Who is really “harshening the vibes”? A response to John Edwards at WedgeLive

Updated May 25, 2025

By Tyler Balbuena and Yiscah Bracha

Introduction

On May 13, John Edwards in WedgeLive! opined: “Much has been said about a leftward drift in Minneapolis. But in case you haven’t noticed: police, crime, and the trauma…are being used to elect council members who are more conservative than voters might otherwise find acceptable. While the people using law and order as a wedge are clamoring for more “moderate” politics, they’re actually hollowing out the city’s progressive middle.”

We dispute this.

First, we note that in the most recent municipal election, November 2023, “Progressives” swept 7 of the 13 seats, gaining a majority, which frequently was veto-proof when joined by 2-3 “swing” CMs. This is not quite “electing conservatives.”

Perhaps Edwards refers not to actual elections, but rather to DFL endorsing conventions. As of May 22, 9 of the city’s 13 wards had convened, and at only one did the outcome unexpectedly disappoint Edwards and his friends. That was the Ward 7 convention on May 11, where challenger Elizabeth Shaffer narrowly won DFL endorsement over 1^st term incumbent Katie Cashman. That outcome could have been anticipated by Marty Carlson’s report (page 17) of the April 8 DFL Ward 7 caucuses, titled:  “Incumbent Ward 7 Council Member Katie Cashman had a rough night at the April 8 DFL caucuses.” As Shaffer is more like Lisa Goodman (who served Ward 7 for 26 years) than Cashman is, perhaps Cashman was a temporary aberration, with Ward 7 now reverting to form. Neither we nor Edwards will know until November.

Second, we submit that Edwards and his friends are “hollowing out the progressive middle,” through exaggeration, selective reporting, and cynicism. In his May 13 piece, Edwards tries to portray Cashman as a member of the “progressive middle” but says very little about her actual votes or positions.  He cites publicly available sources even less. He then vilifies Shaffer as being extreme, selectively linking to pieces that do the same. He tries to compare the two candidates on public safety, rental housing, urban green space, and workers’ rights, but he either does not compare them, or when he does, he omits key facts.

We take this opportunity to fill the gaps that Edwards leaves.

Cashman and “the Progressive middle”

In the 2023 City Council elections, in which so-called “Progressives” gained a solid majority, four of the winners had sought and received endorsement from the Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America (TCDSA, or DSA).  They are Robin Wonsley (W2), Jason Chavez (W9), Aisha Chughtai (W10) and Aurin Chowdhury (W12). The TCDSA is the local chapter of the national DSA, whose platform calls for defunding police, ending misdemeanors, decarceration, combatting capitalism and the profit economy, equating capitalism with white supremacy, creating a new US Constitution as the foundation of a new socialist democracy. The local TCDSA localizes these themes. Its 2023 Policy Platform included “no new money for cops,” fare-free transit, no-exceptions rent control, building public housing by taxing the rich, and municipal snow shoveling.

Shortly after the November 2023 election, the TCDSA boasted: “And the balance of power has shifted. 2024’s Council will have four democratic socialists (Wonsley, Chavez, Chughtai and Chowdhury), and where it currently has two allied progressives, it will now have three (Elliott Payne (W1), Jeremiah Ellison (W5) and newly elected Katie Cashman (W7).”

Did Cashman fulfill TCDSA expectations? To answer, we used a tracker of the Council’s 142 divided (e.g. not unanimous) votes in 2024, built and maintained by Edwards’ colleague Josh Martin. For 116 (81.7%) of the divided votes, the TCDSA-endorsed CMs voted as a block (e.g. all who were present voted the same way). Cashman joined the TCDSA-endorsed block on 99 of those 116 votes, a rate of 85.3%.

The three CMs who are considered allies of Mayor Jacob Frey (Rainville in W3, Vetaw in Ward 4 and Palmisano in W13) voted as a block on 93 (65.5%) of the 142 divided votes.  Cashman joined that block on 30 of those 93 votes, at a rate of 32.3%. When the DSA and Frey blocks clashed, as they did on 64 votes, Cashman joined the DSA block on 87.5%.

