Better Minneapolis Podcast

Few institutions define Minneapolis like its parks. From neighborhood playgrounds to the Chain of Lakes, the system shapes daily life and civic identity — and it’s once again in the spotlight as the Park Board heads into election season. In this interview, Park Board President and District 6 Commissioner Cathy Abene talks about the balance between maintaining a world-class park system and keeping it financially and environmentally sustainable. Abene discusses the nuts and bolts of funding, the future of projects like North Commons and Hiawatha Golf Course, and why she believes pragmatic, mission-focused leadership is key to preserving the city’s greatest public asset.

Background and Role

Cathy Abene, District 6 Commissioner since 2022 and current Park Board President, brings a career in civil and environmental engineering to the job. As a University of Minnesota water resources engineer, she manages stormwater and infrastructure—experience she says translates directly to stewarding Minneapolis’s park system. The Park Board is a part-time, elected body; commissioners are compensated, but most, like Abene, also hold full-time jobs.

District Priorities and Public Perception

Abene says door-knocking reveals broad satisfaction with Minneapolis parks, which recently won a national gold medal for operations. While public meetings skew toward specific grievances, most residents tell her the system is well-maintained and accessible—nearly everyone lives within a ten-minute walk of a park. Current flashpoints include the Hiawatha Golf Course redesign and ongoing debates about balancing access with environmental sustainability.

Park Funding and Budgeting

She underscored the difference between capital and operating budgets: capital dollars (often via city/state bonding) fund one-time projects like roofs, pools, and major renovations; operating dollars (largely property-tax supported) pay staff, programming, utilities, and routine maintenance. By law and practice, those pools can’t be swapped—so canceling a capital project doesn’t free up operating money, a point she says some candidates and residents misunderstand.

Major Projects and Safety Challenges

Abene highlighted the North Commons Park rebuild as a community-driven, long-promised investment now under construction. On safety, she noted the Park Board’s own police department and patrols, with staffing pressures mirroring the city’s. She favors targeted technology—like controlled entry and plate capture at problem lots—to deter violence, alongside the Board’s long-standing strategy of youth programming and jobs (the Park Board is the city’s largest youth employer).

Future Vision and Priorities

Priorities include environmental stewardship (stormwater, water quality, climate adaptation), financial sustainability, and measuring parks’ economic impact to strengthen support from city and state partners. She’s open to modest new revenue (e.g., tasteful field-fence ads, stormwater utility funding) while rejecting billboards or heavy commercialization. Abene frames reelection as continuing mission-focused governance that balances recreation, equity, and ecological health.

For more information, visit: https://www.cathyabene.com/

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Since joining the Minnesota Star Tribune in 2009, Eric has covered the Twin Cities metro area, the city of Minneapolis, the state Legislature and Congress. Prior to becoming a columnist, he oversaw the Star Tribune’s Curious Minnesota project and helped create the narrative podcast “Ghost of a Chance.” He is a graduate of the George Washington University and lives in south Minneapolis. To follow Eric’s work by email, sign up for his newsletter at startribune.com/roperalert.

Introduction

City elections are November 4, and like many of you, we’re watching closely. In our interview with Eric Roper, neither of us could predict outcomes, but early voting has been robust—especially in Ward 6, Precinct 3, where 25% of registered voters have already cast ballots. Ward 6 overall has seen nearly double the early votes of any other ward (1,944 so far, compared with 970 in Ward 3).

Here in Ward 8, our mailbox has filled up too: four mailers for Josh Bassais, one for Soren Stevenson. One neighbor even wrote a letter about their mayoral pick and hand-delivered it with their kids—a reminder that people are paying close attention this cycle.

What does it all mean? At the very least, there’s genuine energy in this election. If you’re still undecided, what’s the key piece of information you’re waiting for?

In our conversation with Eric Roper, we touched on several themes shaping the race—particularly the dynamics in Wards 7 and 10, as well as the broader “sides” that have formed. We both agreed that the core issues of housing, public safety, and economic recovery carry far more nuance than the headlines suggest.

This Week at Better Minneapolis

It’s a full week ahead, and we’re grateful for your readership. If you enjoy these interviews, please consider a paid subscription or share the newsletter with friends and family—your support keeps this work going.

Upcoming interviews include:

* Cathy Abene, Park Board President and Candidate for District 6

* Jim Meyer, Candidate for City Council, Ward 11

* Bob Fine, Candidate for Board of Estimate & Taxation

* Elliott Payne, President of Minneapolis City Council and Ward 1 Candidate

* Tane Danger, recent mayoral debate moderator and co-founder of Danger Boat Productions

You can find our full archive of candidate conversations on our @BetterMinneapolis YouTube Channel, with podcast versions available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

A special thanks to our friends at Speak MPLS, where we record most of our podcasts. They manage public access TV and produce Elect MPLS, a YouTube series featuring short videos from city council and mayoral candidates—another great way to learn before you vote.

