Questions re the Charter's requirement of a minimum number of police force employees

[An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]

Dear Charter Commissioners,

Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the Minneapolis
City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the City Council must
fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident" [Charter,
section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it might be prudent to know:

1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?

2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for a
minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?

3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?

4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare with
what we now expect police officers to do?

5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety and
Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers Minneapolis
will need?

6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other police
forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit Police,
University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of officers in
those departments?

7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers in
Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the years? If
so, how?

No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this minimum
requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has collected
data that would answer most of these questions. You could probably get answers
simply by asking the Council to supply you with those documents it has
collected in support of its recommendation.

Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.

Keep safe; stay healthy.

Yours,

Chuck Turchick

Chuck Turchick
Phillips

As I understand it, the Legislature permits municipal charters for
municipalities in tw0 classes based on populations over or under 100,000.
The charter becomes part of MN law upon approval by the Legislature.
Management and funding changes are preferred, arguing with out-state
legislators is a waste of time and not desirable in principle.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM Chuck Turchick <<email obscured>>
wrote:

Rest of post

> [An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]
>
> Dear Charter Commissioners,
>
> Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the
> Minneapolis City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the
> City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per
> resident" [Charter, section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it
> might be prudent to know:
>
> 1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?
>
> 2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for
> a minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
> included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
> ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?
>
> 3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
> those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?
>
> 4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
> expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare with
> what we now expect police officers to do?
>
> 5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety
> and Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers
> Minneapolis will need?
>
> 6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other
> police forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit
> Police, University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of
> officers in those departments?
>
> 7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers
> in Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the
> years? If so, how?
>
> No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this
> minimum requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has
> collected data that would answer most of these questions. You could
> probably get answers simply by asking the Council to supply you with those
> documents it has collected in support of its recommendation.
>
> Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.
>
> Keep safe; stay healthy.
>
> Yours,
>
> Chuck Turchick
>
>
>
> Chuck Turchick
> Phillips
>
> Chuck Turchick
> Phillips, Minneapolis
> About/contact Chuck Turchick:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/44lbcxKses2PuyuPdGACJA
> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
>
>
>
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>

--
Jim Spensley

This charter amendment is mostly permissive not prescriptive. The only new
requirement is a new agency with a person in charge. It does not eliminate the
police force, it simply removes the requirement that it ixist, and at a minimum
size dependent on population.

Diuring the year long community planning process a consensus for a public
safety system will be developed. This allows for the police force to be
smaller, or be eliminated. It allows for the new agency to supplement the
reduced or eliminated police force with a new group with new rules. It allows
this new agency to be an oversight to both forces. It also has this new agency
reporting to the council as well as the Mayor. A definite improvement.

It is wise and prudent.

David Tilsen
612-281-8576 mobile
612-823-8169 land line
Sent from my iPad
Watch and share my videos

> On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Jim Spensley <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the Legislature permits municipal charters for
> municipalities in tw0 classes based on populations over or under 100,000.
> The charter becomes part of MN law upon approval by the Legislature.
> Management and funding changes are preferred, arguing with out-state
> legislators is a waste of time and not desirable in principle.
>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM Chuck Turchick <<email obscured>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]
>>
>> Dear Charter Commissioners,
>>
>> Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the
>> Minneapolis City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the
>> City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per
>> resident" [Charter, section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it
>> might be prudent to know:
>>
>> 1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?
>>
>> 2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for
>> a minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
>> included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
>> ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?
>>
>> 3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
>> those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?
>>
>> 4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
>> expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare with
>> what we now expect police officers to do?
>>
>> 5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety
>> and Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers
>> Minneapolis will need?
>>
>> 6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other
>> police forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit
>> Police, University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of
>> officers in those departments?
>>
>> 7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers
>> in Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the
>> years? If so, how?
>>
>> No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this
>> minimum requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has
>> collected data that would answer most of these questions. You could
>> probably get answers simply by asking the Council to supply you with those
>> documents it has collected in support of its recommendation.
>>
>> Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.
>>
>> Keep safe; stay healthy.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Chuck Turchick
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck Turchick
>> Phillips
>>
>> Chuck Turchick
>> Phillips, Minneapolis
>> About/contact Chuck Turchick:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>>
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/44lbcxKses2PuyuPdGACJA
>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jim Spensley
>
>
> Jim Spensley
> Hale Page Diamond Lake, Minneapolis
> About/contact Jim Spensley:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jimspensley--smaac
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7lV4RFkqM7Cg0dNmSWzjfZ

