Letter To The Editor: City Ballot Questions 1 and 2

By David Evinger

Dear Residents of Minneapolis,

This is about City Ballot Questions 1 and 2 that we will vote on between now and early November.  City Ballot Question 1 is intended to establish the Mayor as the Chief Executive Officer and the 13 City Council Members as a Legislative type branch.  This is how most major cities operate.  This is how the State and Federal Government operate.  If we really want to reduce gridlock and get things done, vote “Yes” on City Ballot Question 1.  Nothing is ever smooth in politics, but this change is better than what we have now.

City Ballot Question 2 is intended to defund and disband the Minneapolis Police Department in favor of a Department of Public Safety involving a Public Health approach.  The specifics of this approach are not known and are to be determined by the next 13 City Council members plus the Mayor, all of whom may be different people after November.  Whatever this new Public Safety/Public Health collection of departments becomes, it will operate under the direction of 14 currently unknown people.  This is a formula for chaos.  Vote “No” on City Ballot Question 2.

Based on recent polls discussed in the Star Tribune, and information provided in a recent Urban League Program (10/1/2021), 70% to 75% of Minneapolis residents plan to vote “No” on Question 2.  But those promoting Question 2 are bright, articulate, and active.  They apparently have raised in excess of $30 million (in mostly outside money) to promote their goals.  We can expect a deluge of propaganda about Question 2 over the next several weeks.  I have no special insight, or behind the scenes information,  into what is right or wrong about Question 2.  But I can read and I am aware of current circumstances in our special City.  I know, like we all do, that the horrific and public murder of George Floyd is why Question 2 is on the ballot.  The resulting anger and frustration is understandable.  But Question 2 is not the best way to correct the wrongs.

I have had an office in downtown Minneapolis since 1979.  This is in Ward 3 with CM Steve Fletcher on the City Council.  My wife and I started together downtown and then moved to the suburbs.  After becoming empty nesters we moved back downtown into the Loring Park Neighborhood.  We chose this area because of its history and beautiful diversity.  We also believed that we could make a positive contribution to this community.  We have been in Loring Park for three years, but for the past year and a half it seems that we bit off more than we can chew.  The challenges are far greater than we anticipated.  Loring Park is in Ward 7 with CM Lisa Goodman on the City Council.

Crime across Minneapolis has gone through the roof in the past year and a half.  The staggering reduction in Police Officers is directly related to increased crime.  The thugs know full well that ordinary people can be abused, beaten,  and intimidated—murdered with total disregard.    Property rights do not exist.  There is little chance of getting caught, and an even smaller chance of suffering consequences. Question 2 is not at all designed to reduce crime.  During a recent Urban League Program (10/1/2021), Sondra Samuels pointed out that over 80% of the recent homicides involve Black on Black.  Over 30 Black babies have been shot, and many have died. Most of this is happening in our Black communities, but other communities are not immune.   A recent Star Tribune article (9/8/2021) states that gunfire in the Loring Park Neighborhood has increased 400%.  Some special stores and small businesses have been burglarized six times since January.    Samuels passionately states that focusing on disbanding and defunding the police is one dimensional.  We need to improve the Police Department and we need to improve and provide better services.  Samuels described it as a BOTH/AND approach.  She urges a “No” vote on Question 2.

The actual words used in Question 2 are available for all of us to read.  The words are curious, grandiose, and just plain unclear.  In Question 2 the Police Department is replaced with a “Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council.”  What in heaven’s name is a “comprehensive public health approach”?   I personally like Obamacare, but is this part of a new national health plan?  It sounds wonderful (grandiose), but what does it mean?   And what is meant by “delivery of functions”?  How does a department of people actually deliver a function.  Curious!  Unclear!!.  The Question 2 verbiage refers to “specific functions”,  but does not say one word about what the specifics are.  This, I would say, is deceptive.  There is an article from July 2021 where Kandace Montgomery and Misty Noor (two important people behind Question 2) talk about the Departments that will replace the Minneapolis Police Department.  They say that they have been “Freedom-Dreaming” for more than a year about what these Departments might be.  No specifics.  No plan.  They say that they want “to expand mental health crisis assistance, to generate resources for healers, elders, clergy and community leaders”, but give no specifics.  What is the plan behind Question 2?  What is the budget for the plan?  How can we have a community discussion about these things, let alone vote on Question 2, without this clarifying information.

Other language in Question 2 is apparently confusing even to those who support it.  This particular language says that the new Department of Public Safety “could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety”.  The “if necessary” language is the most troublesome and confusing.  CM Steve Fletcher from Ward 3 and Mayoral candidate Sheila Nuzhad say out loud that a yes vote on Question 2 will allow them to abolish the police.  At the recent Urban League Program, D.A. Bullock of Reclaim the Block said that the “if necessary” language does not allow the abolishment of the police.  In a recent Star Tribune article (9/26/2021), Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison acknowledges the concerns about the “if necessary” language.  But Ellison says that police clearly are necessary and that “we still need armed officers to respond appropriately to dangerous situations.”  These inconsistencies between proponents of Question 2 establish the confusing nature of the language.  Voters will be confused.  To avoid the confusion the “if necessary” language should be removed.  None of the proponents of Question 2 agree to remove the “if necessary” language.  At least nine City Council Members stood in a Minneapolis Park several months ago and promised to work to abolish the Minneapolis police.  Question 2 is a recipe for chaos.

Question 2 on the Minneapolis City Ballot, and the “Abolish and Defund” the police rhetoric used around the country, pander to both the very far right and the very far left.    Each side uses this to stir up their base.  Residents of Minneapolis, we need to be smarter and work to improve our situation.  Going to extremes is almost never the correct approach.  Vote “No” on City Ballot Question 2.

Sincerely,

David Evinger