From the numbers we can see that the TCDSA-endorsed CMs adhere more rigidly to each other than do the Frey allies, and that when these blocks clashed, as they did on 45% of the votes, Cashman almost always (87.5%) voted with the TCDSA. From the TCDSA point of view, Cashman was a reliable ally for them.

Public safety

Edwards ridicules a Ward 7 delegate for not knowing, and refusing to believe, that Cashman had voted for the police union contract in 2024, when in fact she had. This was not among the most closely divided votes; it passed 8-4. The TCDSA did not vote as a block on this contract. Chowdhury broke with her TCDSA-endorsed colleagues to vote “yes,” while Jeremiah Ellison, not TCDSA-endorsed but whom the TCDSA considered an ally voted “no.”  Payne, another TCDSA-considered ally voted “yes.”  It was a vote that divided the TCDSA block.

While Cashman did vote for the contract, her more complete voting record on public safety is revealed in all 33 divided votes on that topic in 2024. The TCDSA voted as a block on 16, and on those, when Cashman was present, she joined them for 85.7%. The Frey affiliates voted as a block on 24, and on those, when Cashman was present, she joined them for 70.8%. When the DSA and Frey blocks clashed, as they did for 9 votes, Cashman voted with the DSA block on 7 (77.8%).

The W7 delegate whom Edwards ridicules may have been confused about Cashman’s vote on the police union contract, but he was not confused about Cashman’s alliances with the DSA, nor on public safety overall.

Rental housing

Edwards vilifies Shaffer as anti-renter, compared to Cashman’s presumed sympathy. As evidence, Edwards cites Shaffer’s answers to five short questions on a WeLoveMinneapolis questionnaire. As Cashman did not complete the questionnaire, neither we nor Edwards can directly compare their answers.

The questionnaire had two questions about rent control. Shaffer answers “no.” According to Edwards, Cashman holds the same views.

One question was about new construction for market-rate housing. Shaffer says that it will decrease rents by increasing supply. Edwards says nothing about Cashman’s opinions on supply and demand.

One question was: “Do you think we need additional renter protections?” Shaffer answers “No,” for which Edwards excoriates her, but he does not say what “additional protections” Cashman supports.

The fifth question is “Do you support the Revised Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal Ordinance?” This ordinance required sellers of rental property to first offer their properties to “qualified organizations” before going to market. On October 31, 2024, the Council adopted it by a 9-4 vote; Cashman voted “yes.”  A few days later, Mayor Frey vetoed it. The Council, including Cashman, attempted to override his veto but failed because one original supporter (Wonsley) was absent, and another original supporter (Palmisano) changed her vote.

In his veto letter, Frey said that he agreed with the overall goal of preserving naturally occurring affordable properties, but given the current market, he did not believe that the ordinance would achieve that goal. He said that the city was not aware of any qualified buyers who were interested. He said that the ordinance had the potential to reduce property valuations, placing a heavier tax burden on residents.  He concluded by expressing appreciation for the ordinance’s intent, and said that in a different housing market, with more free-flowing investment, he may have a different view.

Frey’s argument is nuanced and grounded in the reality he sees. Edwards could have disputed Frey’s construction of reality by offering contradictory evidence, but he does not.  Shaffer answered that she did not support the ordinance, but there was no space on the questionnaire to explain why. Nor do we know why Cashman voted to override the Mayor’s veto, given his reasoning.

Parking vs Green Space

This refers to the “Mall Park Plan,” one small component of the much larger Southwest Parks Plan. “The Mall” is a quarter mile east-west strip running between the Midtown Greenway and Lagoon Avenue, from Hennepin Avenue to Bde Maka Ska Parkway. It is a grassy median separating two one-way paved corridors. The Mall is intersected by several north-south residential streets but there is no exit on the east.

