribution; we find no statistically significant evidence that additional lower-cost units became available or moderated in cost in the years following.”

The evidence is simply not there that unrestricted building that is supposed to occur as a result of deregulated zoning produces more affordable units.

There may be reasons to densify, but it will not yield the type of housing that is needed.  It will instead produce the type of housing that is most profitable to developers.

What will fix St. Paul’s failing infrastructure?

This blog appeared originally in Minnpost with John Mannillo. 

April 10, 2023

As winter ends St. Paul residents yet again experienced badly plowed streets and now miles of potholes that need not just patching but complete reconstruction. The City of St. Paul wants permission from the state and its voters to increase the existing sales tax of ½% to cover the costs of road maintenance.

While the city does need additional revenue to perform basic city services such as road maintenance, the sales tax increase is literally patching over a bigger problem for the city – how to increase its tax base.

The roots of the dilapidated streets has many causes.

One, for years road repair was at best only patching. The city stripped off the surface asphalt without reconstructing the base, the latter often is the original and worn-out brick or cobblestone. Such quick fixes are short term cheap, long term expensive.

Two, for years St. Paul has failed to prioritize basic city services in the budgeting and staffing allocation. This is especially true with streets.

But perhaps the most important reason is simple – the City of St. Paul is broke. It just does not have the money to fund road maintenance, at least under the way it currently operates. Thus the request for the increased sales tax. However, the proposed increase will not provide enough new funding to cover even the stated needs, no less sustain many other new and existing ones.

The solution to the city’s street and ultimately financial woes must lie in increasing its tax base. It cannot rely upon the state for more local government aid. Partisan disagreement and outstate legislators who do not feel an obligation to support the cities, especially when they see obvious mismanagement are reasons for this.

Sales tax increases are not an option. They are regressive upon the poor and especially in a city such as St. Paul which is not a major tourist center, they will fall more heavily upon residents who are already overtaxed.

Other user fees are not reliable and individuals can avoid them. For example, according to the Bike Coalition, 5% of the population are regular bike riders. If this amenity is paid from property taxes, 95% of the people who never use a bikeway will have to pay for it. This isn’t fair to most people. Automobile owners pay for license and registration fees, and gas tax. These funds are paid by automobile owners’ for the use, construction and maintenance of roads. Shouldn’t bike users pay fees to cover all the expenses for their particular use of bikeways? Bike riders have been able to shirk their responsibility to pay for an amenity few of us use.

Again, the solution is not raising taxes but expanding the overall tax base.

The root of the problem goes back to when Norm Coleman was mayor. He convinced the city to use tax increment financing (TIF) to fund development and St. Paul continues to rely on it to this day.

TIF operates by giving developers property and other tax breaks to developers for many years. In theory, the development is tax exempt but in practice is supposed to be captured by St. Paul in order to finance the tax break. It is sort of like supply-side economics for developers with the false belief that if we cut taxes for them everyone benefits.

The problem with TIF is that property taxes – which pay for city, school, and county services – are twofold. One, it takes away revenue to pay for the services for St. Paul, its schools, and the county. Two, overused as in St. Paul, it exempts more and more property from taxes, thereby failing to achieve its objective of promoting economic growth and an expansion of the tax base. St. Paul’s tax base, already challenged by the number of tax-exempted government and non-profit properties in the city, exacerbates its problem by giving developers TIF handouts that they do not need.

Since 1995, St. Paul has increasingly granted TIF to developers as an incentive to build in its city. This has been so abused to the point that without TIF expenses (debt service and reduced property valuations) St. Paul could more than cover all the needs of road repair and the Parks Department. The business community has always welcomed this subsidy, as well as most elected officials who see a benefit from new development, often before elections.

St. Paul has numbers approaching 60 TIF districts (not only just individual buildings). The legal requirement is that a TIF grant can be awarded to any development that will solve a situation of blight, and that the project would not proceed “but for” TIF. This has totally been ignored in St. Paul. Developers, when asked if they would develop without TIF, the answer of course has always been “No.” Property taxes for all these developments, for at least 25 year terms are granted back to developers. This results in a shifting of property taxes to other businesses and homeowners.