Rest of post

I'm sorry, I can not find it. Could you please point out where the
proposal indicates the City Council is REQUIRED to hold a year-long
community planning process and what that process will be? I, for one, do
not trust the City Council to hold any community meetings or to fulfill
their "promise" of holding any. In fact, their pushing of this change,
WITHOUT a clear plan and with scant attempts to truly INFORM or get
input from their constituents and other affected parties demonstrates
the exact opposite. The ONLY thing that would make them do as they have
promised is for the change to be voted on AFTER the community is given
the chance to participate AND is FULLY informed.

On 6/29/2020 2:30 PM, Dave Tilsen wrote:
> This charter amendment is mostly permissive not prescriptive. The only new
requirement is a new agency with a person in charge. It does not eliminate the
police force, it simply removes the requirement that it ixist, and at a minimum
size dependent on population.
>
> Diuring the year long community planning process a consensus for a public
safety system will be developed. This allows for the police force to be
smaller, or be eliminated. It allows for the new agency to supplement the
reduced or eliminated police force with a new group with new rules. It allows
this new agency to be an oversight to both forces. It also has this new agency
reporting to the council as well as the Mayor. A definite improvement.
>
> It is wise and prudent.
>
> David Tilsen
> 612-281-8576 mobile
> 612-823-8169 land line
> Sent from my iPad
> Watch and share my videos
>

>

>
>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Jim Spensley <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, the Legislature permits municipal charters for
>> municipalities in tw0 classes based on populations over or under 100,000.
>> The charter becomes part of MN law upon approval by the Legislature.
>> Management and funding changes are preferred, arguing with out-state
>> legislators is a waste of time and not desirable in principle.
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM Chuck Turchick <<email obscured>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]
>>>
>>> Dear Charter Commissioners,
>>>
>>> Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the
>>> Minneapolis City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the
>>> City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per
>>> resident" [Charter, section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it
>>> might be prudent to know:
>>>
>>> 1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?
>>>
>>> 2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for
>>> a minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
>>> included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
>>> ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?
>>>
>>> 3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
>>> those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?
>>>
>>> 4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
>>> expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare with
>>> what we now expect police officers to do?
>>>
>>> 5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety
>>> and Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers
>>> Minneapolis will need?
>>>
>>> 6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other
>>> police forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit
>>> Police, University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of
>>> officers in those departments?
>>>
>>> 7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers
>>> in Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the
>>> years? If so, how?
>>>
>>> No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this
>>> minimum requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has
>>> collected data that would answer most of these questions. You could
>>> probably get answers simply by asking the Council to supply you with those
>>> documents it has collected in support of its recommendation.
>>>
>>> Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.
>>>
>>> Keep safe; stay healthy.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck Turchick
>>> Phillips
>>>
>>> Chuck Turchick
>>> Phillips, Minneapolis
>>> About/contact Chuck Turchick:
>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>>
>>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/44lbcxKses2PuyuPdGACJA
>>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jim Spensley
>>
>>
>> Jim Spensley
>> Hale Page Diamond Lake, Minneapolis
>> About/contact Jim Spensley:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jimspensley--smaac
>>
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7lV4RFkqM7Cg0dNmSWzjfZ
>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>
> David Tilsen
> Powderhorn, Minneapolis
> About/contact David Tilsen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidtilsen
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3HjgJBNKOQ1wopywuP1D0R

Rest of post

It is not in the amendment

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/minneapolis-city-council-approves-year-long-process-to-rebuild-public-safety/89-79ccc65d-7adf-4645-9450-c39f25f2c049

David Tilsen
612-281-8576 mobile
612-823-8169 land line
Sent from my iPad
Watch and share my videos

