The Political Money Race

The Silence Around Shootings

On a recent trip to Chicago, we found ourselves contradicting ourselves as we explained to friends that Minneapolis is safe. We live in South Minneapolis, and we have never referred to it as “unsafe.” We still wouldn’t. But it was difficult to explain how, in the past year alone, our house was broken into and a man with a knife fled through the front window. Then a dozen neighborhood vehicles had their windows smashed in a single night. A man was chased through our yard at 7:15 AM by an extremely large and agitated man claiming the chased man had broken into his car. Days later, the catalytic converter of our car was stolen. We added to the litany: we were blocked from using Nicollet recently because of an active shooter, one that drew armored vehicles and multiple snipers to the area of Alex Pretti’s murder. We hadn’t intended to be shocking. Our friends, visiting from Brooklyn via Chicago, laughed when we defended our city as safe. Nothing similar had happened to them on the streets of New York. The Stubborn Statistics We’d like to see our local politicians as preoccupied with crime as they are with bath houses and whether our city codes have the correct gender-inclusive language. They may not have noticed, but unlike the rest of the country, nearly every crime category in Minneapolis is trending at or above where it was this time last year. If July 4th marks the heart of summer, there might be much more to come. There have been a few disturbing examples lately that received little attention. On Sunday, one person was shot and killed and another wounded near the Wedge Coop [https://www.startribune.com/man-killed-another-wounded-in-south-minneapolis-shooting/601859850]. Police said one group fired on another. Then on Monday, three people were shot near University Avenue Northeast [https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minneapolis-shooting-hospitalizes-multiple-people/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=KSTP+Evening+2026-06-22&utm_term=KSTP+Newsletter+List], one with life-threatening gunshot wounds. Multiple rounds of gunfire erupted, and several people were seen running from the area. Here’s what we typically learn about these shootings: “No arrests have been made and MPD forensic scientists processed the scene and collected evidence.” The lack of concern from elected officials occupying City Hall is disappointing. They seem to have plenty of time to chatter on social media about causes they personally care about, but when it comes to families and victims impacted by shootings and other serious crimes in this city, they are quiet. One gets the sense they believe that if they simply ignore what is happening, it will go away. We recognize the city has initiated its coordinated Operation Safe Summer [https://www.minneapolismn.gov/news/2026/june/summer-safety/], but recent events give us reason to think its effectiveness will be marginal. Violence interrupters, Community Safety Ambassadors, and other programs continue to show few results, but they are liked in theory and so they continue without question. If anyone claims these programs are effective, they’re implying the level of violence in the city would be even worse than current levels without them. Preventing crime is complex. We understand there are many factors that lead to gun violence. One of them: gangs fueled by money earned from selling destructive drugs like crystal meth and fentanyl on our streets. They have turf to protect. Grievances are settled with guns. These crimes don’t fit neatly into calls for harm reduction and voluntary treatment. There must be a more holistic approach, one that spans multiple agencies and treats the sale and use of these highly addictive and dangerous drugs as having consequences beyond the individual user. Before that user bought their packets, a string of laws was broken and lives were ruined to get it to them. A friend of mine showed me live video from outside his apartment building a few weeks ago. Within fifteen minutes, at least half a dozen drug deals took place. Multiple calls to police were met with resistance. He was told that if they don’t allow the drug dealing, dealers will simply move somewhere else. Neighbors feel held hostage, unable to walk safely on their street. These problems extend beyond the user. There must be a mix of incentives that encourage treatment, education, healthcare, housing, and job placement that can slow down shootings and drug use in this city. However, we won’t get there without sustained attention from elected officials, and that is currently absent. The Citizen Responsibility To be clear: highlighting these issues is more than a call for more police. As we see time and again, they are picking up shell casings after the shootings take place. They rarely prevent crimes, and the rate at which they solve them is terrible. More police could act as a deterrent, but that is but one factor. More police could also contribute to higher clearance rates. Crime victims deserve greater accountability from the system. Family. Economic development. Jobs. Education and the opportunity for improving an individual’s life, these would seem as great, or greater, determinants of crime involvement than the current anti-violence programs being funded