It doesn’t end there. Any developer interested in St. Paul, must compete with a myriad of competition from other TIF subsidized properties. Too often TIF is the easy answer. The theory is TIF will attract additional development that will provide new taxes. But new development in these districts also qualify for TIF and again do not increase any tax base. We have used up our most attractive commercial real estate for development that doesn’t generate taxes. Instead, it increases our tax burden these developments require for services.

Incentive to build new commercial projects in St. Paul, where there isn’t adequate demand, depletes overall commercial occupancy in the city. Rental rates are forced down. Property valuation on commercial property is determined from net operating income. When this is reduced, so is our tax base. This is the opposite result of what we were told TIF would do.

Now, the national impact of a 39% average commercial vacancy in downtowns after the pandemic will impact our tax base even more. The taxpayers will have to cover much of the debt service for those projects with general obligation bonds and without assessment agreements that guarantee shortfalls in required tax receipts to pay TIF debt.

So, in order to recover, we first need to stop the financial bleeding. This TIF addiction continues today. A sales tax increase does not solve the problem. A new strategy to expand the tax base is really what St. Paul needs to do.

Advice to the Incoming Mayor of St. Paul, Melvin Carter

This is a letter I sent to Melvin Carter on November 14, 2017.  It easily could have also been sent to
Jacob Frey.

November 14, 2017

Dear Mayor-elect Carter:

Congratulations on your elections as mayor of St. Paul!  Your election marks many important transitions for St Paul. , not the least being the beginning of the shift of political power from the Baby Boomers and GenXers to the Millennials.  This generational shift brings with it new ideas, politics, perspectives on the world, and an ideology about governance.

In many ways your election reminds me of when I worked on a mayoral campaign back in New York where I grew up, helping to elect a then 37 year-old woman who became the city’s first female and Baby Boomer as mayor.  I served on her transition team, and then in her administration as the city director of planning, zoning, and code enforcement.  What I learned then and over my years as a professor and as someone who continues to work with local governments is that there are some basic rules or values of governance that never die, even if politics or values change.  As you prepare to take office, I hope these ideas are useful.

First, remember a city is its people.  Not some of the people in part of the city but all of the people across all of the neighborhoods of St Paul.  For too long mayors have failed to commit development and resources across the entire city, leading to uneven development.  As a result, parts of the city are developing and others stagnant.

In many ways, St Paul is two cities.  No, not two separate cities, but two cities each within itself. St Paul is a shining cities on the hill for those who are white, affluent, and live in the right neighborhood.  But it also a city of concentrated poverty, racial disparities, and lack of opportunity for  people of color, the poor, and those who live in the wrong neighborhoods.  The defining issue for the 2017 St Paul mayoral election ought to have been in part about rectifying the difference between the two cities–providing justice to all to prevent the conditions that led to the deaths of Jamar Clark and Philando Castile, and all the anonymous individuals who are victims of race and poverty.

St. Paul is a great city with a wonderful quality of life, for some, but  hugely segregated by race and income.  It was that way nearly 20 years ago when I worked for the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Race and Poverty and we documented that segregation.  Over a generation little progress has been made.

The issue for St Paul is social and economic equity. Fundamentally, the defining issue for the city is creating economic opportunity for all.  It is making it possible for individuals, regardless of race or neighborhood, to have a decent job, a choice of where to live, a voice in where to send their children to school.  The role of the mayor is steering investment, encouraging economic development, making it possible for people to create their own businesses.  Expand the economic base for all, especially those who are left out already, and that is they way to generate the resources both to finance the city and help those who have been left behind.

