Twin City Doorways #76

 

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Chicago, IL.]

[Location forgotten.]

[North Loop, Minneapolis.]

[Cedar Avenue, Minneapolis.]

A Smaller St. Paul Planning Commission is Good, Actually

[You can see the problem right here: they could only get 12 people to sit for this photo of the allegedly 21-member commission.]

Don’t look now, but STP leadership is quietly implementing a process reform aimed at streamlining planning and development in the city. This one hit’s close to home, because it’s a widespread change to the Planning Commission, an institution where I served for nine years (2012 to 2021). At the time, that was the term limit.

In short, the proposal (Ordinance 25-79) would reduce the Commission size from 21 to 7, and dissolve all but the (unique) Transportation Committee.* All would be appointed by the mayor.

Put succinctly, I think it’s a good idea because it makes the Commission more flexible and accountable.  Not to point fingers or name names, but the Commission didn’t work that well during my time. There were too many people, and we didn’t really get to know each other. We often struggled to even have a quorum. Meetings were awkward thanks to the size of the group, and changing the time from Friday mornings (either temporarily or permanently) was impossible for the same reason. The change should make the Commission effective and make its urban planning process more legible.

[A much younger me getting sworn in as a Commissioner.]
 

It’s also worth saying that this is not a new idea. As a member of the executive committee, then-member (now chair) Kristine Grill suggested precisely this change back in August of 2020. One of the things Grill researched and pointed out at the time was that almost no city has commissions this large; almost everywhere else is smaller. Then chair Louis Rangel-Morales, then-Planning Director Luis Pereira, and other Commissioners sat down with a proposal to weigh the pros and cons of a smaller commission. 

Here were some variables we discussed:

• Higher level of commitment from members; with fewer people, more would be asked of them and they would develop greater knowledge of the different facets of planning
• Reducing quorum problems (we required 11 of out 21 to form a quorum, which proved difficult at times)
• Holding meetings in the Council chambers, with good audio and video, would improve transparency and public accessibility
• Holding meetings off-site when necessary (say to discuss an ambitious site plan or public meeting on location) would also improve transparency and public accessibility

As I recall, then Chair Rangel-Morales didn’t like the idea so it was laid aside. I recall him suggesting that it would be less representative. In my opinion, quantity does not necessarily equal quality of representation, but then again we disagreed about a lot of things.

The only downside I see is that I don’t really love having membership align with the ward boundaries. I recoil at the thought that “one member per ward” would start to shape discussions around geography, even from a de facto perspective. The point of any Planning Commission is to avoid parochial politics, the idea that you’re “representing” your geography, and to encourage instead thinking about the city as a whole.

That said, there should be folks from the East and West Sides on the Commission, from the North End and Highland and Summit Hill and West 7th and Downtown. It's a big city and those are unique areas. I guess it doesn’t matter that much, as long as the Mayor appoints people with the mandate to think citywide. 

The only point I would add is that this change should come with an increase (at least a tripling?) of the stipend for commissioners time. When I began on the Commission, I received $25 per two-hour meeting, a sum that I had heard was set in the 1990s. As a broke grad student at the time, there were many times where that small check from the City was the only thing that allowed me to pay my rent. Increasing the stipend would allow more working class, younger, and diverse people to participate, and is long overdue regardless thanks to inflationary pressure.

* I was chair of this for years.

You're Not From Here #8: Hot Springs, New Haven, Baltimore this Wednesday 1/7

I'm hosting 2026's first ever You're Not From Here, Are You? (a show for transplants) at the Black Hart of St. Paul next Wednesday, January 7th. I hope you can make it. We have a fascinating and geographically diverse list of guests hailing from (greater) New Haven CT, Hot Springs SD, and Baltimore MD. 

They'll be sharing fun facts about their hometowns, and a bit about what brought them to the lovely Twin Cities region. Come down to the Black Hart at 7pm and get the new year off on the right foot! 

It's fun and free, and I guarantee you'll learn something new.

Hot Springs in winter.

Signs of the Times #193

 

[Cedar-Riverside, Minneapolis.]

[Cedar-Riverside, Minneapolis.]

[Cedar-Riverside, Minneapolis.]

[Cedar-Riverside, Minneapolis. (QR code goes to a travel website.)]

You're Not From Here #7: Seattle, New York City, and Divorced Parents this Wednesday 12/3

I'm excited to announce that the seventh edition of You're Not From Here is this Wednesday, 12/3, at the Black Hart of St. Paul. We'll be having guests from Seattle, New York City, and Divorce Parents (moving around WI, MN, and NH) and it will be great. 

I have to leak that Star Tribune columnist Eric Roper is one of the guests, from the obscure town of Manhattan, so we'll be able to pick his brain about a few things. Theo will tell us about Seattle, while Amy, is going to take us on a tour of her childhood moving around with her divorced parents. 

It'll be a great show. It's free. 7pm. Hope to see you there!