> On Jun 29, 2020, at 4:08 PM, LESLIE GRILLEY <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I can not find it. Could you please point out where the
> proposal indicates the City Council is REQUIRED to hold a year-long
> community planning process and what that process will be? I, for one, do
> not trust the City Council to hold any community meetings or to fulfill
> their "promise" of holding any. In fact, their pushing of this change,
> WITHOUT a clear plan and with scant attempts to truly INFORM or get
> input from their constituents and other affected parties demonstrates
> the exact opposite. The ONLY thing that would make them do as they have
> promised is for the change to be voted on AFTER the community is given
> the chance to participate AND is FULLY informed.
>
>> On 6/29/2020 2:30 PM, Dave Tilsen wrote:
>> This charter amendment is mostly permissive not prescriptive. The only new
requirement is a new agency with a person in charge. It does not eliminate the
police force, it simply removes the requirement that it ixist, and at a minimum
size dependent on population.
>>
>> Diuring the year long community planning process a consensus for a public
safety system will be developed. This allows for the police force to be
smaller, or be eliminated. It allows for the new agency to supplement the
reduced or eliminated police force with a new group with new rules. It allows
this new agency to be an oversight to both forces. It also has this new agency
reporting to the council as well as the Mayor. A definite improvement.
>>
>> It is wise and prudent.
>>
>> David Tilsen
>> 612-281-8576 mobile
>> 612-823-8169 land line
>> Sent from my iPad
>> Watch and share my videos
>>

>>

>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Jim Spensley <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the Legislature permits municipal charters for
>>> municipalities in tw0 classes based on populations over or under 100,000.
>>> The charter becomes part of MN law upon approval by the Legislature.
>>> Management and funding changes are preferred, arguing with out-state
>>> legislators is a waste of time and not desirable in principle.
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM Chuck Turchick <<email obscured>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]
>>>>
>>>> Dear Charter Commissioners,
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the
>>>> Minneapolis City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the
>>>> City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per
>>>> resident" [Charter, section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it
>>>> might be prudent to know:
>>>>
>>>> 1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for
>>>> a minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
>>>> included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
>>>> ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?
>>>>
>>>> 3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
>>>> those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?
>>>>
>>>> 4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
>>>> expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare
with
>>>> what we now expect police officers to do?
>>>>
>>>> 5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety
>>>> and Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers
>>>> Minneapolis will need?
>>>>
>>>> 6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other
>>>> police forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit
>>>> Police, University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of
>>>> officers in those departments?
>>>>
>>>> 7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers
>>>> in Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the
>>>> years? If so, how?
>>>>
>>>> No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this
>>>> minimum requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has
>>>> collected data that would answer most of these questions. You could
>>>> probably get answers simply by asking the Council to supply you with those
>>>> documents it has collected in support of its recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.
>>>>
>>>> Keep safe; stay healthy.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>> Phillips
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>> Phillips, Minneapolis
>>>> About/contact Chuck Turchick:
>>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/44lbcxKses2PuyuPdGACJA
>>>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Spensley
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Spensley
>>> Hale Page Diamond Lake, Minneapolis
>>> About/contact Jim Spensley:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jimspensley--smaac
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>>
>>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7lV4RFkqM7Cg0dNmSWzjfZ
>>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David Tilsen
>> Powderhorn, Minneapolis
>> About/contact David Tilsen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidtilsen
>>
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3HjgJBNKOQ1wopywuP1D0R
>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Leslie Grilley
> Webber-Camden, Minneapolis
> About/contact Leslie Grilley: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/lesliegrilley
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/202DHyqbINym8N2o7WebKQ

Rest of post

On 6/29/2020 4:08 PM, LESLIE GRILLEY wrote:
> I'm sorry, I can not find it. Could you please point out where the
> proposal indicates the City Council is REQUIRED to hold a year-long
> community planning process and what that process will be? I, for one, do
> not trust the City Council to hold any community meetings or to fulfill
> their "promise" of holding any. In fact, their pushing of this change,
> WITHOUT a clear plan and with scant attempts to truly INFORM or get
> input from their constituents and other affected parties demonstrates
> the exact opposite. The ONLY thing that would make them do as they have
> promised is for the change to be voted on AFTER the community is given
> the chance to participate AND is FULLY informed.

I don't trust the Council either, but for a very different reason. The
Council's intent may well be quite different than you suggest. I think
that they don't want to make any significant change, both because they
can't agree on what it would be, and because no matter what it is, it
would be political dynamite. So instead they offer this charter
amendment, fully planning that it will be voted down in the fall. Then
they can say "hey, we tried, it's not our fault that the voters didn't
want it". Much the same way as a prosecutor uses a grand jury to
absolve themselves of responsibility, while still getting what they want.