Such a vision requires several things.  Neighborhoods need to be diversified.  Concentrated poverty neighborhoods are no good for anyone.  There needs to be a mix of people, incomes, and structures in every neighborhood.  Rethinking the two cities’ comprehensive plans is one step.  Allowing in some places for more intensified or mixed development, to allow some people to  invest in their own neighborhoods will help.  Yet private investors and banks will not act on their own to finance this.  St Paul needs to think of its own investments in terms of streets, sidewalks, and  other services such as code enforcement.  The city can help foster the conditions for economic development in the various neighborhoods, but it can also do things such as provide micro-financing to help some communities and guarantee loans in some situations.  Make neighborhoods attractive for all to live and invest it.  Deconcentrating poverty is one step in making neighborhoods more opportunity-based.  Thus, both place-based and mobility strategies are needed.

But that is not enough.  Businesses or people invest where there are skilled workers.  Strategies to attract and remain college graduates and provide real training for those lacking skills too are important.  Better partnerships among the local colleges, employers, and workers to train and connect businesses to people should be on any mayoral candidate’s agenda.    Quality services, the amenities of parks, libraries, and the arts are too what candidates should be discussing.  So too should they be talking about schools.  No, mayors cannot improve schools themselves, that is not their job.  But they can provide the conditions that make it possible for children safely to go to schools, or to live in neighborhoods that support learning though the maintenance of libraries and communities centers, for example.

Second, stick to the basics.   Cities are about the delivery of basic services.  It is about housing, streets, sewers, water, parks, putting out fires, and arresting the bad guys.  It is not about world peace and global issues.  Recent mayors have forgotten that.  Mayors can do little directly to help schools or improve education but they can stabilize neighborhoods and develop social service and community programs to support schools.

Third, St Paul has finite resources, property taxes are going up rapidly, and the traditional middle class feel squeezed that they cannot afford to stay in their homes anymore, or that they cannot buy or rent a place in the city.  Raising taxes is not always  the solution.  If one wants to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, then one also needs to think about creating the businesses and jobs that will provide these types of wages.

Fourth, remember the demographics.  St Paul is demographically and generationally changing.  Build your political base and plans for a future–do not seek to look backward and simply aim for holding together a coalition from the past but look to what you can do to work with our new residents and future leaders to develop the next generation of leaders to follow after you.

Fifth, it is about balancing economic development with housing, downtown with neighborhoods.  There are connections between the economic strength of Minneapolis and St Paul and how well their  housing does.

Sixth, be realistic.  Develop St Paul as the city it could be, not the one a fantasy pines for.  Make decisions based on real data, realistic projections, and not on political rhetoric and hope.

Seventh, have a plan.    Have a real plan for the city. By that, talk to residents and business people.  Construct a serious Comprehensive Plan with realistic zoning specifications.  Let your planning staff do its job and project what makes the most sense and what is the best use of property, land, and space.  Do not let the market alone dictate what happens–using planning to guide markets.

Eighth, think regionally.  Minneapolis and St. Paul are the largest cities in the state if not in the upper Midwest region.  They are the drivers of the metropolitan economy and what happens in these two cities has a far wider impact than simply what happens within the borders of Minneapolis and St.  Paul.  Think about building regional alliances and strategies not just with one another but also with your suburbs.

Ninth, not only is a city its people, but the public is your customer, your citizens or residents, and your partners. Successful mayors understand that the people they serve occupy all three roles and realize that they cannot succeed unless all work together.

Finally, govern to lead and not simply to get reelected.  Ambition is good but first of all, you are a trustee for the public good, with your first mandate being to serve the communities and people you represent.

I wish you well as mayor.

What is Ranked Choice Voting and How does it Work?

After Minneapolis first adopted and used Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in its 2009 elections, the

Minneapolis Elections Bureau asked me to do an evaluation.  In that report, I drafted a description of RCV in terms of the pros and cons and how it is supposed to work.  Now that the early voting in Minneapolis and St. Paul has begun, I decided it was time to reprint this section of the report. 

What is RCV?

In November 2006, voters in Minneapolis adopted RCV as their preferred method for running elections and selecting candidates in their city.  The decision to make this switch came as a result of several years of lobbying and mobilization by individuals and groups such as Fair Vote Minnesota (FVM).  The voting mechanism that RCV voting replaced is known as first past the post (FPTP) or simple majority rule.