The Park Board at one time had approved a proposal to replace the west-bound roadway with recreational green space and a bike trail, while maintaining alley access to the east-bound corridor. As the city was replacing sanitary sewer pipes along The Mall, it would cover demolition costs. The Commissioners abandoned the original proposal in a 6-3 vote on April 16, 2025.

Edwards opposed their reversal, and links to an April 22, 2025 MinnPost editorial by Bill Lindeke, also opposed. Lindeke quotes Park Board Commissioner Tom Olsen, who was in the 3-member minority, but Lindeke quotes no other Commissioners. Lindeke cites only two articles covering the dispute; John Edwards wrote both.

Edwards ignores Mike Erlandson’s MinnPost counterpoint to Lindeke, published 10 days later on May 2. He ignores Marty Carlson’s article on page 7 of the May 2025 issue of Hill-Lake Press. Both Erlandson (president of the East Isles Neighborhood Association) and Carlson reported that nearby apartment-dwelling residents had opposed the original plan, because of its adverse impact on emergency vehicle access, a concern shared by the Minneapolis Fire Marshall. The residents lived in historic apartment buildings adjacent to The Mall, which had not been constructed according to contemporary fire codes. Carlson mentioned, but Edwards did not, a resident petition opposing the plan that drew approximately 980 signatures. Nor did Edwards mention that two years earlier, the Minneapolis Fire Department had experienced difficulty accessing the parts of Bryant Avenue that had been narrowed to create more space for bicycles and pedestrians.

Lindeke had cited “extensive community engagement” but it appears that he was referencing the much larger Southwest Parks Plan. Erlandson says that the entire Southwest Parks planning process reviewed 42 parks in 16 meetings, with limited time for each. The MPRB said that the plan’s feasibility had never been thoroughly assessed.

Union-buster

This charge emanates from a 2024 contract dispute between Minneapolis Park Board management and park keepers and arborists, represented by LiUNA Local 363. As we detailed in our recent review, negotiations on the new contract began in December 2023, and concluded in late July 2024. During July, approximately 40-50% of the covered workers went on strike; they were approximately 7% of all Park Board employees, most of whom are represented by other unions. During the strike, both LiUNA 363 and Park Board Management formally filed charges of unfair labor practices against the other. The dispute drew much press attention, and roiled the city politically, even though services continued for residents.

From May 2024 through the conclusion of the dispute, the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) mediated the talks confidentially. The BMS was created by the State Legislature to assist in the peaceful resolution of labor-management disputes.

The publicly elected Park Board Commissioners are responsible for developing park policies, enacting ordinances that govern the use of park facilities, and working with the Superintendent on strategic and financial planning. Commissioners appoint the Superintendent, who currently is Al Bangoura. Consistent with their planning and policy role, the Commissioners had no direct involvement in the dispute, although there were political attempts, especially in July, to draw them into it.

In its July 22, 2024 press release announcing that workers had voted to accept the negotiated contract, AJ Lange, Business Manager of LiUNA Local 363, boasted of the workers’ gains achieved through the new contract, and also boasted, “We stood up against anti-worker, union busting at the Park Board…” There were three “anti-worker, union busting” provisions in the management offer:

• Tying annual step increases in wages to satisfactory performance reviews.
• Extending the probationary period for newly hired regular employees from six months to one year.
• Reducing the number of “union stewards” from five to two.

According to a Park Board statement, these provisions existed in the contract that LiUNA 363 had negotiated with the City of Minneapolis earlier in 2024, and existed in the contracts between other Park Board workers, who were represented by nine other unions.  As best we can tell, they are in the Park Board contract to which LiUNA 363 agreed.

Despite the dispute being managed by a standard process, despite there being no apparent substance to the accusations of “anti-worker union busting,” despite Commissioners having no role in the dispute, LiUNA 363 Business Manager, AJ Lange, has continued to repeat his accusations, insisting in April 2025 that Minneapolis voters not re-elect or promote union-busters. Edwards links to Lange’s demand but does not link to any statements from MPRB, nor to any of the scores of press articles about the dispute, which we cite in our article.