We’re planning to host our paid subscriber happy hour on Thursday, October 30. We’re eager to hear readers’ predictions and what has stood out to you in this election. If you have a location suggestion, please email us.

Interview Summary

In a wide-ranging interview for Better Minneapolis, columnist Eric Roper reflected on his 16-year journey at the Star Tribune and his evolving focus on urban issues. Roper, who began as a political reporter, became deeply interested in the fabric of Minneapolis while covering City Hall. That curiosity led to his current role as a metro columnist, where he explores how history, housing, and policy intersect to shape life in the city. In his podcast, Ghost of a Chance, he examines racial history and segregation in Minneapolis through the story of Harry and Clementine Robinson, a Black couple who lived in Roper’s south Minneapolis home a century ago.

Roper explained that Ghost of a Chance grew out of his discovery of Mapping Prejudice, a University of Minnesota project that documents racial covenants, which once barred Black residents from owning homes in much of the city. Investigating the Robinsons’ lives uncovered the systemic efforts to remove Black families from southwest Minneapolis in the early 20th century, pushing them eastward toward 38th Street and Fourth Avenue—an area later fractured by the construction of Interstate 35W. The podcast connects these patterns of exclusion to today’s racial and economic disparities, offering listeners both historical depth and modern relevance. Roper described the process as “a five-year chapter” of his life that taught him as much about the city’s enduring inequities as about the resilience of its communities.

The conversation shifted to contemporary issues, especially the housing debate dominating local elections. Roper discussed the complex divide between renters and landlords, the racial homeownership gap, and policies like rent control and the proposed Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act. He noted that while these issues are politically charged, they reflect deeper questions about equity, economic opportunity, and the role of government in shaping the housing market. Minneapolis, now a majority-renter city, is grappling with how to balance tenant protections with incentives for investment and development—a balancing act that continues to define the city’s political identity.

Crime and public safety were also central topics. Roper spoke about his recent column “Doomsday Docs,” which challenges the extremes in how residents perceive Minneapolis—either as a “hellscape” or as entirely safe. He acknowledged the reality of vandalism, addiction, and public disorder in certain neighborhoods, but emphasized the need for nuance and empathy in how these problems are discussed. The city, he argued, is not beyond hope; its livability and civic spirit remain strong. What’s needed, he suggested, is a sustained focus on the underlying issues—mental health care, addiction treatment, and smarter public safety responses—that shape everyday life more than any single news headline.

In closing, Roper reflected on the evolution of city politics. Compared with past elections, he said, today’s debates center less on infrastructure and growth and more on relationships—how elected officials can collaborate despite deep ideological divides. He stressed the importance of restoring trust between businesses, government, and communities, and fostering dialogue that allows for creative problem-solving without fear of political backlash. Ultimately, Roper’s insights—rooted in both history and firsthand observation—offered a reminder that Minneapolis’s challenges are layered but not insurmountable. The city’s future, he implied, depends on its willingness to learn from its past while embracing a shared commitment to progress.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

A quick note about our interviews: we aim to feature a range of voices on Minneapolis issues. Appearing on the show does not equal an endorsement, nor does it mean we agree with every position a candidate or leader holds. Our goal is to encourage residents to engage with city government—often the place where your participation can most directly shape daily life.

In that spirit, we encourage you to learn about the candidates and, if moved, volunteer for those who best reflect your priorities for Minneapolis.

If you value this work, please forward the newsletter to a friend and consider becoming a paid subscriber.

We’re also considering October 30 for our next paid-subscriber happy hour (location TBD). Stay tuned!

Interview Summary:

In this interview, Tom Olsen, an incumbent candidate running for re-election as an At-Large Commissioner on the Minneapolis Park Board, discusses his background, role, and priorities for the city’s park system. Olsen currently works in communications for the Minnesota House DFL and lives in the Fulton neighborhood. He describes the Park Board as a nine-member elected body that oversees a $150 million annual budget—responsible for maintaining parks, selecting the superintendent, and shaping long-term planning and policy for one of the largest municipal park systems in the country.

Olsen explains that roughly 80% of the Park Board’s funding comes from property taxes, leaving it vulnerable to market shifts, particularly in commercial real estate. To diversify revenue, the Board is exploring expanded metered parking, special events such as traveling beer gardens, and investment portfolios in partnership with the Minneapolis Parks Foundation. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining independence and transparency while securing state and philanthropic support for large projects like North Commons and Water Works.

A key theme throughout the conversation is Olsen’s focus on climate action and youth engagement. He details ongoing efforts to plant tree species resilient to Minnesota’s changing climate, reduce stormwater runoff, and expand renewable energy and green space. On the youth front, Olsen highlights programs such as Teen Teamworks and Rec Plus, which provide affordable childcare and employment pathways for teens. He stresses that youth investment is not just social programming but a strategy for long-term public safety and civic stability.