FPTP is a simple voting system.  It states that whenever there is an election for a single member seat, such as for mayor or a city council seat, the candidate who receives the most votes wins the seat.  Thus, in a two-person race, the candidate who wins 50% of the votes plus one wins the race.  In races with three or more candidates, the one who receives the most votes wins, even if that candidate wins less than 50% of the total vote.  In non-single member races, such as where two candidates are to be elected, the top two vote getters are elected, again whether or not they receive more than 50% of the vote. 

In voting, citizens are allowed only one vote for each office holder to be selected.  If voting for mayor, each eligible voter is allowed to case one vote.  In multi-member races, such as when citizens are allowed to elect two school board members, each voter is allowed to vote for up to two candidates.  They may not cast more than one vote for a specific candidate.  FPTP is often described as simple majority rule—yet, as noted above, there are no requirements for a candidate to receive a majority of the vote unless that is an additional stipulation imposed by law.  Minneapolis prior to 2009 employed FPTP in all of its elections.

Criticisms

There are several criticisms of FPTP.  One is that the lack of a majority requirement means that candidates elected in single member districts may take office even though only a plurality of voters cast ballots for them.  The concern here is that candidates do not enjoy the legitimacy of majority support if they take office with less than 50% of the voters having supported them.

A second criticism is that FPTP creates disincentives for third party candidates to run for office and get elected.  The reason for this is that voters, fearing that a vote for a minor or third-party candidate would effectively result in the candidate they desire the least being elected.  Thus, third party candidates are viewed as spoilers who voters are reluctant to support.  For example, in the 2000 Florida presidential election, many argued that Ralph Nader was a spoiler.  By that, some argued that votes cast for Nader came from otherwise Democratic votes that would have gone to Al Gore had the former not run.  Thus, Nader votes effectively produced a victory for George Bush, the candidate some contend who was the last choice for Nader or Gore voters. 

While there is mixed evidence that Nader served as the spoiler as described above, the argument is that in general voters will not vote their first choice (a third-party candidate) if they perceive that the candidate does not have a real chance of winning, for fear that it would lead to the election of the candidate they least desire.  This in turn means that it will be difficult for third party candidates to run, thereby insulating Republican and Democratic parties as the two major parties.  Thus, FPTP decreases incentives for voting for third party candidates and effectively limits voters to a choice among the two major parties.

RCV is supposed to address many of maladies of FPTP.  At its most basic, RCV involves three candidates, A, B, and C, all running in a single member district.  Voters are asked to rank choice their candidates, indicating on a ballot who their first, second, and then third choices are.  In order to be elected, a candidate needs to win 50% plus one of all the votes cast.  Assume that there are 100 voters, one could have this scenario.

A receives 51 votes.

B receives 30 votes

C receives 19 votes.

Under this scenario, candidate A is the winner.  However, assume a different situation where

A receives 45 votes.

B receives 30 votes

C receives 25 votes.

Under this scenario using RCV, no candidate is initially declared the winner.  Instead, the candidate with the least number of votes—C—is dropped from the ballot and her votes are transferred to A and B based on the expressed preference of the voters when they ranked their preference for candidates.  Whoever then receives 51 votes is declared the winner.

RCV does not give voters multiple votes; it merely allows voters to rank their candidate preferences.  Votes are then transferred from voters’ first choice to their second choice (or third if there are more candidates) until someone receives the 50% plus one votes.  At no point does any individual voter receive more than one vote or have more than one vote counted in single-member districts. 

Benefits of RCV

Advocates of RCV contend that this voting procedure is superior to FPTP.  They argue first that RCV addresses the problem of candidates being elected with less than 50% of the vote by mandating a real majority to take office.  This addresses the issue of minority (less than 50%) candidates taking office, thereby ensuring that majority rule is actually honored.  Second, the argument is that RCV deals with the spoiler psychology.  Specifically, because voters know that they can rank choice their candidate preferences they have a greater incentive to vote their first choice, even if a minor party candidate, because the candidate cannot be a spoiler.  If no candidate in the first round of voting receives more than 50% of the vote then votes are transferred from one’s first choice (a third-party candidate, for example), to the remaining candidates.  Assume for a voter her first candidate choice is C, second choice A, third choice B, and assume:

A receives 45 votes.

