Interview with Minneapolis Regulatory Services Director Enrique Velazquez

(The below is read as part of the podcast. The interview begins at 7:20. There is also a transcript available by selecting the transcript button.)

Introduction

This interview was important to us because we wanted to determine for ourselves whether Mr. Velazquez was as problematic as the vocal and belligerent defenders of homeless encampments have made him out to be. We’re at a point in city politics where it has become acceptable to harass elected officials and government employees with whom we disagree. Technology enables a few individuals to send thousands of text messages, emails, and phone calls, which can skew perceptions of what residents consider priorities. When these technologies fail to achieve the desired response, people have resorted to showing up at the homes of officials and threatening them. These tactics are counterproductive and delay solutions to complicated and urgent problems that require collaboration, openness, and negotiation for progress to be made.

In this interview, Mr. Velazquez corrects our use of the term “sweeps.” He believes the term fails to recognize the careful planning involved with closures and the efforts of people attempting to provide services to encampment inhabitants. There are four determining factors used when deciding whether to close an encampment, which are discussed in the interview. Advocates for allowing the encampments to remain often minimize the damaging effects of substance abuse, sex trafficking, and violence the encampments can have on both the people living in them and nearby residents. Ignoring or dismissing these concerns ensures their voices will be ignored, leading to a stalemate.

There is no simple solution to ending homelessness in our city. Dialogue must begin with the assumption that everyone involved wants a humane solution. It’s okay to disagree. However, the dialogue must continue, and new ideas and proposals will have to be considered if we are going to break the cycle we are in. This won’t happen when people are afraid to speak for fear of harassment. Mr. Velazquez says he wants the approach to encampments to include “kindness and humanity.” Minneapolis could have an administrator with a much less sympathetic attitude. If we start the conversation assuming that Mr. Velazquez is sincere, we’ll get closer to finding a solution.

It's possible that the nature of online interaction is contributing to the rigid and apoplectic tone of many exchanges. Anonymity allows users to vent their emotions without considering the human beings receiving their messages. Social media does not encourage the deep and subtle thinking required to solve complex problems. If you wouldn’t say it to someone face-to-face, it’s probably a good indicator that you shouldn’t espouse it on social media. Demonizing those with whom we disagree creates a space where we extract their humanity, allowing us to treat them without respect. It lets us ignore the life experiences and knowledge that person possesses that brought them to their position, whatever that might be. We can all take steps to prevent seeing people we disagree with as objects. When we speak of wanting to see bipartisan action by elected officials, it begins with how we conduct ourselves in our everyday lives.

Topics included in the interview:

• Regulatory Services Overview

• Encampment closures

• Restaurant and business regulations and whether there is a gap for the new regulatory body to fill

• Pet adoption

Feedback notes

Reparation Commissions

The Juneteenth newsletter “Reparation Commissions” generated a lot of feedback. From some of the responses, it was obvious that people did not read the entire newsletter. For the many who did, it seems we could have been more clear. We may publish a follow-up, but we wanted to summarize a few things:

• First, we do believe that the wealth gap is a significant problem in our city. The cycle of poverty impacts more than just Black residents, but since the Chicago reparation commission was focused on Black Americans and it was Juneteenth, we chose to address inherited poverty for this demographic.

• Second, we are skeptical of reparation commissions and think they can be a means for politicians to virtue signal by creating them.

• Third, our suggestions for how to address poverty were meant to encourage debate. It wasn’t an exhaustive list. Some of the suggestions, it was pointed out to us, would not be possible to implement on a city level. However, the intention was to convey that there are actions we can take now to reduce poverty, actions that would help both those in poverty and those more fortunate. We do not need to wait for reparation committees to complete their studies.

We made the mistake of assuming that readers would agree with the first point, that the wealth gap is a persistent problem. In our follow-up newsletter, we will spend more time documenting the facts behind education, home ownership, and savings that led us to this conclusion.

The $13 Million Remodel

We have also been asked to clarify our newsletter, The “$13 Million Remodel”. After the newsletter was published, the budget item was referred back to committee for further research and will be discussed in the Tuesday, June 25^th Administration & Enterprise Oversight Committee meeting. The title for this item indicates one room is being remodeled. However, if you look into the Background Analysis, more than one room is being remodeled.

This contract is for Phase 2 of the Minneapolis Convention Center Meeting Room remodel project which will update all finishes as well as the technology in Meeting rooms 101, 102, M100, M101 and L100. Wall Panel systems will also be replaced in the L100 and M100 meeting rooms.

We have since been informed, but have yet to verify, that a total of 39 rooms are being remodeled. This scope is not documented in what the city council was asked to approve. We would like to see greater transparency around the budget and scope of the project and are actively trying to find time to meet with Jeff Johnson, Executive Director of the Minneapolis Convention Center. Regardless of whether it is one room, several, or 39, we find the price tag to be high. To give some perspective, the state legislature approved $12.5 million for the new Community Performing Arts Center (CPAC), an 8,000-seat amphitheater to be built as part of the Upper Harbor Terminal project.

(Refer to the top of the newsletter for audio link to the interview.)