The interview also explores Olsen’s policy stances and lessons from his first term. He speaks candidly about challenges, from failed efforts to pedestrianize parkways to controversies over Hiawatha Golf Course and Minnehaha Dog Park. Olsen notes both successes, such as supporting equitable park investments and youth funding, and setbacks, including board votes that prioritized parking over environmental goals. His perspective reflects a balance between stewardship and reform—valuing the park system’s legacy while pushing for adaptation and accountability.

In closing, Olsen underscores the Park Board’s vital role in defining Minneapolis’s identity. He urges residents to stay informed, vote thoughtfully in the complex ranked-choice system, and appreciate that the city’s park system—more than any building or business—is central to its quality of life. His campaign message combines park stewardship with a deep belief in parks as engines of community, equity, and environmental resilience.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

R.T. Rybak—three-term Minneapolis mayor and now CEO of the Minneapolis Foundation—reflects on public life that spans journalism, philanthropy, and city leadership. He recalls the surreal 2001 primary night amid national crisis, then pivots to his current focus: using the Foundation as a lasting civic infrastructure. Through revived “Minnesota Meeting” convenings and partnerships like the Westminster Town Hall Forum, he’s foregrounding a core question for democracy: where Minnesotans get information, how they judge truth, and how independent creators can sustain themselves.

Rybak sees today’s media moment as both liberating and risky. Unlike the Vietnam-era monoculture that enabled groupthink, a wider array of voices now checks power—but also multiplies agendas and misinformation. He champions a mixed “media diet”: MPR and the Star Tribune, hyperlocal outlets like Southwest Voices, national magazines (The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Monocle), and historians/commentators he finds substantive. Social platforms are now more uneven—he’s drifted from Twitter/X and leans on Facebook and some LinkedIn—yet his larger point is literacies over loyalties: know a source’s perspective, then verify.

Equity remains his through-line. Rybak locates his motivation in early exposure to a “continuum of privilege,” which shapes his priorities around education, career pathways for kids of color, and economic mobility. He highlights “GroundBreak” efforts to boost Black homeownership and entrepreneurship, and argues Minneapolis’ shared spaces—lakes, parks, schools—create “common ground” that counters caricature and builds social fluency. The more we live and learn alongside people unlike ourselves, he says, the more resilient our civic fabric becomes.

On safety, Rybak condemns inaction on guns and calls assault-style weapons “tools of slaughter,” not hunting. Yet he insists policing alone can’t solve violence. He points to Minneapolis’ Youth Violence Prevention Initiative—trusted adults for every young person, early intervention on curfew/truancy, meaningful second chances, and a push to change the culture of violence—as a multi-sector model that lowered youth crime. He urges tighter city–county–philanthropy alignment and person-centered service delivery (e.g., Project Homeless Connect) to reduce duplication and close gaps that leave people behind—especially when media coverage often overlooks consequential county work.

Looking to the election, Rybak sidesteps endorsements but argues voters should reward coalition-builders, not combatants fueled by polarizing independent expenditures. He praises the current police chief’s balance of enforcement and community focus and sees promise in a broader Department of Public Safety—if it truly integrates upstream solutions. He urges Minneapolis to move beyond the post-George Floyd “cartoons” (like simplistic readings of “defund”) and to defend the city’s welcoming, pluralist identity. His closing advice is simple: calm down, find shared purpose, and elect leaders who prove that they can bring the city together.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Eric Bernstein is one of three candidates running for two elected positions on Minneapolis’s Board of Estimate & Taxation (BET). We were both confused about how ranked-choice voting works in this situation. We think the candidate with the fewest first-choice rankings will be dropped, and the remaining two will win, but more research is needed.

Bernstein describes himself as a longtime tax and fiscal policy professional motivated by the value of collective public investments—parks, streets, and core infrastructure—and by the belief that Minneapolis underutilizes the BET as a venue for honest conversations about what residents get for their tax dollars.

Bernstein explains how the property-tax levy works and why it confuses people. Unlike sales or income taxes with fixed rates, the city sets a total levy—roughly $700 million—and spreads it across all taxable property according to each parcel’s share of total value. Thus, a 7.8% levy increase does not translate into a uniform 7.8% bill hike; shifts in relative values (e.g., rising high-value residential areas vs. falling downtown commercial values) change who pays more or less. He notes this method stabilizes city revenue for essentials like infrastructure, parks, and public safety, even if it feels unpredictable to homeowners.

Outlining the BET’s role, Bernstein says the board approves the maximum property-tax levy the mayor and council can set. Historically created to coordinate the city, park board, and formerly the library levies, the BET today includes the mayor, two council members, one park commissioner, and two at-large elected residents. While it doesn’t decide spending line items, the BET influences priorities by setting the ceiling (e.g., space for a proposed youth levy the board declined in 2018).