B receives 30 votes

C receives 25 votes.

Under this scenario, since C received the least number of votes, that candidate is removed from the ballot and votes for her are transferred to the voters second choice.  In the case of the voter above, her vote would transfer to A.  If enough second choice ballots from those who voted for C are transferred to A then, A wins.  If more second choices go to B, then B wins.  There is no guarantee that a voter’s second choice will win, but RCV supposedly creates an incentive to support one’s first candidate choice and not view a ballot cast for her as a wasted vote.

As a result of RCV, voters are potentially encouraged to support third or minor party candidates, minority parties are therefore encouraged or given better opportunities to run and win, and voters are therefore given more choices beyond the two major parties.

Criticisms of RCV

There are also criticisms frequently directed against RCV.  The first is that this voting mechanism is biased in favor of political parties on the left.  Second, that this voting procedure is non-monotonic.   Specifically, using RCV it is possible to vote in such a way that a specific voters’ ranking that their candidate will yield election of a lesser-ranked or preferred candidate. Third, that RCV violates the one person, one vote standard for the counting of votes.  In response, to these criticisms, there is no empirical evidence that RCV favors candidates of one political persuasion or another.  Second, while RCV is non-monotonic, so is FPTP.  Third, no voters have their ballots counted more than once (by that, each voter gets only one vote per round counted in a single-member race) and there is no double counting of ballots. 