by the city and county. Residents and politicians who stoke the flames of righteousness will need to stop turning their backs on the problem for progress to be made. At the recent DFL endorsing conventions, some delegates literally turned their backs on Sheriff Witt. This act of performative virtue signaling accomplished nothing other than showing that the DFL is bereft of ideas for how to address the daily harm victims of crime are experiencing. It’s easy to oppose the police with a poster or a post on social media. It’s incredibly difficult to give someone a reason to stay in school, work hard, and start a family. Those actions take time. They’re difficult. And the sense of pride they elicit contains more private joy than flash. The violence taking place in our streets. The dismissive attitude about it. The families forced to care for the wounded and maimed. These are causes worth our attention. Until we can change the current trajectory in a meaningful way, Minneapolis will continue to tread in the murky waters of stagnation. 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 [https://www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

My Father’s Father Was Tough to Love

His name was Kenneth White. He was 19 years old when Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941. According to my father, Ken ran naked from his barracks in search of cover. It wasn’t until he found the safety of a bunker that he realized the bottom of his feet were cut and bleeding. As many military men do, he moved his family all over the world, Puerto Rico (my grandmother loved it), North Carolina, Germany, Kansas, and others. He was married four times. My grandmother was his third wife. Three divorced him; one died before she could. After retiring from the military, Ken lived in San Diego and then moved to the Villages in Florida, where he died at 94. He enjoyed tending his roses, driving a Dodge Charger extremely fast, reading cheap Old West novels, and long-distance running. When he visited my father in Kansas City, he’d sit on a kitchen stool most of the day, telling stories. He smelled of Old Spice aftershave and talcum powder. Around 3 p.m., he’d start drinking Budweiser and wouldn’t stop until he stumbled to bed around 11. By dinner, he was pretty well sloshed, spending the night talking about how the country was going to s**t. The reasons varied, but mostly they had to do with Black people, Hispanics, gays, women, and Jews. There was no use trying to change his mind. He believed his travels and experience qualified him as an expert. Short of throwing him out on the lawn, we were forced to endure him. Keep in mind that Fox News launched in 1996. Ken was his own version of it, and if you’d heard him speak, the success of Fox News would come as no surprise. I am the only one in my immediate family who went to college instead of joining the military. My father and brother were in the Navy. My uncles were both in the Army. Even my aunt spent her life doing logistical planning for the Special Forces. Luckily, my father didn’t stay in. I don’t think he wanted that life for his family. Instead, he started his own company as a salesman. It meant traveling most weeks, but at least his family could stay in one place. His choice brought about a generational shift. Modern Parenting Fatherhood has changed significantly in the last few decades. More men are involved in their children’s lives, attending sporting events and dance recitals, knowing their kids’ teachers, helping find activities, visiting schools to ensure they’re a good fit. We spend our paychecks on baseball bats, skates, piano lessons, and gymnastics. Many fathers, certainly not all, have chosen to be more accountable, more involved, and more caring than the fathers they knew. There’s an emphasis on being good people. While racism is still woven into the American fabric, the parts of the country where you can speak like my grandfather and not be knocked off your chair are fewer. Father’s Day is Sunday. While men continue to show their faults, it’s worth taking a moment to recognize that generational change is occurring, too slowly for many, but it is occurring. Many men are making an effort to be more emotionally intelligent, less selfish, more open, more flexible. There are role models of men who lead with integrity, for whom violence is the last and worst solution to problems. These ideas feel particularly sharp right now because we recently heard the Obamas speak at the opening of their Presidential Library in Chicago. If you haven’t had a chance, it’s worth listening. The contrast to our current government is stark, shocking, even. It was a reminder that we were hopeful once, that we did believe positive change was possible, and that people of different origins, races, and religions could work together in big, audacious ways to accomplish what previously seemed impossible. It’s easy to forget that America has had leaders who inspired us. Leaders who spoke with eloquence and thoughtfulness. Leaders who sought to bring out the best in each of us rather than turn us against one another. Michelle Obama’s words keep circling through my thoughts: Because hope is the essential spark that lights the fire of change. But hope is a choice. Whether or not we use our voices to speak up is a choice. Voting is