Asked what he’d push for, Bernstein emphasizes better long-term fiscal planning: moving beyond cash-flow thinking toward accrual concepts that account for assets, depreciation, and liabilities; scrutinizing “base budgets” rather than only annual changes; and reassessing heavy reliance on outside contractors. He cites examples like bringing road design in-house to save money and notes Minneapolis spends nearly 50% more on contracted services than on public employees. With falling commercial values and demographic shifts (fewer young people, more retirees) ahead—and possible federal cuts affecting programs like Medicaid and SNAP—he argues the city must stretch dollars further and invest in durable capacity.

Two other key positions stand out. He opposes a Minneapolis wealth tax on high earners, arguing that any such tax should apply countywide—or even across multiple counties—since it’s too easy for high earners to move out of the city. He’s also against using public funds to build or finance new sports stadiums, such as for the Timberwolves, if the team decides to leave the Target Center.

On the trail, Bernstein says most voters haven’t heard of the BET but are eager to understand why property taxes behave in the way they do. He portrays himself as a collaborator—speaking with current members Samatha Pree-Stinson and Steve Brandt, candidate Bob Fine, council members, and even Mayor Frey—focused on “value for money” rather than ideology. He’ll keep his day job running a union-and-grassroots policy coalition (with some lobbying and public education) and closes with a broader critique: Minneapolis, like many governments, overuses subsidies for private development without clear public returns; he favors partnerships that deliver measurable long-term benefits for residents.

Unfortunately, our interview was cut short due to a technical malfunction. If you’d like to learn more about Eric, you can visit his website:

https://www.ehbforbet.com/

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

At an October 6 Ward 9 forum hosted by the League of Women Voters, Council Member Jason Chavez called it “unfair” that supporters of the Roof Depot urban farm and community center continue to be denied what they want. Two days earlier, the Climate Justice Committee had marched through Mayor Frey’s neighborhood, urging him to give the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute (EPNI) what they consider a fair deal on the long-contested Roof Depot site.

A Deal Deferred

For years, the fate of the site has hung in limbo. The state legislature twice failed to approve the $5.7 million that would have allowed EPNI to buy the property for $11.4 million — the price previously agreed upon with the city. The most recent offer, $10.2 million, remains uncertain. According to the city, nearly half that amount—$4.5 million—is restricted and cannot legally be used for the purchase.

The site’s history adds another layer of complexity. Originally acquired by the city to ensure clean, reliable drinking water for Minneapolis residents, the project has already cost $19.1 million in purchase and holding costs. With that investment sunk, city officials now plan to recoup losses by opening the site to competitive bids rather than granting a discounted sale to EPNI.

Community vs. City Hall

Chavez and EPNI’s backers argue that the city should honor the spirit of the deal and support a project designed to bring jobs, food, and opportunity to one of Minneapolis’s most environmentally burdened neighborhoods. City leaders, meanwhile, say they must balance those goals with fiscal responsibility and the broader obligation to maintain critical infrastructure.

In this clash, both sides point to fairness — but they mean very different things by it. For EPNI and its allies, fairness means keeping a long-promised community vision alive. For the city, it means protecting taxpayers from yet another costly reversal. Somewhere between those definitions lies the missing majority — the broader consensus needed to finally move Minneapolis forward.

The Main Issue

Financing has long been a problem for the Roof Depot urban farm project — but an even greater obstacle may be public support. Most residents remain unaware of the proposal, and for good reason: it’s been sustained largely by a small, dedicated circle of advocates over the past decade. Among them is Dean Dovolis, chair of the East Phillips Neighborhood Institute (EPNI) and principal of DJR Architecture, whose firm has received much of the project’s planning and development funding.

At its core, the urban farm is an ambitious experiment — one that could offer local benefits but would require continuous state and city subsidies to operate. That ongoing cost may help explain why the legislature has shown little urgency to allocate the necessary funds.

The debate has also become a reflection of differing leadership styles. Council Member Jason Chavez has championed the project as a matter of environmental and social justice, while challenger Dan Orban has emphasized compromise and representing all ward residents. Their contrast highlights a broader question facing the city: how do we balance visionary projects with practical outcomes?

If the goal of the city government is to help the greatest number of residents, other uses for those dollars deserve consideration. For instance, state or city support for families receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits could immediately improve food security for thousands. With federal SNAP funding reduced by $120 billion over ten years in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” local action could make a measurable difference — far more than the urban farm likely could.

The aspirations behind the project — addressing environmental harm and economic inequity — are commendable. But as federal support declines and budgets tighten, Minneapolis must ask a harder question: how can we do the most good with the limited resources we have?

Like the Rise Up Center on Hennepin, the urban farm highlights a broader tension within city policy — between idealism and sustainability. The supporters of such projects are often passionate, well-organized, and skilled at amplifying their message online. To city officials, that visibility can create the impression that these groups represent the will of a much larger public than they actually do.