A Tale of Two Cities: Reflections on the Minneapolis and St. Paul Mayoral Races

Minneapolis and St Paul are two cities.  No, not two separate cities, but two cities each within
themselves. Both are shining cities on the hill for those who are white, affluent, and live in the right neighborhood.  They are cities of concentrated poverty, racial disparities, and lack of opportunity for  people of color, the poor, and those who live in the wrong neighborhoods.  The defining issue for the 2017 Minneapolis and St Paul mayoral elections ought to be about rectifying the difference between the two cities–providing justice to all to prevent the conditions that led to the deaths of   Jamar Clark and Philando Castile, but so far that has not been the case.
Minneapolis and St. Paul are great cities with a wonderful quality of life, for some.  But both are  hugely segregated by race and income.  It was that way nearly 20 years ago when I worked for the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Race and Poverty and we documented that segregation.  Over a generation little progress has been made. They remain cities with  neighborhoods torn by concentrated poverty, race, crime, and disparate educational outcomes.  They are cities where wealth is concentrated in the urban core and in a few neighborhoods, leaving many others behind.  Mayor Hodges, and before her R.T. Rybek and before him Sharon Sayles Belton, all promised to put money into the neighborhoods, to delivery economic development for the least advantaged, and either failed or ensnared in the demands of downtown urban development.  The same is true for Chris Coleman and before him Randy Kelly and Norm Coleman.
This year, largely  the candidates are failing to talk about the other cities within Minneapolis and st Paul that have been left behind.  The candidates do not seem to run on the quality of city services such as making sure that the streets are safe,  plowed, and pot hole free, that the garbage is picked up, housing codes are enforced, or the police respond when called.   Instead they are running against Donald Trump, talking about bringing more events such as the Super Bowl or other sports events to their city, or being the greenest city in America.  All lofty goals but not what cities are about.  Or in the alternative, when they do discuss the core issues of poverty, homelessness, or city services, they fail to mention something simply–how to pay for it.  Minneapolis and St Paul have finite resources, property taxes are going up rapidly, and the traditional middle class feel squeezed that they cannot afford to stay in their homes anymore, or that they cannot buy or rent a place in the city.  Raising taxes is not the solution.
The issue for Minneapolis and St Paul is social and economic equity. Fundamentally, the defining issue for the two cities is creating economic opportunity for all.  It is making it possible for individuals, regardless of race or neighborhood, to have a decent job, a choice of where to live, a voice in where to send their children to school.  The role of the mayor is steering investment, encouraging economic development, making it possible for people to create their own businesses.  Expand the economic base for all, especially those who are left out already, and that is they way to generate the resources both to finance the city and help those who have been left behind.
Such a vision for the two cities requires several things.  Neighborhoods need to be diversified.  Concentrated poverty neighborhoods are no good for anyone.  There needs to be a mix of people, incomes, and structures in every neighborhood.  Rethinking the two cities’ comprehensive plans is one step.  Allowing in some places for more intensified or mixed development, to allow some people to  invest in their own neighborhoods will help.  Yet private investors and banks will not act on their own to finance this.  Both cities need to think of their own investments in terms of streets, sidewalks, and  other services such as code enforcement.  The cities can help foster the conditions for economic development in their various neighborhoods, but they can also do things such as provide micro-financing to help some communities and guarantee loans in some situations.  Make neighborhoods attractive for all to live and invest it.  Deconcentrating poverty is one step in making neighborhoods more opportunity-based.  Thus, both place-based and mobility strategies are needed.
But that is not enough.  Businesses or people invest where there are skilled workers.  Strategies to attract and remain college graduates and provide real training for those lacking skills too are important.  Better partnerships among the local colleges, employers, and workers to train and connect businesses to people should be on any mayoral candidate’s agenda.    Quality services, the amenities of parks, libraries, and the arts are too what candidates should be discussing.  So too should they be talking about schools.  No, mayors cannot improve schools themselves, that is not their job.  But they can provide the conditions that make it possible for children safely to go to schools, or to live in neighborhoods that support learning though the maintenance of libraries and communities centers, for example.
Finally, both cities must directly confront the discrimination that exists within their borders.  More aggressive human rights enforcement is one answer.  The tragedy of the deaths Minneapolis  and St. Paul residents Jamar Clark and Philando Castile is a story of both racism and failed economic opportunity.
I certainly do not pretend to have all the answers. Yes, I have worked as a city director of code enforcement, zoning, and planning, been housing and economic planner, consulted and trained many local governments, and taught and researched planning and urban politics and local economic development for years.  None of that means I have all the answers.  But what I do know is that a city is its people, that all neighborhoods should have opportunity, and that what the mayoral candidates in both Minneapolis and St. Paul should be talking about is how to grow the economic opportunity  for all and how they plan to pay for the visions they have.