Like Edwards, others now repeat Lange’s rhetoric. On Page 3 of the May 2025 issue of Hill & Lake Press, Mike Norton (who has announced his candidacy for the CD2 House seat) asserts that Shaffer is a Republican and says, “… She also sided against union workers during the Minneapolis Park Board strike last summer…” Like other Commissioners, Shaffer was not directly involved thus could not “side” with anyone, and as we concluded, there were no good or bad sides. Both workers and MPRB were squeezed by circumstances that neither had created. AJ Lange may be using this contract dispute, that involved 300 public employees of which less than half went on strike, to promote himself within the union world.

To Norton’s charge Shaffer replied: “I supported the established union and management negotiation process, which produced an agreement with LiUNA 363 providing an average salary increase of $11,000 over two years… I am pro-union and focused on forging strong relationships with both workers and businesses, to ensure a strong local economy and great jobs.”

Who is “hollowing out the middle”?

In Ewards’ apparent distress at the prospect of Ward 7 returning to form, he cited a friend, who elsewhere wrote:  “At some point, all of us on the left on are going to have to reckon with the fact that these people exist and we’re not going to break their power.” Who are “these people?”  Another Edwards associate described them as the conservative DFL donor class, opposing labor-backed progressives in the battle for the DFL soul.

We authors are 30 years apart in age. One of us is a manual laborer in a public services employee union, the other is retired from a career in health services research, in non-profit and academia. One of us grew up in bum-fuck Minnesota, the other in a 900-square foot row house in Philadelphia.

We hardly think of ourselves as members of the “conservative donor class” yet we were pleased with Shaffer’s endorsement. We are uncomfortable with Cashman’s nearly lock-step agreement with her DSA-endorsed colleagues. Such rigidly consistent agreement is a sign not of independent thought, but of totalitarian-like conformity. Shaffer shows every indication of responding to the constituents who elected her, rather than rigid adherence to some fierce but abstract ideology.

We are not persuaded, as Edwards apparently is, that Shaffer would throw renters under the bus. Edwards never demonstrated how Shaffer and Cashman differ in this regard.

We do not believe, as Edwards apparently does, that Shaffer prefers parking over green space. Who does? Given the city’s recent experience with the Bryant Avenue redesign, we appreciate the concerns of apartment dwellers near The Mall worried about the same. We are not convinced that one additional quarter mile of bike trail, in an area already blessed with abundant greenery, offsets their concerns.

Despite the fierce accusations that Shaffer and the majority of her Park Board Commissioner colleagues are union-busters, we see no evidence. Park Board Commissioners are not involved in contract negotiations, this is a management role. LiUNA wanted step-wage increases to be automatic; management believed that like other employees covered by other contracts, performance should be considered. Management sought contract consistency across all City and Park Board employees and argued that the18% of Park Board employees represented by LiUNA 363 were outliers. We appreciate that during negotiations, parties are adversarial, but that does not mean that management attempted to “crush the union.” In the end, the LiUNA 363 Business Manager boasted of the contract they had signed.

So we ask: Who is hollowing out the middle? Who is “harshening the vibes?” Marty Carlson described the Ward 7 convention:  “From a decorum standpoint, the convention was a mostly peaceable kingdom… There were only two notable departures…one involving a heckler during the Q&A, and a more significant dust-up after the floor was frozen for the second vote…”

The Q&A heckling was about the delegate who could not believe that Cashman had voted for the police union contract. The dust-up informed Edwards’ opening line: “Tensions are high in the lakes area of Minneapolis…I saw a man shove Walter Mondale’s son, Bill Mondale, at Saturday’s Ward 7 DFL Convention.”

That’s it. A shove involving Walter Mondale’s son. On this basis, Edwards asks: “…what’s Elizabeth Shaffer’s upside? Harsher vibes?”

Those harsh vibes might be coming from your mirror, WedgeLive.