Because voter turnout remains low in many wards, candidates who align with the most vocal advocates can still secure enough votes to win. Meanwhile, many residents — busy with their families, jobs, and everyday concerns — are left surprised when their elected representative seems out of step with the majority’s priorities.

The solution isn’t to silence activism but to broaden participation. Minneapolis works best when more people show up, speak up, and vote.

And Now, the Overreaction

We expect some readers will take issue with this perspective — and that’s fine. Minneapolis thrives on debate. What’s discouraging, though, is how quickly disagreement turns into denunciation. Too often, those who see themselves as defenders of justice spend more time policing language and motives than building coalitions or solving problems.

What the city needs now are leaders who can balance competing priorities — who listen carefully, weigh evidence over ideology, and make decisions guided by results rather than rhetoric. There are already plenty of passionate advocates willing to fight symbolic battles. What Ward 9 residents told us they want, in plain terms, is a functioning 3rd Precinct. The applause that followed Dan Orban’s mention of reopening it said as much, even if it caught the moderator off guard.

City government isn’t meant to mirror the national culture wars. Its purpose is simpler and more tangible: keeping the streets safe and clean, partnering with the county to reduce drug use and encampments, and helping young people find better options than car theft or truancy.

This November, Minneapolis has a chance to reward leadership that focuses on the practical over the performative. For Minneapolis to truly recover from the past five years, it needs public servants who value results over rhetoric — leaders focused on delivering for all residents, not just the loudest voices.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

(If you value our local coverage, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.)

With the Minneapolis municipal election just 30 days away, 17% of voters remain undecided about their choice for mayor, according to polls published by Minneapolis for the Many.

We can’t vouch for the poll’s accuracy—80 percent of responses came via text—but in the absence of other public data, it provides a useful snapshot of who the undecided voters are. Surveys conducted in May and August 2025 showed no change in the rate of undecided voters.

Who Are the 17 Percent?

Much has happened since the polls were conducted that could have nudged voters toward one candidate or another—most of it connected to public safety. Journalist Rick Kupchella’s recent investigative piece, A Precarious State, painted a stark picture of rising crime across Minnesota, and Minneapolis in particular. That report aired after the polls and several mass shootings, including one at Annunciation Church on August 27 in South Minneapolis.

Among undecided voters, nearly half (48 percent) believe the city is “off track.” About a third (34 percent) blame the City Council; 29 percent fault Mayor Frey. Yet when asked about his challengers, most were unfamiliar: 75 percent had no opinion of Omar Fateh, 91 percent were unsure about DeWayne Davis, and 92 percent said the same of Jazz Hampton. One potentially positive sign for Frey: 74 percent of undecided voters approve of Governor Tim Walz, who has endorsed him.

The Demographics of Uncertainty

The undecided bloc leans slightly female (53 percent) and largely Democratic (58 percent), with another third (33 percent) identifying as independent. Most are white (74 percent), and the largest age group falls between 46 and 65 years old (33 percent).

Taken together, these figures suggest that the undecided voter looks much like Minneapolis itself—moderate, pragmatic, and uneasy about the city’s direction. Whether these voters break toward continuity or change will likely determine who occupies City Hall next.

Why Undecided Voters Matter So Much

If early voting trends hold, turnout in this year’s election will at least match 2021, when about 54 percent of registered voters cast ballots—roughly 145,000 people. Of those, an estimated 25,000 remain undecided. Their choices will likely determine who leads Minneapolis for the next four years, shaping how the city confronts its central challenges: public safety, homelessness, and rising property taxes.

Every campaign mailer, digital ad, and phone call over the next month is aimed squarely at this group. They are the audience both mayoral and council candidates must reach.

It is one of democracy’s peculiarities that the uncommitted often hold the most power. Those who follow city politics closely may help frame debates, but elections are decided by those who are less engaged—people who tune out much of the political noise, believe little will change regardless of who governs, or prefer not to think about it. Yet it is their eventual decisions that tip the balance of power.

One of the clearest lessons shaping my understanding of politics came from Republican Gary Johnson’s 1994 victory in New Mexico. With little prior political experience, he used his personal fortune to saturate the airwaves, defeating a 12-year incumbent largely through name recognition. Voters knew who he was, and for many, that was enough.

The same dynamic often favors incumbents, and it may again in Minneapolis. If this election comes down to which candidate voters recognize when they walk into the booth, Mayor Frey starts with a clear advantage.

What to Expect in the City Council Races

By our count, five City Council races appear competitive. Their outcomes will determine whether the next council aligns more closely with Democratic Socialists of America–backed candidates such as Robin Wonsley or with the more pragmatic members, including Michael Rainville and Linea Palmisano.