Di Thao, Politics, and the Problem of Political Corruption

A thin line distinguishes legitimate political contributions and solicitations from bribery and
extortion.  Assuming all the allegations are true, St Paul Council member Dai Thao and his campaign manager crossed that line when they tended votes for money.  Yet even if they did nothing illegal,  this incident should not blind us to the bigger problem of how money corrupts politics and how political influence is leveraged, and, how contrary to what the Republicans are currently doing in the State Legislature, why we need more restrictions on the use of money for political purposes.
The Dai Thao example is what is called quid pro quo corruption–the offer or exchange of money for the performance of an official governmental act such as a vote on legislation.  This is what most people think of as political bribery or extortion and it is illegal under the federal bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, or Minnesota Statutes § 609.42.    Some will contend that the offer or exchange of money for political influence is really what all political fund raising is about, so why should not all that be illegal?  The answer is yes...and no.
First, the critical legal line possibly crossed in the Thao incident is the explicit or implied exchange of money for the performance of an official act.  Bribery laws require a showing of criminal intent, and thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, it must be an exchange of money for an official government act.  Smart politicians correctly and legally avoid bribery by never promising to alter a vote or perform an official act conditioned upon the payment or receipt of money.  They may tell supporters that they need their money so that they can continue to do their job or protect their interests but there is not an explicit promise to change a vote.  Moreover, elected officials generally also build fire walls that separate campaign from government staff to further make sure lines are not crossed.  All these are subtle but important distinctions that at least in theory contrast bribery or extortion from legitimate fund raising.
Yet quid pro quo corruption is the thinnest and perhaps most rare example of political corruption.  Many believe that corruption is more than bribery; it also has a more structural  aspect.  The issue is not just the explicit exchange of money for an official government act, it is how money is used to by not just access but repeated access.  In theory elected officials should return all phone calls or meet with all their constituents.  However, the names of big donors are recognized and are called back first or seen  more readily.
Corruption is when some interest groups can spend large sums of money in order to lobby and gain access to decision makers.  It is when lobbyists or big donors also serve as fund raisers to help solicit money for incumbents and candidates and then are rewarded for their efforts.  It is when, as in Minnesota, the legislative caucuses and political parties and their subunits are allowed to solicit and accept in the aggregate  unlimited amounts of money from individuals, political action committees, and lobbyists.  This is a problem because the parties set the political platforms and the caucuses the legislative agenda.  Money thus influences what parties believe and what legislation is heard.
The real issue is that money should not be the mechanism that determines how political power and influence are allocated.  Money might be a great way to allocate sailboats but it should not be the medium for handing out political influence and making political decisions.  Years ago Justice Rehnquist declared in  First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, “It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.”  Similarly, in  Federal Election Commission v. National Right to Work Committee the Court declared that it was legitimate to worry that “substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form of organization should not be converted into political ‘war chests.’” At one time the Court aligned with public opinion, recognizing a broader sense of corruption tht extended far beyond what one sees in the Thao situation, suggesting that even if what he and is campaign manager did was not actually illegal, it was still inappropriate political behavior.
Yet under Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court has all but gutted political corruption laws.  In McDonnell v. United States the Court overturned the former Virginia’s bribery conviction, ruling that official acts did not extend to an exchange of gifts and money in return for arranging meetings and calling other public officials to discuss a donor’s business.  And in  McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Roberts seemed to endorse the idea that purchasing influence is permissible when he declared:

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

Contrary to Roberts, many of us do think that seeking access or influence is political corruption, and the current ways that we finance our campaigns and elections is a legal form of bribery and corruption.  The solution in part is to make candidates and parties less dependent on large donations, and to encourage more disclosure.  Unfortunately, the Republican majorities in the Minnesota legislature are eliminating the system for public financing of elections in the state, and are trying to restrict the power of the state to regulate money in politics.  Such an effort if successful, will only  fuel more behavior such as what we see with Dai Thao.

The Lessons of the Minneapolis Elections--RCV and Generational Change

This blog originally appeared in an earlier form as a Minnpost Community Voice on November 7, 2013

