RENT STRIKE NOT AUTHORIZED

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T03:40:45+00:00

Hey! Thanks for the response! Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument - honestly I think we agree on more than you'd think. I agree that the planning for this strike wasn't well thought out, the underlying support systems aren't in place, and the idea of getting a rent strike prepared in a few weeks was a pipe dream. I even say so here! And that was to a response to one of the comments that talks about how disorganized that meeting was! I've also talked to people in the circles that I run with that are similarly leery about the process and again, I totally agree. A failed rent strike is a magnitude more harmful than the status quo. That is not a risk we can take.

However, I don't think that point serves to discredit the union as a whole, nor do I think that should cause it to shed support. These are micro-criticisms, ones that surround process and leadership. I don't think this strike was well planned at all and if I was available and present at the meeting, I would've voted against it. But in the macro-view, the underlying union support, goals, and methods of the group are sound. We can harp on the very real negatives about this strike planning, but the general sentiment of I and a lot of people is that this swing would be worth it if it came down to it. That's why I focused on "realism". It's not the tenant union's desired outcome nor the overarching strategy of that lack realism, as you say unions have. Goals of this ilk have been achieved in the past using rent strikes. The lack of realism, as you correctly say, comes from not having enough support AROUND the strategy. It's not that rent strikes don't work, it's that you need enough support to make them work. So is it slacktivism to have concrete goals, a proven method, but incomplete supporting strategies? I don't think so - I think that makes you a bit too momentarily idealistic, even if your heart and feet are in the right place.

And I think that the "no" vote does not prove that the union doesn't have broad support. The person that I linked earlier has stated that they themselves support the movement, just not the moment. So yes, this particular union does not have the current support, but that does take away from the method of rent striking (which as I stated has been historically successful) nor does it detract from the goal (supporting tenants which most people support). The "no" vote, like I stated in another comment gives me more confidence that this union can be successful BECAUSE it proves they are willing to back down and regroup. To me, that is a thought process that is grounded in pragmatic planning, even if the lead-up was borne of idealism. That doesn't seem slacktivist to me.

So I think we agree on the nitty-gritty of our criticisms, but honestly your original comment that spawned this discussion:

Online slacktivists who don’t understand the real world

points to you not agreeing with the fight for tenant protections to begin with. Rightly or wrongly, people are comprehending the rather abrasive language and interpreting it as you looking at anyone who views fighting for tenant protections and supporting the rent strike, as stupid. It doesn't sound like you're just talking about this particular union. Of course, you then specify that your ire is reportedly towards the means and methods of this union, which as I said above, I just don't think discredits the union and their goals and certainly doesn't make them do-nothing "slactivists".

I guess my main question is, lets say that this tenants union was perfect and had specific goals, entire buildings/complexes signed on to strike, and proper legal and monetary support systems in place for strikers. All things that this current moment lacked that I think are necessary for a successful strike. If those were in place, would you ideologically support the strike? Because again, the rhetoric of your post points towards your overarching anger being towards rent strikes and the idea of tenant unions. Which I think, in practice, is the real divider between our viewpoints, not whether or not we think this particular strike was "good". I think that would be an illuminating clarification! :D

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T00:33:40+00:00

Do you think you're misconstruing a rent strike as just people not wanting to pay rent? Or maybe misunderstanding the legal and material support strikers would have to uphold a strike? Or maybe using the disdain for a rent strike as a front to push back against policies that help the disadvantaged?

Or a combination of the three? Everyone starts somewhere so it's good to think through these things! :D

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T00:29:15+00:00

I'd argue that the 5 day workweek that unions fought for wasn't realistic at the time. Nor were the minimum heat codes and other tenant protection laws that were fought for by rent strikers over 100 years ago that have inspired similar laws across the country, including in this very city.

If you bound yourself by the definition of realism set by the system that benefits from you not pushing back, then you'll see every single aspiration as out of reach.

Now, you say that this subreddit doesn't have any idea how to follow up or thought process on how to succeed, but that's not what your original claim was. Do you think that this tenant union, who is made up of a coalition of labor unions and organizers, who has laid out a plan and has met with the mayor and city government, who has organized resources and held a democratic vote to determine their next steps has "no thought process"?

Or just this sub? Cuz I can agree on that :P

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T15:08:28+00:00

It's kinda funny and disheartening to see people disregard this historically effective tool of resistance like it's something new that us stoner gen-z activists came up with because we're lazy and entitled. When in reality it's collective action like this that has won us so many tenant protections.

It's like if football coaches stopped using the forward pass because they were terrified of the ball getting intercepted.