Two wards stand out as pivotal. In Ward 2, former legislator Shelley Madore is challenging two-term incumbent Robin Wonsley. In Ward 5, the seat left open by Jeremiah Ellison’s decision not to seek re-election has drawn multiple contenders. Ellison’s name recognition—bolstered by his father, Attorney General Keith Ellison—was a significant factor in his earlier campaigns, underscoring how powerful familiarity remains in Minneapolis politics.

In Ward 6, Council Member Jamal Osman is expected to retain his seat. Despite controversy surrounding a nonprofit connected to his family, he has maintained support within his constituency and continues to play an unpredictable role as a swing vote on the council. If Omar Fateh were to win the mayor’s race, Osman would likely emerge as one of his more reliable allies.

If undecided voters break toward Mayor Frey, Minneapolis could see a council majority of nine that supports his agenda.

If, however, voters coalesce around Omar Fateh—whether as their first choice or through ranked-choice reallocation—the effect may cascade down-ballot. Candidates aligned with his campaign would likely prevail, producing a council with a veto-proof majority, possibly nine members in support of the Fateh/Wonsley agenda.

Get Out the Vote

The next 30 days will be crucial for candidates trying to build name recognition before ballots are cast. Ward 8 offers a useful reminder of how even small vote shifts can alter outcomes under ranked-choice voting.

This year, Republican candidate Bob Sullentrop is again on the ballot. His campaign message focuses on opposing Democratic Socialist candidates, and he’s been active across the ward, delivering flyers and knocking on doors. After two election cycles, many voters know who he is—a crucial factor.

In 2023, Sullentrop received 418 first-choice votes. When those ballots were reallocated, a majority of his voters—along with the 544 voters who had supported an alternate DFL candidate, Terry White (me)—listed Andrea Jenkins as their second choice. Those transferred votes provided Jenkins a margin of 38 votes over challenger Soren Stevenson.

In 2021, Sullentrop earned 1,468 votes running directly against Jenkins. If voting patterns hold, roughly 12 percent of Ward 8 voters will again choose someone other than the leading candidates, meaning second-choice preferences could once more determine the result.

The lesson is straightforward: ranked-choice voting rewards informed participation. Voters should take time to learn not only about their first-choice candidate, but also about who they’ll rank second and third. The League of Women Voters Minneapolis hosts candidate forums and posts information on both its website and vote411.org.

Better Minneapolis has extended interviews with many of this year’s candidates in our archives, or you can visit our YouTube Channel www.youtube.com/@BetterMinneapolis.

Better Minneapolis does not endorse candidates, but subscribers are welcome to contact us directly for insight and analysis specific to their ward.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

In the 1983 film The Big Chill, a group of friends reunites after one of them dies by suicide. They stay at Harold’s (Kevin Kline) home in South Carolina. When Nick (William Hurt) gets picked up for running a red light and mouthing off, police threaten to press charges—until Harold and Sam (Tom Berenger), a TV star, smooth things over.

Nick, jaded and cynical, bristles at Harold’s newfound comfort with the police. Respectability, in Nick’s view, meant compromise.

The Break-In

Tuesday at about 3 a.m., someone entered our home through a ground-floor window after rifling through our cars. I found myself feeling the way Harold did in The Big Chill—oddly reassured to be on good terms with the police and my neighbors.

Our 911 call was answered immediately. An officer arrived within 10 minutes, listened carefully, took notes, and called in the Crime Lab after we showed him the knife a thief left behind. We think the intruders panicked after hearing our son on the stairs. He woke our dog Zelda, who started barking. By the time we were up, the thieves had smashed a dining room window to escape.

Two Crime Lab officers arrived soon after. They photographed evidence and lifted fingerprints. The officers were respectful and professional, even acknowledging how unsettling it is to realize someone has been in your home while you slept. Of course, our experience may have been shaped by who we are and where we live. We are white, and our middle- to lower-middle-class block is surrounded by wealthier streets. That may have influenced how we were treated. But it is also possible that some officers truly see their role as public service—and that whatever Chief O’Hara is doing is helping create a culture where compassion and professionalism are the norm.

The Reaction Chain

We shared the news with our neighborhood group chat, family, and friends. Now I’m sharing it here. This is how the perception of crime spreads—through stories that travel faster than statistics. Perception often diverges from reality. Yet I won’t withhold this from neighbors, who will likely do what we should have done: double-check locks and windows.

South Minneapolis is one of the safest areas in the city. We’ve lived in the same house for 19 years without incident. Complacency crept in.

We suspect the thieves to be young, careless, and desperate for cash. They searched for change in our cars and house, dropped their knife, spilled coins, and abandoned a cheap watch on their way out. Zelda’s bark probably saved us.

Events like this can harden thinking. People once described as suffering from “substance use disorder” quickly become “junkies” and “meth heads.” It’s natural to dehumanize those who make you feel unsafe. Resisting that reflex requires effort. If the only encounters are negative, empathy rarely survives.