Rest of post

Here is a link to the resolution passed last Friday.

https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3806/Transforming%20Community%20Safety%20Resolution.pdf

David Tilsen
612-281-8576 mobile
612-823-8169 land line
Sent from my iPad
Watch and share my videos

> On Jun 29, 2020, at 4:08 PM, LESLIE GRILLEY <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I can not find it. Could you please point out where the
> proposal indicates the City Council is REQUIRED to hold a year-long
> community planning process and what that process will be? I, for one, do
> not trust the City Council to hold any community meetings or to fulfill
> their "promise" of holding any. In fact, their pushing of this change,
> WITHOUT a clear plan and with scant attempts to truly INFORM or get
> input from their constituents and other affected parties demonstrates
> the exact opposite. The ONLY thing that would make them do as they have
> promised is for the change to be voted on AFTER the community is given
> the chance to participate AND is FULLY informed.
>
>> On 6/29/2020 2:30 PM, Dave Tilsen wrote:
>> This charter amendment is mostly permissive not prescriptive. The only new
requirement is a new agency with a person in charge. It does not eliminate the
police force, it simply removes the requirement that it ixist, and at a minimum
size dependent on population.
>>
>> Diuring the year long community planning process a consensus for a public
safety system will be developed. This allows for the police force to be
smaller, or be eliminated. It allows for the new agency to supplement the
reduced or eliminated police force with a new group with new rules. It allows
this new agency to be an oversight to both forces. It also has this new agency
reporting to the council as well as the Mayor. A definite improvement.
>>
>> It is wise and prudent.
>>
>> David Tilsen
>> 612-281-8576 mobile
>> 612-823-8169 land line
>> Sent from my iPad
>> Watch and share my videos
>>

>>

>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Jim Spensley <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the Legislature permits municipal charters for
>>> municipalities in tw0 classes based on populations over or under 100,000.
>>> The charter becomes part of MN law upon approval by the Legislature.
>>> Management and funding changes are preferred, arguing with out-state
>>> legislators is a waste of time and not desirable in principle.
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM Chuck Turchick <<email obscured>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [An email sent to the Charter Commission early this morning.]
>>>>
>>>> Dear Charter Commissioners,
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most significant Charter change in the proposal of the
>>>> Minneapolis City Council is the elimination of the requirement that "the
>>>> City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per
>>>> resident" [Charter, section 7.3(c)]. Before deleting this provision, it
>>>> might be prudent to know:
>>>>
>>>> 1. How did such a requirement come to be included in the Charter?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Do other cities of a similar size to Minneapolis have requirements for
>>>> a minimum number of police force employees? If so, are those requirements
>>>> included in documents equivalent to our Charter, or are they included in
>>>> ordinances, rules, union contracts, or other documents?
>>>>
>>>> 3. If there are such requirements in cities similar to Minneapolis, how do
>>>> those numbers compare with Minneapolis's requirement?
>>>>
>>>> 4. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what were the
>>>> expected duties of police force employees? How do those duties compare
with
>>>> what we now expect police officers to do?
>>>>
>>>> 5. How will the recommended staffing of a Department of Community Safety
>>>> and Violence Prevention affect the number of law enforcement officers
>>>> Minneapolis will need?
>>>>
>>>> 6. At the time this provision became a part of the Charter, what other
>>>> police forces existed in Minneapolis, e.g., Park Police, Metro Transit
>>>> Police, University of Minnesota Police, etc., and what were the number of
>>>> officers in those departments?
>>>>
>>>> 7. How did implementing a 9-1-1 system affect the work of police officers
>>>> in Minneapolis? Have the types of 9-1-1 call requests changed over the
>>>> years? If so, how?
>>>>
>>>> No doubt, other questions will come to you that are relevant to this
>>>> minimum requirement for police force employees. I am sure the Council has
>>>> collected data that would answer most of these questions. You could
>>>> probably get answers simply by asking the Council to supply you with those
>>>> documents it has collected in support of its recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck in your consideration of this Charter provision.
>>>>
>>>> Keep safe; stay healthy.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>> Phillips
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Turchick
>>>> Phillips, Minneapolis
>>>> About/contact Chuck Turchick:
>>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>>>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/44lbcxKses2PuyuPdGACJA
>>>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Spensley
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Spensley
>>> Hale Page Diamond Lake, Minneapolis
>>> About/contact Jim Spensley:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/jimspensley--smaac
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>>
>>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7lV4RFkqM7Cg0dNmSWzjfZ
>>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David Tilsen
>> Powderhorn, Minneapolis
>> About/contact David Tilsen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidtilsen
>>
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3HjgJBNKOQ1wopywuP1D0R
>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Leslie Grilley
> Webber-Camden, Minneapolis
> About/contact Leslie Grilley: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/lesliegrilley
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/202DHyqbINym8N2o7WebKQ

