Why the Contrast Between Professional Governance and Political Retribution Matters for the Future of Our City.
The “Chugleys”—my name for the DSA-influenced majority of the Minneapolis City Council—went after a couple of downtown hotels, threatening their liquor licenses because they gave rooms to ICE agents. Thankfully, eight wiser heads prevailed and the city did not take this illegal, and remarkably anti-business, action.
But while this drama was playing out, I watched a video of a news conference at the State Capitol conducted by the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Coalition. This coalition was led by mayors of 20 cities with a total population of more than 500,000 people.
I was struck by the seriousness of these mayors. Their aim was to persuade the Minnesota Legislature to acknowledge the damage to cities from the ICE occupation and to restore them to pre-occupation levels. It’s early in the legislative session, and they may or may not accomplish their aim.
However, I was impressed to see and hear from several mayors who took the situation facing their cities—and in some ways all of Minnesota—as a given, and challenged the Legislature to do what is necessary to make things whole. Besides financial help, they are also asking for public policy responses, such as reinstating protection for “sensitive locations” like hospitals and places of worship, and for a prohibition on intercepting people in courthouses who are merely answering for civil offenses. They are asking for legislative help to stabilize their communities and to help fix a crisis they did not create.
It’s worth noting that the mayors were not all from cities with large immigrant populations; some, like the mayor of Eden Prairie, understood how destructive the ICE occupation has been to our metropolitan area and our state as a whole. These were serious people looking at the entire problem and advocating for responsible solutions.
This stands in rather sharp contrast to the Chugleys, who, looking only through their ideological lenses, said we need to pull liquor licenses from places that rented rooms to people they didn’t like. Never mind that this stance, if realized (thankfully it was not), would have:
-
Broken the law. You can only withhold liquor licenses for specific violations, none of which applied. Thus, council members were virtually begging to be sued.
-
Cost jobs. If successful, the move would have cost many people their livelihoods, including those in good union jobs.
-
Chilled investment. Whether successful or not, such actions give pause to businesses thinking about investing in or expanding within Minneapolis. Our city already has an unfortunately deserved anti-business reputation. These businesses will ask themselves: “Should we invest millions or tens of millions of dollars here? Should we take a chance locating where there is highly erratic, capricious, and ideologically driven governance?” They will answer these questions with the realization that they have other options in other jurisdictions that are governed in a stable manner and welcome their presence.
Wherever you may be on the political spectrum, the contrast between the Coalition and the Chugleys is worth thinking about. The Coalition members are serious people looking hard issues in the eye, thinking through all the policy options and the effects on all affected constituencies, and trying to find the path to what’s best for all stakeholders.
The Chugleys, in contrast, thought only about how to punish their adversaries. There is little indication that the effect on various stakeholders—employees and residential taxpayers chief among them—was even considered.
See for yourself the seriousness of these 20 leaders in addressing real problems and seeking real solutions.
People can and will place themselves wherever they wish on the ideological spectrum. But when it comes to the task of actually governing a city of 435,000 people with a $2 billion budget, don’t we want this task addressed by serious people—people who see the big picture and aim to find the best solution for the city as a whole?
(I want to give credit here to Terry Rossi, an undersung hero in advocacy for a strong Minneapolis, who brought the Coalition news conference to my attention.)
Thanks for the commentary, David. It’s a good mix of your usual well placed barbs.
Mr. Therk, please notice that the City Council DID renew liquor licenses that you have continuing fever over. Maybe time to go onto real news, after taking time to recognize that power on the Council belongs to the Council majority. Of course, a significant number of city residents had a large problem with hotels run by large corporations making serious profit by housing thugs that beat and killed and trampled the constitutional rights of our neighbors. The Council commendably called that out.
Ron, for those of us who live in Minneapolis, pay taxes in Minneapolis, and experience the consequences of city governance whether good or bad, this is real news.
Fortunately the Chugleys, while still holding a majority, have had their reliable majority reduced to one vote since we did elect several more mature people to the council in November. Thus, it will be more difficult for them to pass dumb (and in this case, illegal) measures. Had CMs Ellison, Cashman and Koski still been on the council, the liquor license mischief might still have gone through.
And in that regard, you might want to re-read my article. My argument was that this kind of nonsense damages the city, and especially ordinary workers and lower-income residents, just by being threatened, whether or not actually implemented. That’s because businesses, in making their decisions, take into account the stability of governance. Do you realize that, because commercial property is taxed at about double the rate of residential, homeowners and renters must fork over $2 to make up for every $1 lost from commercial buildings?
I do agree with your last sentence. But “calling it out” is not at all the same as passing legislation that is illegal, harmful to the city economy, and to the very people the Chugleys claim to be fighting for.
My point exactly with regard to the licenses. The three you mentioned who are no longer on the council are, well, no longer on the council. So speculation about what might have happened is irrelevant…and NOT news.
There was no “nonsense.” There was no damage to the city. “What ifs” are silly, are not destabilizing, have zero impact — and NOT news.
BTW, I live in Minneapolis.
Ron, although I am not certain what your “point exactly” is, exactly, within the frame of my argument, how can you be sure there was “no damage?” If the liquor license fiasco (you don’t like “nonsense” so we’ll call it a fiasco) was the last straw for just one business owner, who subsequently decides not to locate in Minneapolis or to expand in Minneapolis, then there has been damage.
And it truly does matter that we replaced three council members with more experienced people with better judgment. This has been my central argument through many Minneapolis Times posts (some of which you’ve commented upon); that the DSA-affiliated influence in city governance is far out of proportion to their numbers in the population and is having large adverse effects on our city. Thus, it is entirely pertinent to comment on how things may be getting somewhat better because the DSA-affiliated majority is now narrower.
btw, I’ve never said the DSA folks should go away altogether. In my experience most of them are smart, caring people who want a better society. They exist in enough numbers that they should have a voice. But not in enough numbers to deserve a majority, and to have the decisive voice.
That moniker, the Chugleys, works for this, AKA the Wonsley Five, with maybe an occasional plus, or even a plus, plus, voting block.
The one thing this group does do, as they suck up a ton of our critically needed time and money, AND especially our staff’s time, is work overtime to impress their DSA supporters, as they seek out ATTENTION weekly by offering up one destructive thing after another.
The thing that they are mostly going to destroy though, is any hope of a political life….at all, outside of their quite specific bubble in Mpls.
Why? Because there is little value added by their activities..and that would be on/ with, or about any governing board or entity…anywhere.