Constant Vigilance

The other reflex is hypervigilance. I replaced outdoor bulbs, warned neighbors, and locked every door and window. We even discussed security systems, bars for windows, a larger dog, and—yes—keeping a gun.

But vigilance has a cost. It reshapes your outlook, turning suspicion into habit. Living in a city requires some caution, but if defensive crouch becomes the default posture, generosity and openness shrink. Some families avoid this spiral by leaving for the suburbs.

Guarding the Streets

Once victimized, proposals that before seemed unthinkable suddenly make sense. When someone is in your house at 3 a.m. with a knife, it’s hard to care where on the political spectrum your solution falls. What you want—what most neighbors want—is to feel safe.

It’s why reassurances about behavioral health calls ring hollow when your car is stolen or your garage is broken into. Alternatives to policing may have promise in theory, but lived experience pulls in another direction: more officers, more investigators, more respect for those who keep the city safe.

Minneapolis needs a coherent, unified approach to public safety. That requires a mayor and council aligned on priorities. We cannot have one faction deriding police as irredeemable while another calls for more officers. Alternatives deserve oversight as rigorous as that imposed on MPD. Leaders must be willing to drop what doesn’t work and build on what does. That flexibility is difficult even in good times—and nearly impossible when city leadership is locked in perpetual conflict.

The Path Is Short

This past weekend, hundreds marched in Portland against Trump’s plan to send in 200 National Guard troops. Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson joined them.

When we last visited Portland, the city felt hollowed out. Downtown streets were dominated by visible drug use and people adrift, focused only on their next fix. While protesters turned out in the hundreds, we suspect thousands more stayed home—tired, wary, and resigned. These are the residents worn down by constant crises and disillusioned by the decline of a city that once promised so much.

Minneapolis is far from Portland, but our problems are real. Allowing people to remain unwell and scavenging on the streets is not compassion—it is neglect, and it risks provoking a heavier hand in response. We need a more thoughtful approach. A home invasion in quiet South Minneapolis may be a warning sign. When enough residents are robbed, shot, or forced to change daily routines, calls for drastic action grow louder. The path to National Guard deployments is short—and understandable.

We’re not there. But we can see how a city gets there. If Minneapolis voters want to prevent it, they need to elect a mayor and council who are aligned, pragmatic, and serious about public safety. Anything less risks the kind of decline we have already witnessed elsewhere.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Jens Ludwig is a leading scholar on crime and violence. He directs the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab and co-directs its Education Lab, in addition to his role with the National Bureau of Economic Research. Few outside policy circles know his name. We hadn’t either—until Kurt Nelson, co-host of the Behavioral Grooves podcast, pointed us to Ludwig’s recent book, Unforgiving Places: Origins of American Gun Violence

Why We Do What We Do

Behavioral science examines why we act the way we do, and how decisions—often irrational—shape behavior. Our brains default to quick judgments, based on limited information or faulty assumptions. Nelson’s podcast highlights researchers who explore these patterns, showing how small, often unconscious choices can have big consequences.

What drew us to Ludwig’s book is its refusal to rely on rigid ideology. Instead, it looks at data and proposes practical, low-cost solutions to reduce violence. That perspective feels refreshing in Minneapolis, where violence has surged while public debate often stalls. On Friday evening, three people were shot outside the Pantages Theater. Local news coverage lasted about seven seconds. Saturday, a double homicide occurred in the Loring Park neighborhood at Nicollet Avenue and East Grant Street.

Ludwig starts with two assumptions. First, guns are not going away. Despite political rhetoric, bans on assault rifles or high-capacity magazines are unlikely to pass. Second, his focus is not on premeditated crime—such as planned home invasions or gang turf battles. The mass shooting at the Hamoudi Sabri encampment, reportedly linked to Chicago gang disputes over drug-selling territory, falls into that category.

Instead, Ludwig targets the large share of violence triggered by impulsive decisions. A bump in a nightclub or an insult on the street escalates when someone reacts with “lizard brain” thinking. These moments—often no more than ten minutes of poor judgment—can ruin lives. As Nelson noted in our discussion, returning those “worst ten minutes” to people now in prison would change their futures, and those of their victims.

Minneapolis now funds dozens of violence prevention programs. At its most recent meeting, the City Council approved nearly $9 million in contracts for 35 vendors. The scale raises questions: can so many groups deliver consistent, effective services? And how can the city possibly ensure rigorous oversight?

Ludwig’s work suggests useful techniques, especially for younger residents, but success requires vision and discipline. Without it, Minneapolis risks spreading resources thin across a patchwork of organizations with little accountability.