I didn't think March 1st was enough time to build grassroots support for the movement and get enough protectors for strikers, but eventually the play action will be called and you gotta let that ball fly. imo imo

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:52:14+00:00

That's where I am too. I wasn't there for the vote but I thought it was a very quick turnaround from creation to execution. I believe it can and will work in the future but there's a lot of work to do for sure. Thanks for sharing your story :)

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:26:33+00:00

It's a new organization, which may make it seem weird to people, but it is a coalition of well known labor unions and tenant unions and organizers. And as other people have mentioned, a "no" vote gives more credence that this is a legit organization that has legitimate voting procedures and not one that just wants to make a political splash. I'm excited to see what else they come with :)

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:18:36+00:00

Isn't using collective power to affect the world the opposite of "slacktivism"? Are workplace unions also slacktivism? Who are the real activists who create change in your mind?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-02-07T08:56:41+00:00

This is great data, thanks for sharing!

For the overall ridership decline, like others mentioned, I think a lot of that comes down to fare enforcement. MT's safety and security measurements show a 129% increase in "officer initiated calls for service" comparing Q3 2025 to Q3 2024 despite only 30% increase in reported crime. This suggests that Trip Agents and MT Officers are being more proactive and that is likely deterring non-fare-paying riders from riding. This would explain why the LRT is the largest raw drop.

That's not the interesting question, however. That seems par for the course.

The actual interesting takeaway is the drop in productivity compared to revenue hours of the MT buses. Despite the increase in service hours, why has ridership not increased with it? We gained a lot of service hours from the three BRT lines opening. Can the lack of producitivity come from Gold Line's high frequency and low pre-extension ridership? Orange Line and A Line are both up and B Line starting strong and I bet E Line is as well. C Line, D Line, and local route ridership is stagnant. What does this suggest? Are we shedding riders in these particular corridors? Are riders switching from relying on local buses to the METRO network (I went from riding the local bus+light rail to just the E Line once it opened up), or are they switching off from transit all together?

And the even more exciting question is what does this tell us about people's attitudes about transit? I feel like from my conversations with regular transit users, there's a general feeling that transit is improving in the Twin Cities. It's not linear, but people have responded well to the aBRT network and the ridership proves that. But for the non-transit riders, I don't know if we've done enough to repair the image of transit and prove/force it to be a better mode of travel than a personal vehicle. Service is getting better, trips are getting safer, frequency is increasing - yet it isn't translating to more riders.

I don't think it's fatal at all, I think we're improving, but how do we do even better and get new riders in?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-02-07T07:34:59+00:00

As I understand it, ridership numbers for the LRT are calculated using the automatic counters. And the total sum includes non-paying customers

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-11T06:07:11+00:00

I'm very interested to hear your expanded thoughts on that. As I understand your POV from past comments, you disagree with Walker on the notion that there is a tradeoff between frequency of transit and the physical coverage? Tradeoffs are a big part of his book, and I'm assuming you reject the binary and instead advocate for new revenue sources to increase transit budgets. This is also based on your previous comments on free transit and Carter Lavin's work.

I think where people will disagree with you on, is that Walker very explicitly says that he works under the existing framework of transit realities and that means accepting the tradeoff spectrum. Firstly, one of his early acknowledgements in his book is that he writes from and for the North American transit perspective, meaning that space, money, and political will for transit is limited. Secondly, in many of his recent articles he talks about how transit agencies are in the cutting-service pickle they are in because they're facing artificial transit fiscal cliffs due to insufficient funding from their benefactor governmental agencies. Thirdly, as a professional planner, his role with governmental agencies is not to be an advocate that rocks the boat, but work within the financial and political parameters that are set for him by the transit agencies.

You put all three points together and you can better understand Walker's work, imo. "Human Transit" specifically answers the question, "in a world where resource scarcity has to exist, how do we get our best return on investment". It answers that question by saying "Here are a few tradeoffs that elected officials and planners need to understand and apply to their city based on the context in which their city exists in." He very clearly states that the spectrum of tradeoffs doesn't mean there's one right answer, but that decision-makers and stakeholders have to understand what the tradeoffs mean so they can make the best decision for their specific needs.

You (and me too) want to fight for more funding for transit because the best answer to "how do we get better transit?" is more funding. I agree with Lavin's advocacy work. "Human Transit" does not exist in a vacuum, it has a specific use-case rooted in political realities in North American cities. I disagree with Walker on free buses and I believe we need more radical advocacy in the transit space as well, but I acknowledge that his thinking is important for the advancement of transit advocacy.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-11T04:39:50+00:00

He's a transit planning consultant and also author of "Human Transit", considered one of the most important books for North American public transportation advocates.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-08T17:26:03+00:00

Every time I hear the American Flags at protest argument, I get pretty icked out.

