Minneapolis voters to see one rent-control question on ballot

Minneapolis voters will see only one rent-control proposal on the ballot this fall, after City Council members failed Friday to override the mayor's veto of a second one.

Voters will be asked in November to give the City Council power to either enact its own rent-control ordinance or put such an ordinance before voters in a future election.

Mayor Jacob Frey last week vetoed a different ballot question that would have asked voters to give residents the power to draft a rent-control ordinance through petition, with later approval from the council or voters.

The vote brought resolution to a long and contentious debate over who should oversee a process that aims to make housing more affordable for low-income renters. Setting rent increase caps on private residential property has been done in other states, including recently in Oregon and California, as well as roughly 200 other municipalities.

The ballot question in November will give the city control of figuring out an ordinance, either by the City Council enacting one or asking voters to approve one once they define specifics.

In his veto last week, Frey said the resident-led measure would outsource city leaders' core responsibilities to an interest group. He said in a news conference Friday afternoon that he was pleased the veto stood.

"I have long had a position against initiative and referendum," Frey said. "Regardless of how you feel about the policy or the substance of rent control, when you put forward a policy, you should do so in an intelligent and deliberative way. You should listen to experts. You should collect all the data. You should conduct engagement that goes to every corner and every facet of our city."

Seven council members voted Friday to override Frey's veto, two votes short of the number needed to overturn it. Council Members Kevin Reich, Lisa Goodman, Linea Palmisano, Alondra Cano and Andrew Johnson voted to uphold the mayor's veto. Council Member Andrea Jenkins abstained.

Members of the citizen group Minneapolis United for Rent Control said Friday they were offended that the mayor called Minneapolis residents who are majority renters an "interest group."

Qannani Omar, housing organizer at Harrison Neighborhood Association in north Minneapolis and a member of the group, said they were worried that the council won't move fast enough for residents.

"Regardless of the housing crisis, things are not moving fast at City Hall," Omar said. "We want to see rent control happen, but the problem with the City Council pathway is that there is no guarantee that they'll even take it up next year, they could do nothing. So that's our biggest fear."

Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, who crafted the two rent-control proposals with Council President Lisa Bender and Council Members Cam Gordon and Jamal Osman, expressed disappointment in the vote Friday: "Having both the citizen petition and the council-led process on the ballot would have been getting it 100% right, and without the citizen petition, we're getting it half right."

The mayor said he hasn't seen any language on how the council-led policy would work. Council members said they want to first allow voters to approve the idea of rent control before deciding the specifics of a program.

If voters approve the ballot question in November, the changes will be put into the charter — the city's constitution — and would become legally effective Dec. 3.

"I didn't think the veto was necessary, and I was hoping we could override it," Gordon said. "But there is still obviously a pathway forward for us to do an effective rent-stabilization program."

The City Council on Friday also approved the ballot language for a proposal that has the potential to change the power dynamics in City Hall, ending a three-month-long process that at times turned tense.

The proposal would change the city charter to state that the mayor serves as the city's "chief executive officer" overseeing the daily administration of most departments, and council members may not "usurp, invade or interfere" with the mayor's supervision. The council would serve as the "legislative body," focusing on writing ordinances and policies and vetting city budgets.

The court-appointed Charter Commission wrote the proposal and, following normal protocols, sent it to the City Council this spring to set the language that will appear on the ballot. Over three months, the city attorney's and clerk's offices revised the language based on concerns from council members. Some took offense at the idea that the ballot language might insinuate they were interfering with the mayor's powers. Others said they worried it didn't do enough to capture the significance of the changes.

Charter commissioners, at times, accused the council members of politicking, noting that proposals council members favored were moving at a faster pace. Council members signed off on the final ballot language by a 12-0 vote Friday morning, and it now heads to Frey, who said he will approve it as well. Cano was absent.

Council Member Steve Fletcher, who had requested some changes in the past, said he felt comfortable voting for the latest version of the ballot language because it reflects that the proposal "actually makes a real change that people will experience in the way they experience their city government, and that it is not merely clarifying."

Charter Commission Chairman Barry Clegg on Friday expressed relief that the council had approved ballot language he believed was "fair and accurate."

Faiza Mahamud • 612-673-4203

Liz Navratil • 612-673-4994