Building a City That Works for Everyone

The Missing Segments in the Fateh Agenda

Candidates often speak of “building a city that works for everyone.” But when the policies they promote divide residents into specific groups, the result is a city that works well for some, and poorly for others.

Minneapolis photo taken by Dale Cruse, 2023.

Sen. Omar Fateh’s platform mirrors a broader strategy employed by the Minneapolis DFL and national Democrats: mobilizing specific segments of the electorate rather than articulating a shared vision. This approach can win at convention politics, but it comes at a cost. It deepens divisions within the city and leaves entire portions of the population without representation in the candidate’s vision.

At the national level, Democrats have struggled to maintain a broad coalition. The tendency to sort voters into increasingly specific identity-based categories—whether by race, religion, or personal identity—narrows the party’s focus. It leaves some voters feeling overlooked or dismissed, even when they share many of the same policy goals.

Segmentation in Practice

The Harris campaign’s decision to host targeted Zoom calls—such as “White Dudes for Harris,” “Jewish Women for Harris,” and “Native Women + Two Spirits for Harris”—is one example of this fragmentation. Instead of uniting voters around shared priorities such as public safety, infrastructure, and economic opportunity, the campaign leaned into dividing lines that can weaken broader support.

International Workers Day March taken by Fibonacci Blue, 2016.

Locally, Fateh’s “City that Works for Everyone” statement singles out specific groups:

• Union workers

• The trans community

• Immigrants

• Renters

• Opponents of traditional policing

• Transit advocates

These groups matter to the city’s future. But what’s missing is equally important: homeowners, business owners, commuters who rely on cars, and residents concerned about public safety reforms that leave gaps in service. By focusing narrowly on groups most likely to support him, Fateh risks leaving other residents with little reason to engage or vote.

Dividing Renters and Homeowners

One example is the renters-versus-homeowners framing. Yes, their priorities sometimes differ, but both groups share the need for affordable, stable housing. When political rhetoric pits them against each other, it distracts from the larger forces driving costs: interest rates, supply and demand, and demographic shifts.

Dividing voters into groups might make sense politically since there are now more renters than homeowners in Minneapolis, but it can create resentment and make it harder to solve problems for the whole city.

The DFL Convention Test

This year’s Minneapolis DFL convention offered another case study. More than 100 complaints have been filed about the process that led to Fateh’s endorsement. A hearing scheduled for August 17 will determine whether the chaos and alleged manipulation rise to the level of overturning the results.

During the convention, leadership addressed a dispute over restroom use. A few attendees objected to sharing facilities with someone of a different birth sex. Party leaders responded that such views had no place in the DFL’s “big tent.” The message was clear: hold this view, and you are outside the party. In that moment, a logistical concern became a boundary marker for ideological conformity—narrowing the coalition the DFL claims to welcome.

Photo taken by Terry Ross, 2016.

When political groups reject disagreement on sensitive issues, they risk shrinking their support. A party that claims to welcome everyone can end up pushing away people whose views haven’t caught up with its current beliefs.

A Broader Vision

Minneapolis’s next mayor and council must focus on the needs of the entire city, not just the coalitions most likely to turn out at endorsement conventions. That means:

• Attracting new businesses and investment.

• Fighting for good wages and worker protections.

• Empowering renters while recognizing the role of responsible property owners.

• Listening to homeowners struggling with property taxes but committed to staying in the city.

It also means avoiding programs, such as loans restricted to specific religious groups, that create the perception of favoritism. The city’s leadership should respect differences without making them the primary organizing principle of governance.

Progress will come when policies are designed to lift the whole city, not just its most politically organized segments. Minneapolis deserves leadership that measures success by shared prosperity and cohesion, not by the satisfaction of individual voting blocs.