Rest of post

Transforming Community Safety Resolution.pdf 115.56kb

Does this proposed elimination of the minimum requirement for public safety
employees (1 officer per 1,700 residents) also eliminate the property tax
surcharge included for it?

My cynical fear is that the minimum staffing will be removed, but our property
taxes won't go down, and the City Council will continue to reduce basic city
services.

An example of our degraded city services: it took nine minutes for an ambulance
to get from 8th & Chicago to 38th & Chicago. Nine minutes to go 30 blocks! A
horse & buggy could have done that faster. Or have they let our streets become
that infested with potholes they are that slow? Again, basic city services
ignored.

There is so much need right now (and for a long time) for housing, health care,
treatment, food, etc., I certainly hope that any savings from extracting the
police from dealing with those issues is reinvested in addressing them. To me,
that’s the whole point of defunding the police. I don’t need a tax cut. I need
government that helps people instead of criminalizing them.

Let's see, I've spoken out on my CM's postings regarding this. Asked
questions of him that have gone unanswered. Voice concerns yet received
no response from him. Watched the taped Zoom meeting he held. BTW, it
was billed as a "discussion" but he only took 5 -6 questions, The
remainder of the two + hour "discussion" was actually a presentation on
addressing youth violence. Downloaded to read several books and
articles on the public health approach, white fragility and the end of
policing. And I have written and emailed my comments to the Charter
Commission.

So, I have listened, and been willing to learn about the approach he is
advocating, with an open mind. I have asked questions and shared
concerns. What can I say, I love learning about new things, that is why
I am back in college at 60. Yet I have gotten no response from my CM.

Rest of post

On 6/29/2020 6:53 PM, Dave Tilsen wrote:
> Ok, there’s lots of distrust, so what’s the solution?
> You can sit on the outside, take potshots and throw obstructive
> observations,
> Or
> Jump in
> Work to pass or oppose the charter amendment, whatever your position,
> And get involved in the year long conversation.
> Try to shape it, but listen also, there are about
> 200,000 people with opinions on this, I think we should try to involve
> everyone, end up with something historic, something that works, that
> keeps us safe, all of us safe, something better. You don’t have to
> lose your mistrust in government, but how about listening to your
> fellow citizens. If we come to a consensus and the council doesn’t do
> what we want, then it will be easy to elect one that will.
> It’s only if we stay divided and confused that we can be mislead, is
> in not led well.
> I'm excited. We are going to make history.
>
> David Tilsen
> 612-281-8576 mobile
> 612-823-8169 land line
> Sent from my iPad
> Watch and share my videos
>

>

>
>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Dave Garland <<email obscured>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/29/2020 4:08 PM, LESLIE GRILLEY wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, I can not find it. Could you please point out where the
>>> proposal indicates the City Council is REQUIRED to hold a year-long
>>> community planning process and what that process will be? I, for one, do
>>> not trust the City Council to hold any community meetings or to fulfill
>>> their "promise" of holding any. In fact, their pushing of this change,
>>> WITHOUT a clear plan and with scant attempts to truly INFORM or get
>>> input from their constituents and other affected parties demonstrates
>>> the exact opposite. The ONLY thing that would make them do as they have
>>> promised is for the change to be voted on AFTER the community is given
>>> the chance to participate AND is FULLY informed.
>>
>> I don't trust the Council either, but for a very different reason. The
>> Council's intent may well be quite different than you suggest. I think
>> that they don't want to make any significant change, both because they
>> can't agree on what it would be, and because no matter what it is, it
>> would be political dynamite. So instead they offer this charter
>> amendment, fully planning that it will be voted down in the fall. Then
>> they can say "hey, we tried, it's not our fault that the voters didn't
>> want it". Much the same way as a prosecutor uses a grand jury to
>> absolve themselves of responsibility, while still getting what they want.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Garland
>> Powderhorn, Minneapolis
>> About/contact Dave Garland: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidgarland
>>
>>
>> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>>   If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>>   <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>>
>> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/15UCQlacxzDwXP526TxWRN
>> New Topic: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
>>     Digest: Subject: digest on
>>     Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

In 1961, the City Council called a special election that was conducted on
Tuesday, June 3, for the single purpose of considering a ballot question
referred to voters. That question —framed as Amendment No. 17— established a
minimum staffing ratio of 1.7 police employees per 1,000 population and also
increased the millage rate for that purpose on a one-time basis. That question
was canvassed and certified on June 13, 1961, with the following results—
Total ballots cast: 94,404
YES: 61,956
NO: 32,448

After being approved by voters, that minimum staffing requirement was codified
in Minneapolis City Charter, Chapter 6 – Police Department, under Section 2, as
follows:

Chapter 6 [POLICE DEPARTMENT] Section 2. - Buildings, Etc., Salaries and Bonds
of Police Officers.
The city council shall provide all buildings, facilities and equipments, and
all other public property as may be necessary or deemed essential to the
efficiency of said police force and department, and shall, by resolution, fix
the salary and compensation of each member of the force and provide for the
payment thereof. The City Council shall also fix the amount of the bonds to be
required from each officer and the conditions thereof, and pass upon the same,
and when so requested by the Mayor, shall determine the maximum number of
members to constitute said Police Force. For the sole purpose of maintaining
the personnel of the Police Department as provided in Section 1 hereof, the
City Council, notwithstanding other statutory or Charter tax limitations, shall
levy a tax annually, in addition to the City general fund levy, in such amount
as is necessary to maintain the Police Department personnel ratio, but only to
the extent such amount is in excess of the sum used to maintain the number of
employees constituting the Police Department on January 1, 1961. In no event
shall such additional tax exceed three (3) mills on each dollar of assessed
valuation on all taxable real and personal property of the City, such mill rate
limitation to be converted and adjusted in the manner provided in Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 273.1102 and 275.011. The additional tax and levy herein
provided shall not be reduced by the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and the
proceeds therefrom shall be appropriated only to the use of the Police
Department personnel, and related other than personnel items, and the City
Council shall not reduce any other appropriation made for police purposes by
reason of the additional tax and levy herein provided. (As amended 6-13-61;
10-30-70; 89-Or-195, § 2, 9-29-89)

As part of the 2013 Plain Language Revision of the City Charter, that minimum
staffing requirement was codified under Section 7.3(c).

The public is welcome to submit comments on the proposed charter amendment
approved by the City Council—related to creation of a new Community Safety &
Violence Prevention Department and the removal of the Police Department from
the charter—at the Charter Commission website, from the “Current Proposals”
page. You can access that site at:

www2 [dot] minneapolismn [dot] gov [/] charter [/] proposals

To access the final draft of the ordinance approved by City Council, search for
LIMS File No. 2020-00668 (which is also posted on the webpage cited directly
above under Current Proposals). The Minneapolis Charter Commission will conduct
a special meeting this Wednesday, July 1, at 4 p.m. to receive that proposed
charter amendment and discuss its next steps.

Casey Joe Carl
Minneapolis City Clerk

David Tilsen provided a link to the resolution the Council passed on June 12.
Here is the link to the proposal sent to the Charter Commission last Friday:

https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3882/MPD%20Charter%20Amendment%20Articles%20VII%20and%20Article%20VIII.pdf

Also, David wrote: "This charter amendment is mostly permissive not
prescriptive. The only new requirement is a new agency with a person in
charge. It does not eliminate the
police force, it simply removes the requirement that it exist, and at a minimum
size dependent on population."

If you read the ordinance passed by the Council on Friday, that is correct. But
it makes the optional "division of law enforcement services," which presumably
would be the division headed by what we now call the Chief of Police, a
component of the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Department. That
might make it very difficult to find someone to head that law enforcement
division.

In addition, though David has correctly stated what the proposal does, the
ballot language that the Council provides (at an earlier step in this process
than is normal, which is helpful) says: "Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be
amended to provide for the establishment of a new Community Safety & Violence
Prevention Department and to remove the Police Department." (It sounds like a
question, but it ended with a period in the version passed by the Council.)

With ballot language like that, if anyone seriously believes that that has the
slightest chance of passing in a November referendum vote, I've got some
oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like you to take a look at. Post-COVID, of
course.

Chuck Turchick
Phillips

Plain language is always good. The Charter change will make the Police
Department optional, as Chuck points out. The Council has already
stated they tend to "abolish" the police department. Making the
department optional is the first and also necessary step toward doing that.

On 6/29/2020 10:10 PM, Chuck Turchick wrote:
> David Tilsen provided a link to the resolution the Council passed on June 12.
Here is the link to the proposal sent to the Charter Commission last Friday:
>
>
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3882/MPD%20Charter%20Amendment%20Articles%20VII%20and%20Article%20VIII.pdf
>
> Also, David wrote: "This charter amendment is mostly permissive not
prescriptive. The only new requirement is a new agency with a person in
charge. It does not eliminate the
> police force, it simply removes the requirement that it exist, and at a
minimum
> size dependent on population."
>
> If you read the ordinance passed by the Council on Friday, that is correct.
But it makes the optional "division of law enforcement services," which
presumably would be the division headed by what we now call the Chief of
Police, a component of the Community Safety and Violence Prevention Department.
That might make it very difficult to find someone to head that law enforcement
division.
>
> In addition, though David has correctly stated what the proposal does, the
ballot language that the Council provides (at an earlier step in this process
than is normal, which is helpful) says: "Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be
amended to provide for the establishment of a new Community Safety & Violence
Prevention Department and to remove the Police Department." (It sounds like a
question, but it ended with a period in the version passed by the Council.)
>
> With ballot language like that, if anyone seriously believes that that has
the slightest chance of passing in a November referendum vote, I've got some
oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like you to take a look at. Post-COVID, of
course.
>
> Chuck Turchick
> Phillips
>
> Chuck Turchick
> Phillips, Minneapolis
> About/contact Chuck Turchick: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/chuckturchick
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4FHZ6aKQadbfQRZJoHTLiw

Rest of post

You have a $156 million dollar shortfall. This year. Before you have any money
to reallocate. Or about 15%. Next year also looks bleak.

Second, to a more fundamental problem - how do you tax the poor to help the
poor? How much higher should housing costs go, driven by the ever increasing
property tax burden?

Third, the things you list - healthcare, treatment, food - are not municipal
functions. Were the City to start its own healthcare program or SNAP program
or mental health treatment programs, it would rapidly be bankrupt.

People dont need more handouts. People need jobs. People need to be able to own
homes to build wealth. This city leadership has been strongly anti-business
and strongly pro-apartment developer. It is no wonder we have the disparities
we do - our leadership has created them.

I will also say, you are a well-paid corporate lawyer. My family has been hit
with multiple setbacks over the last year and the thought of more taxes starts
to make living in Minneapolis very hard. And we are not a family of color who
is struggling just to make ends meet. How much more can they afford in taxes?
It is only the wealthy that can say more taxes dont matter to their family
finances. When is raising taxes through the roof just another aspect of
keeping the poor poor?

Carol Becker
Longfellow

Rest of post

And Carol again brings facts and reality to the forefront.

Agree with all of her points.

Thanks for finally coming out as a Republican, Carol. It’s long overdue.

Adam? You do know what Carol's job is, don't you?

Did you say this because she can handle mega book-keeping and municipal
budget projections? That's exactly why we elected her to that office
several times.

Ledgers know no politics. (Honest ledgers, anyway, but they're always
open for audit)

(In case anyone doesn't recall, Carol has been elected to the Minneapolis
Board of Estimate and Taxation, several times.)

Rest of post

It is far more like that Adam Miller is a Trump supporter than Carol Becker is
a Republican. However, knowing Carol for a number of years and reading Mr.
Millers posts, I am equally certain that both statements are not true.

Jim Bernstein
Fulton

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Adam Miller
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:05 PM
To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Questions re the Charter's requirement of a minimum
numberof police force employees

Thanks for finally coming out as a Republican, Carol. It’s long overdue.