a choice. Being a decent human being is a choice. Believing that we still hold the power to build a country that reflects us all is a choice. Being a decent father is a choice. Whether you are a biological father, a stepfather, a coach, a teacher, or any man in a position responsible for another human being, you make a choice to treat them with dignity. Men choose whether to emulate the Kenneths of this world or to open their hearts to those who are different from them. They choose whether to be curious about a stranger or to react with fear and hatred. Most of us have had examples of both. We’re grateful that more and more men are choosing to pass on their finest qualities instead of lazily accepting their worst selves. We’re also grateful there are fathers in the world like Barack Obama, men who can appreciate and care for a woman as confident and successful as Michelle Obama, and who set an example to other men of what a husband and father can be. A man who earned the praise Michelle gave him: And you did it all with such grace and class and cool that you made the hardest job in the world look like a walk in this beautiful park. Happy Father’s Day to all the men striving to be a positive force in the lives of their families and children. The world needs you. Keep going. Thank you for reading. 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 [https://www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Political Money Race

The Obama Precedent It’s ancient history, but Barack Obama was the first candidate to forgo public campaign financing and spending limits for his presidential campaign. On June 19, 2008, he sent a video message to supporters explaining that small-dollar donations would easily surpass the money he’d gain from public matching funds and those same donations would allow him to avoid spending limits. Obama broke the system with his popularity. No presidential candidate since has accepted limits. In his campaign for Mayor of New York City, Mamdani made a video asking people to volunteer instead of sending money. He had raised too much. He agreed to a $7.9 million expenditure cap and had to announce in both the primary and general election that he was halting his fundraising. It’s a rare politician indeed who finds themselves in such an awkward position. We mention these examples because the latest round of Minnesota campaign contributions were just released [https://www.transparencyusa.org/mn/candidates]. We understand that money is the lifeblood of a political campaign, but that doesn’t mean we like it. Without donations, campaigns are unable to hire staff, make commercials, or mail flyers and print yard signs. The fact is that modern society is awash in distractions. TV was only the beginning. Now there are multiple streaming services, social media platforms, newsletters, radio, and podcasts. For a candidate to break into the consciousness of the average voter, it takes significant effort and funding. However, we can recognize the reality of modern campaigning and still be uncomfortable with it. There are simply too many examples of how donors curry favor and influence over our political arena. When Too Much Is Too Much Influence isn’t always bad. There are certainly people aligned with our values who donate to candidates. But it works both ways. Elon Musk is now a trillionaire. His values are often opposed to our own, and yet his wealth gives him tremendous sway over elections. We would argue that democracy is damaged when he, or others like him, threaten to primary an elected official if that official doesn’t do their bidding. This type of influence goes far beyond buying ads or yard signs to promote a candidate. We may be in the minority, but we would like to see more elections where candidates qualify for public funding and adhere to spending limits. We’ve watched as vast amounts of money have been spent on unsuccessful campaigns. In his 104-day campaign for President, Michael Bloomberg spent approximately $1.1 billion. On his campaign for governor of California, Tom Steyer, another billionaire, spent $216 million. Michelle Cottle sums up our feeling about this spending in her New York Times opinion piece: “He Spent $558 Million. What a Waste.” [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/11/opinion/tom-steyer-california-governor.html] It’s nearly impossible not to think about the good in society that could be accomplished if these campaign funds were funneled into more human-centered projects. How many homeless could have been housed? How many lives could have been saved from drug overdoses? The list of worthy pursuits is long. There’s also no guarantee that the candidate who raises and spends the most will be the best leader. They may have charisma and connections, but the nuts and bolts of political office are more mundane. Often the “candidate” may not be a talented “politician,” or someone who can work the levers of compromise in order to achieve the best outcomes for their constituents. The skills involved frequently do not align. If you review the figures that candidates have raised in their quest to be Minnesota’s next Governor, Senator, or Attorney General, you may be tempted to decide who will win based on who has raised the most money. But it’s worth pausing to consider who you like best, regardless of their purse size. Reforms to our campaign financing are needed, but they won’t be enacted anytime soon. Until then, it’s up to us to sort through the distractions and spin and elect the best person for the job. Thank you for reading. 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 [https://www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