    The mayoral elections in Minneapolis and St Paul could not have been any different.  One was loud and unscripted the other peaceful and predictable.  Both spoke to the character of the two cities and what they mean for their futures.  Minneapolis’ election was a generation changer preparing the city for the future while in St Paul it was an endorsement of the status quo holding the city in the past.  But in both cases, ranked choice voting (RCV) successfully did its job.   
    Critics were wrong when it came to RCV.   With RCV and 35 mayoral candidates in Minneapolis, skeptics contended that voters would not be smart enough or overwhelmed in their ability to process the information needed to make intelligent choices.  There were worries of spoiled ballots, disenfranchisement of the poor and people of color, or widespread dissatisfaction with RCV.  That did not happen.  Why? 
    Minneapolis learned from experience.  Four years when Minneapolis first used RCV I was asked by the City Elections Department to evaluate implementation of the new voting method.  My report’s biggest concern was evidence of some voter confusion but the recommendation was better voter education.  The City responded with a great voter education program that this election significantly reduced voter error and spoiled ballots.  Moreover, in St Paul, part of why the election ran without a hitch is that they too learned from the 2009 Minneapolis experiences.  For critics of government who say it cannot learn, Minneapolis and St Paul did and the results paid off.
    Voters in Minneapolis learned how to adjust to 35 candidates on the ballot.  The top six candidates received nearly 90% of the total votes cast.  Voters demonstrated a capacity to gather information and select candidates whom they preferred and were deemed viable.  Moreover, worries that voters would select only vanity candidates and not vote for someone who was one of the finalists also seemed largely negligible.  In short, the theoretical and hypothetical worries that the election system would break down did not occur.  As a bonus, the Minneapolis experience confirmed a trend from around the country–RCV discourages attacks on opponents, more civil campaigns, and the potential for more cooperation during and perhaps after elections.
    This is not to say that there were no flaws in Minneapolis’s elections.  For one, ballot access is too easy in that city and it needs to change.  Currently Andrew Jackson ($20) gets you on the ballot.  The Charter Commission is talking of raising that to $500.  That is the wrong direction to go.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that excessive ballot fees unconstitutionally discriminate against the poor.  A better option is a minimum number of signatures to appear on the ballot.  Most races call for either paying of a fee or filing of signatures.  A $500 fee really does not demonstrate a showing of support.  A rich candidate could afford that fee easily or raise it from friends.  Signatures are a better sign of commitment.  A requirement of 500 signatures to appear on the ballot would have  eliminated (based on election night returns) 25 of the candidates from appearing on the ballot.  Thus,  a filing fee of $500 or 500 signatures seems a better way to assure some minimal showing of support to appear on the ballot.
    Additionally, the City needs a better protocol for eliminating and counting candidates who have no mathematical chance of winning.  Changing ballot access rules may solve that, but the two days of counting after Tuesday did some damage to RCV.  Tuesday night it was obvious to me when the final results were in that mathematically the bottom 29 or 30 candidates had no chance of winning.  Had the City simply transferred their votes on Wednesday morning then the race results would have been final by lunch time that day.  Finally, high percentage of “exhausted votes” does lend an appearance that some votes were not counted.  They were counted, at least the first choices were, and perhaps second and third too, but the fact that they were not counted in the final vote lends to impressions that must be addressed in the future.  Again, new ballot access rules may address this or perhaps allowing for more ranking, as they did in St Paul.  For now, RCV haters will latch on to exhausted ballots as a major flaw with the voting system.  Overall, we need to distinguish between ballot access rules, ballot casting rules, and ballot counting rules we evaluating elections.
    Beyond RCV, the elections in the two cities spoke hugely of their futures and characters.  Minneapolis’s election was about a generational change.  It was the older DFL being replaced by a new generation of Democrats.  The old labor-led, white establishment DFL lined up behind Mark Andrew while the new demographics of a racially and politically changing city behind Hodges. Andrew was like Frank Skeffington–Edwin O’Connor’s fictional old line Democrat mayor in The Last Hurrah who loses a reelection bid because he does not realize times have changed and he has not.  Andrew is a solid and noble DFLer, but he is old school at a time when Minneapolis is changing.  With Hodges as mayor and seven new council members Minneapolis is set for the shift to the future with a new agenda for a new constituency.  If Obama in 2008 represented the transition  from Baby Boomer to Gen X and Millennial politics at the national level, this is what happened on Tuesday in Minneapolis.
    Not so in St Paul.  Chris Coleman is perhaps the last mayor of the old St Paul DFL.  He is part of the old Irish Catholic DFL constituency that his father represented.  He represents the past of an insular city DFL party that still controls the city with many council members still playing old school politics. .  It is the coalition of traditional labor unions and party insiders. It is the politics of downtown ballpark stadiums and public subsidies for economic development projects.  Coleman does not really have an agenda for the future.  He is like Robert Redford’s character in The Candidate–elected but asking the question “What do we do now?”  Coleman is the mayor of Baby Boomers seeking to hang on one more time.  Minneapolis's DFL party is more robust and  diverse, St. Paul's is neither.  The St Paul DFL is too monolithic and power, and thereby sloppy in what it believes and who it lets in and what it considers to be Democrat politics.  There needs to be real competition in St Paul politics, either inside or outside the DFL, but it is not there.
    In some ways, the people of both cities got what they wanted, or at least elected mayors suited to their personalities.  Minneapolis is the hip, cool, and forward city looking to the future.  St Paul is more stodgy, less prone to change, and more stuck in tradition than its sister across the Mississippi.  The mayoral elections represent a tale of two cities and a contrast in the way they handled changing generational politics.