Adam Miller
Hale, Minneapolis
About/contact Adam Miller: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/adammiller

1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
<email obscured> before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

Rest of post

On 6/30/2020 10:45 PM, Jim Bernstein wrote:
> It is far more like that Adam Miller is a Trump supporter than Carol Becker
is a Republican. However, knowing Carol for a number of years and reading Mr.
Millers posts, I am equally certain that both statements are not true.

/Indeed. Carol Becker seems to be becoming a curmudgeon (being
elderly, I have some expertise in this), but that's not the same as
becoming a Republican. While some Republicans may also scream "you
kids get off my lawn, things were better back in my day", that in
itself is not a defining factor. Unless she then grabs a weapon to
enforce it./

Mr Miller - if talking about how poor people are kept poor through high taxes
deserves name calling, sign me up. When you advocate for higher taxes, You
dont just advocate that for yourself - you advocate that for all of us. For
lower value rental properties, taxes can make up 20% or more of the cost of
rent. And it has been the fastest increasing component of rent for quite a
while, increasing substantially faster than inflation. You cannot both advocate
for affordable housing and high taxes - high taxes make housing increasingly
unaffordable. One or the other.

We are seeing literally before our eyes the reckoning of the agenda that you
and your folks have pushed. “Density density density” has brought us a city
without the opportunity to build wealth and and expensive rents. “Bike walk
transit” has left us with declining transit ridership (pre-covid) and no answer
for how people get to work when 85% of the region’s jobs are outside
Minneapolis. And especially no answer for people who get judged by how they
look. There is a reason why black people commute on bike at one-third the rate
of white men. I get the Bike Coalition emails blithely going on about the
biggest problem in North is a lack of bike lanes, not a lack of access to jobs.
The myriad of regulations put on businesses make it harder and harder for the
city to attract jobs. Economic equity is at the core of the protests and the
progressives in Minneapolis haven't had an answer for people of color who need
housing to build wealth, who need to get to jobs, who just need jobs Instead
of attacking me, this should be a moment of profound reckoning for the kind of
world you and your folks have been advocating for.

It isnt just me saying this. Edsell did a really good piece on the divide in
the Democratic Party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/2020-progressive-candidates.html?referringSource=articleShare

In this, he talks about how much more conservative people of color are than the
white progressives that you are part of. That yes, access to jobs and taxation
are issues that black democrats care much more about than white progressives,
who care much more about global warming and abortion rights. I dont think that
makes them Republicans.

This is a moment of reckoning for urban progressives. Im not the only one
saying this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/minneapolis-racism-minnesota.amp.html?referringSource=articleShare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/30manqaaaaa-had-progressive-policies-its-economy-still-left-black-families-behind/

So here is my challenge to you. Go back to your Our Streets folks and
Streets.MN folks and ask them how do we get people to jobs? How do we get
parents to be able to drop off their kids and then get to jobs? Not one or two
jobs but an abundant number of good paying jobs. Go back to your Neighbors for
More Neighbors and as them how we can create housing that builds wealth for
residents, not developers. Ask them how to shift development from Uptown to
North. If so, we can stop being on opposite sides and start fighting together
to reduce racism in our city.

Carol Becker
Longfellow

> On Jun 30, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Adam Miller <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for finally coming out as a Republican, Carol. It’s long overdue.
>
> Adam Miller
> Hale, Minneapolis
> About/contact Adam Miller: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/adammiller
>
>
> 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
> If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
> <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2cO2bp70CcWAt1TfJl5aPR

Rest of post

On 7/1/2020 8:28 AM, BeckerMpls wrote:
> You cannot both advocate for affordable housing and high taxes - high taxes
make housing increasingly unaffordable.
= = = = =
[KB] That touches on something I haven't seen discussed for a long
time: The problem is high PROPERTY taxes.

Minneapolis and Hennepin County need the ability to enact local
progressive INCOME taxes. As I understand it, that requires the
Legislature to change state laws. (That, in turn, requires voters in
enough districts to change the majority party in the Minnesota
Senate.) The City Council should put that into its lobbying package
immediately.

- Ken Bearman

Rest of post

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Questions re the Charter's requirement of a minimum number of police force employees

Already a member?

Not a member?

E-Democracy is 100% Donation Supported Contribute Today!