An Insider's View of the Uptown Real Estate Market

The Counter Argument For today’s interview, I sought out someone with real-world experience in property ownership around Uptown. I wanted to test the claims made in Christian Heller’s May 26 Star Tribune Commentary, “Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown’s problems” [https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-urban-revival-public-safety-affordable-homes/601847919?utm_source=gift], particularly his explanations for the area’s vacant storefronts. Heller argued, first, that landlords are using spaces for passive speculation and that store size is part of the problem. Bruce counters that major tenants like the Kitchen Window, Urban Outfitters, and Apple were successful for years. Many attribute the subsequent vacancies to the upheaval following George Floyd’s murder, which drove away both shoppers and businesses. The mayor’s proposed “more doors” approach, subdividing larger spaces for smaller, independent retailers, sounds logical but, as Bruce explains, isn’t the solution many hope it is. But what struck me most was Heller’s claim about affordable housing: “The property owners who hold vacant space hostage would rather use it as a tax write-off than provide stable homes for the community.” I’ve heard this refrain in progressive circles often enough, but Bruce, who has firsthand market experience, calls it unfounded. As he points out, any tax benefit a landlord receives falls far short of the losses from vacancy. It’s like spending a dollar to get back 60 cents. Yes, you could lose the entire dollar, but 40-cent losses on every dollar will still destroy your business. The real issue, then, isn’t economics, it’s credibility. If Heller had two decades as a landlord under his belt and could explain how to profit from vacant buildings, his argument might land. Instead, the piece follows a familiar pattern: people without business experience telling those who operate in it what they should do. It mirrors a city government stocked with policy experts and nonprofit leaders who have high confidence in their ability to shape business operations, despite limited exposure to how markets actually work. That’s not an argument for excluding nonbusiness voices from government, but there’s a strong case that Minneapolis would be stronger if our leaders solicited more input from the business community and genuinely grappled with the real-world costs of the policies they pass. Wanting to Be Positive Tuesday morning started poorly. My wife’s urgent texts arrived during a meeting: someone had stolen our muffler overnight. She discovered it when she tried to leave for work, the noise had even woken neighbors down the block. Later, heading to record with Bruce, I was rerouted off 28th Street. A dozen squad cars, armored vehicles, a helicopter, and what became Interim Police Chief Bill Peterson’s first crisis was unfolding. A man released from prison, a wanted fugitive, had fired on police. The lockdown lasted hours. During our interview, sirens continued and cell phone alerts went out. After we finished, the entire block where Alex Pretti was murdered remained swarmed with police. According to Star Tribune reports, the area “has been stressed for months by immigration enforcement, drug use and the rising cost of living.” Some days in Minneapolis, staying positive takes real effort. But Bruce and I did find a few reasons for optimism. We closed discussing the bright spots Uptown has lately, less visible drug use, returning businesses, the Art Fair coming back August 7–9, and a new movie club started by Uptown United. There are wins to celebrate. On days like Tuesday, though, you have to work harder to see them clearly. Thank you for reading. For paid subscribers, we’re planning a special happy hour on July 9. Save the date, more details to follow. 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 [https://www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Changing the Way DFL Politicians Speak to People Is Only the First Step

The Humphrey Mondale dinner Firday night drew a sold-out crowd to the Minneapolis Convention Center. For DFL leaders and donors, it was an opportunity to network and discuss the party’s path forward. Past keynote speakers have included Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren. This year’s speaker was Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, a choice that carried a message. Beshear’s record speaks for itself. According to the DFL website: “The Beshear administration has secured more than $35 billion in private sector investment, the most of any governor in state history, driving over 60,000 new full-time jobs and supporting over 1,100 new and expanded business projects. Under his leadership, Kentucky has achieved record budget surpluses and experienced historically low unemployment rates.” That’s a resume most governors envy. It also gives weight to his central message: Democrats need to stop using jargon like “justice-involved individuals” and start speaking “normal language,” as Paula Chesley, who attended the event, shared with us. Beshear understands the reputational damage Democrats have inflicted by importing language from sociology seminars into everyday conversation. Surveys confirm it [https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3959.]: people dislike Trump, but they dislike Democrats even more. The polling points to two areas where the DFL could gain traction with voters, if they develop a coherent plan: the economy and immigration. The Economy Ditching classroom scrubbed language for plain speech is necessary. But it’s not enough. The DFL must demonstrate that it can improve people’s economic lives, that working people can earn wages to raise families and afford healthcare. While Republicans have lost credibility on the economy, that hasn’t automatically benefited Democrats. Minnesota needs a comprehensive state economic plan. Agriculture accounts for roughly 15% of the state’s total economic output and supports over 320,000 jobs. Tariffs and climate volatility have made farming increasingly precarious, an opportunity for the DFL to build a stability plan. Meanwhile, Minnesota’s urban centers are scrambling. Minneapolis pins hope on the 2028 NFL Draft, but one-off events are short-term boosts; most of that revenue flows to downtown hotels and restaurants, not throughout the regional economy. We need something with real reach. Rochester offers one model: a strategic focus on healthcare and life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology and software, and education. We don’t need to copy it, but we do need a regional plan that actively encourages businesses to locate here. Right now, a company considering Minneapolis faces a wall of regulations and taxes first, amenities like parks, schools, and community come second, if at all. Outsiders see instability and chaos. There are real differences between the state DFL’s message and Minneapolis’s more DSA-aligned wing. But unless you’re deeply embedded in local politics, you won’t grasp those distinctions. What you see instead is a city divided, one that seems hostile to the conditions that attract jobs and investment. The math is simple: we cannot shrink the tax base by driving out employers while expanding government employment. Immigration Minneapolis residents earned the recognition they received for their response to ICE enforcement. At great personal risk, many stepped between federal agents and their immigrant neighbors. We showed the world what people-powered resistance looks like when facing government overreach. But what’s next? Opposing Trump is part of the answer, though without Senate control, Democrats will be reduced to Instagram complaints. The harder work begins with sanctuaries that actually function. Minneapolis welcomed a large influx of Ecuadorians fleeing gang violence and economic collapse. That was the right call. But it requires a real plan. When these families enter our schools, we need Spanish-language teachers to support them. Without that preparation, something dangerous happens: residents who initially supported sanctuary policies watch their schools and neighborhoods struggle under the strain and grow resentful. It’s not racist to demand that politicians who pass sanctuary policies fund the services those policies require. When they don’t, it reads as precisely the kind of poor governance that pushes people away from the DFL, and into the arms of alternatives. Republicans understand this vulnerability well. They’ve bused migrants to blue cities, then deployed a media apparatus of cable news and content creators to document the resulting chaos. A strong DFL immigration policy must be both enforceable and affordable. Without it, the party will remain a target. Reckoning Both party conventions, DFL and Republican, offered ample evidence that it might be time to rethink the endorsement process altogether. The Los Angeles mayoral race provides an instructive contrast: their jungle-primary system advances the top two vote-getters regardless of party backing. Right now the race for second is a toss-up between the reality-TV figure Spencer Pratt and Councilwoman Nithya Raman, with incumbent Karen Bass holding a lead. Many Minnesota candidates are ignoring party endorsements. It raises an obvious question: what’s the point of all that energy and money? Ken Martin, the DNC chair, was forced to release the party’s after-action report from the last presidential election. One of the less discussed points: the party spends too much time talking to itself and not enough time in the communities it claims to represent. Most voters don’t care about internal party machinery. They want results. They want jobs, schools, healthcare. They’ll support any candidate who credibly promises to deliver those things. If the DFL wants to expand its base, the answer is clear: listen harder to the obstacles people face, then build policies that address them. Explaining those policies in normal language only works if the DFL has actually done the work to produce results. Words come second. Delivery comes first. Thank you for reading. 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 [https://www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]