Interview Summary

Kurt Nelson, co-host of the Behavioral Grooves podcast, discusses how behavioral science—drawing from economics, psychology, and neuroscience—explains why people don’t always act rationally. Framed around Jens Ludwig’s book Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, Nelson summarizes Ludwig’s core claim: most gun violence stems less from “evil actors” or pure economics and more from situational, fast, automatic (“System 1”) reactions. Citing Chicago research—such as contrasts between adjacent neighborhoods like Greater Grand Crossing and South Shore with similar gun prevalence but very different homicide rates—he argues environmental context strongly shapes outcomes.

Nelson highlights solutions that focus on the “emotion” side of Ludwig’s equation (emotion + guns = violence). Practical steps include creating “eyes on the street” (active storefronts, porches, foot traffic), better lighting, rapid graffiti abatement, pocket parks on vacant lots, and holding owners of blighted properties accountable—measures that reduce the environmental “priming” toward disorder. He also emphasizes building metacognition and emotional regulation skills, especially for youth, through school curricula, after-school programs, nonprofits, or diversion requirements. Examples include the “Becoming a Man” model and simple exercises that slow impulsive reactions—the idea that taking away or defusing the “ten minutes” when bad decisions occur can prevent many offenses. Police and trained violence interrupters matter as a visible, de-escalatory presence rather than solely punitive force.

Applied to cities like Minneapolis, these are relatively low-cost, scalable interventions that won’t eliminate guns but can meaningfully cut violence—on the order of double-digit reductions. Nelson closes by noting that Behavioral Grooves has passed 500 episodes spanning topics from corporate behavior to polarization, and invites listeners to find the show on major platforms and YouTube, including an upcoming live event featuring University of Chicago professor Nicholas Epley.

The broader takeaway: because people are “predictably irrational,” cities can redesign environments and teach thinking skills to steer split-second choices toward safer outcomes.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Early Voting Sets New Mark

Early voting began Friday, September 19, 2025. On the first day of early voting, 351 ballots were cast at the Early Vote Center, and the city mailed 12,640 absentee ballots—a record number for a Minneapolis municipal election. For comparison, the first day in 2021 saw 3,736 ballots mailed.

If you’re not registered, you can register and vote early. If you don’t have proof of residence, a registered voter from your precinct may accompany you and “vouch” for your address. A registered voter may vouch for up to eight people.

Strong interest could be due to multiple factors: competitive local contests, clearer early-voting options, and sustained outreach by civic groups. The League of Women Voters Minneapolis continues to host nonpartisan candidate forums and publish guides that many voters use to learn about races.

Interview Summary

The conversation with Rebecca Thoman, President of the League of Women Voters Minneapolis, traces the organization’s roots to the post-19th Amendment era and its enduring mission: help voters—originally women, now all residents and especially underserved communities—understand issues, candidates, and how government works. Minneapolis is one of 34 local leagues within the Minnesota state league and the national LWV. Because city elections fall in odd years and attract less attention, the Minneapolis chapter concentrates on boosting awareness and turnout for these contests.

Thoman highlights stubbornly low municipal turnout—peaking at 52% during the last mayoral year and dropping to the 30s and even teens in some wards otherwise. She attributes this to noise in the media environment and confusion about who does what in government. The league’s voter education clarifies “where the levers are,” explaining, for example, that mental health funding is largely county-run and school funding is a state issue. The LWV remains strictly nonpartisan on candidates and parties while advocating on issues through positions long held by the organization (e.g., against gerrymandering), even as some topics have grown more polarized.

On forums, Thoman describes a structured, issues-first format rather than a debate. Moderators ask neutral, vetted questions—some prepared in advance and many drawn from the audience—and enforce decorum: no signage, no outbursts, equal time, and concise answers (typically 1–1.5 minutes). The league records and livestreams events and supplements them with a printed voter guide and Vote411.org, where voters can see sample ballots and candidate responses. For very large fields, such as the mayoral race, moderators rotate who answers first and may pair forums with meet-and-greets to create more one-on-one time.

The Minneapolis operation is run by two part-time staffers and a large, trained volunteer corps, which also conducts extensive high school registration efforts. Venue choices and outreach are made in collaboration with neighborhood councils, which help select accessible locations and anticipate logistical needs. On speech and conduct, Thoman says moderators intervene on name-calling or threats but otherwise allow controversial political views to be heard so voters can judge for themselves. Security is typically handled by host venues; the league alerts public safety officials and would call 911 if needed.

Finally, Thoman underscores practical voting details. Minnesotans can register online, on paper, or at the polls, but there’s a pre-registration cutoff before Election Day; after that date, voters should bring proof of residence (a utility bill often suffices if a license address is outdated). The league plans forums for all competitive city offices this cycle—mayor, every City Council ward with a challenger, Board of Estimate and Taxation, and all Park Board seats—plus partnerships for county races. Upcoming events and recordings are listed at lwvmpls.org and linked from Vote411. On Thursday, Oct 16, 6 - 7:30 pm, they will host a mayoral meet-and-greet planned at the Swedish Institute.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe