Opinions on the 2021 election: Commentary

Not since Minnesota's same-sex marriage debates of 2012-13 has Star Tribune Opinion seen an outpouring of commentary like that on this year's city charter amendments, especially Question 2 in Minneapolis, which would remove the Police Department from the charter and establish a new Public Safety Department in its place.

Here is a sampling of views we've carried, with excerpts. All these and more are available at startribune.com/opinion.

Minneapolis Question 1 ("strong mayor")

"The executive-mayor amendment must pass," by Jay Kiedrowski, professor and former city budget director, Aug. 4: "Minneapolis city government ... lacks clear and responsive direction. … The mayor represents all Minneapolis citizens but has responsibility with little management authority. … Who is in charge? We need to align responsibility with management authority."

" 'Strong mayor' amendment is the one that matters," by Stephen Bubul, a Minneapolis attorney, Sept. 15: "City Question 1 would finally, clearly state that the mayor is the city's chief executive, charged with administering city business, while the council is the city's legislative body, charged with, well, legislating — enacting ordinances, defining city services, setting the tax levy, approving the budget and similar matters."

" 'Strong mayor' plan mainly strengthens white elite," by Lynnell Mickelsen, Minneapolis writer, Oct. 7: "I think the strong mayor amendment is the most radical, dangerous thing on the ballot. It would take power and representation away from poorer neighborhoods, from people of color and younger people, and give even more power to affluent older, white voters — all in the supposed cause of good government."

"The mayor already has huge power," by Elizabeth Glidden, Robert Lilligren and Peter Wagenius, former Minneapolis officials, Oct. 27: "[A] drastic wholesale power shift advanced by allies of one elected official to reduce power of other elected officials is not a solution to real problems. It's a symptom of those problems."

Minneapolis Question 2 (public safety)

"Why the defund amendment must be defeated," by Steve Cramer, CEO of the Downtown Council, July 28: "Add it all up and a vote for the ... amendment would make Minneapolis less safe. We can't successfully build [the Police Department] into the department our chief envisions with him gone. Reform efforts will be stalled by creating a bureaucracy from scratch with no guiding plan, and too many people with conflicting views in charge."

"Why the reform amendment must pass," by Heather Silsbee, Artemis Johnson and Elianna-Lippold Johnson (13th Ward residents), Aug. 4: "[Critics say] the amendment will stall reform. … But if we still aren't capable of eliminating violent cops before they become killer cops, reform has stalled. We need a new approach."

"Our city defunded its police. Don't make the same mistake," by Matt Mackowiak, an activist in Austin, Texas, Aug. 24: "The consequence of this staffing crisis … is a violent crime wave unlike anything Austin has ever seen."

"Charter change on public safety is needed," by U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, Aug. 31: "For decades, those opposed to change … have used fear … to keep people from reimagining a more humane system. We have a chance in this moment to reject that."

"No plan should inspire a 'no' vote," by former Mayor Sharon Sayles-Belton and other community leaders, Sept. 23: "The MPD requires serious reforms. … But none of this requires a charter amendment. The truth is that we need better police, not fewer or no police."

"Let the amendment start a conversation," by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Sept. 27: "I believe we as a city can get through fear to hope together if we assume the good intentions of folks on the other side of the debate. … Let's get talking."

"Cops have resisted reform," by Noa K. Levi, Oct. 4: "There are plenty of countries in the world where police, while imperfect, don't kill or brutalize people on a regular basis. … But lots of police departments in this country, MPD included, have dug in against oversight, and more broadly against democracy itself. It's time to make something better."

"To fight fires and save lives, we need police by our side," by Mark Lakosky and other leaders of Minneapolis Fire Local 82, Oct. 23: "How can we fight a fire effectively when we can't get to the building because there are people blocking the street [and] there are no police officers to secure the scene? How can paramedics safely load and transport a trauma victim when they fear for their own safety?"

Rent control (St. Paul Question 1, Minneapolis Question 3)

"If you think property taxes are high now … ," by Donna Hanbery, a lawyer representing property owners, Sept. 30: "The St. Paul proposal has been criticized as the most restrictive proposal in the nation. It will have an immediate and lasting adverse impact on rental property valuations. … The taxes the city will be able to collect from landlords will go down. … [L]ocal business and homeowners [will] pick up the tab."

"Stabilized rent is a step in the right direction," by Peter and Jane Eichten, Minneapolis landlords, Sept. 30: "We became landlords because we wanted people to have a good, stable home, not so that we could make a quick buck at someone else's expense by spiking the rent whenever we felt like it."

"Let's not relive the rent control nightmare others endured," by Will Rolf, a St. Paul Realtor, Oct. 5: "Well-intentioned people championed rent control and stabilization in New York. It was not their goal to decimate the housing stock and the tax base. That was an unintended consequence. St. Paul voters need to carefully consider unintended consequences and vote 'no' on this question in November."

"On rent control, calmly weigh benefits, costs," by Edward G. Goetz and Manuel Pastor, professors and researchers, Oct. 13: "In general, there is little to mixed evidence that rent stabilization deflates property values, reduces the rate of new housing construction or has detrimental impacts on 'mom-and-pop' landlords."