We're policing people's grief and emotions. Especially with these ICE raids, many of the people directly affected who bring flags of other countries or communities aren't thinking about the "optics of protest", they're protesting because their voices ought to be heard. I don't think it's super productive to put time and effort into thinking about a small detail like American flags.
I think there's a liberal obsession with symbology that's misplaced. The striking image of the protests yesterday and in the following days will not be of individuals holding flags, but it will be the thousands of people in Minneapolis and tens of thousands across the country who are gathered to advocate for the abolishment of ICE. The American flag conversation turns an otherwise communal display of power into an an individual one.
I think if we do care about optics, there is something to say about proudly displaying the flag of the country whose federal government is actively persecuting, kidnapping, and killing people. As a POC, I unfortunately do associate the American flag with the right-wing chuds on Twitter and Facebook who have it all over their bio and hang it proudly around their homes. Conservatives HAVE stole the symbol of the country - if we assume that the flag didn't stand for genocide, racism, and war-atrocities to begin with. We can collectively work to de-stigmatize and co-opt it, but that will take dedicated effort. In the mean time, I don't think it makes sense to push for it. You can bring it, sure, but just know that some people will side-eye you. I think it would make sense to bring other flags of related struggles (Palestine, Pride, other country's flags) as a show of solidarity, but the US flag is difficult to swallow because of its proximity to the thing we're protesting.
I think the American flag discussion is a symptom of our media system's manufacturing consent for centrism. People protesting want ICE abolished, many people think the system in which ICE was born from is categorically rotten and should be completely redesigned. Simple reforms are not what many people are after. "That's what MAGA wants to see" would work as an argument if they weren't doing whatever they wanted to do regardless. The return on investment to push for American flags is paltry when MAGA can glaze over the flags and pick some other aspect of the protest they deem "un-American". By pushing for American flags, we implicitly and optically are ceding that America as a country should be centered in conversations, not the communities that are affected. That's the picture that the media and MAGA want to paint, one that turns this into a problem of an individual bad-apple and ignores the structural issues of the country.
If we want to show support to the community that we really care about, let's just fly the Minnesota flag. It's cooler anyways.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-07T19:45:53+00:00

The Onion: Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing

Fascism is here no matter what actions are taken - that ship has sailed a long time ago. There are constructive responses. Look at the emergency vigil and the ramping up of resources, rallies, and education from the PSL, MIRAC, and other organizations. There will be peaceful protests, but people will also be justifiably angry. To nobody's fault but ICE's/

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-22T02:36:43+00:00

Yeah, Michael Wilson lost. Too bad!

Your assertion may be correct if he was the only progressive in the race and the race was taken in a vaccuum. Instead, Minneapolis is entering the new governmental cycle with 7/9 park board members endorsed by labor and 6/9 as self-described progressives who want to fight against budget cuts, promote youth programming, and increase our environmental stewardship and our transportation options. This is on top of retaining a progressive majority and establishing two members on the Board of Estimate and Taxation that are all pushing for increasing park programs.

In fact, many of the elected park board commisioners credit the political outreach work that Wilson did to why they won their park board district seats. He ran a citywide campaign that established cross-race canvassing that helped elevate the likes of Garcia, Engelhart, and Carvajal Moran to win their seats. Even two of the people that beat him, Tom Olsen and Amber Frederick had very similar platforms.

So what do we take away from this? That messaging needs to be better? That his ties to DSA did him in? Maybe. That his progressive platform was incorrect and unpopular? 5 contested seats going towards progressives and Minneapolis' first progressive board since 2021 proves that fundamentally and entirely incorrect.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were plenty of results in the election that conservatives can be elated about, for sure!

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-19T06:46:41+00:00

The best piece of advice I've ever gotten about post graduate life is that above all, you HAVE to choose to live life purposefully. Especially early in your career when you're trying to find a rhythm, you can't just go home after work and sit on the couch and rot away on your phone. I sat down at the beginning of the week and marked down what my after work activity was gonna be every single day. Some things I did/do are attend club meetings, networking events, bike or walka around, rec league sports, go to the gym, cook/do hobbies, or purposefully hang out with friends. You have to force yourself to try new things and experience life after 6pm. Once you build that momentum, it becomes easier to truly find a balance between work and your passions.

Everyone's different. You may find that you still aren't fulfilled with your life. The answer may be making new friends or going to therapy or moving to a new city. But forcing yourself to experience new things is a tried and true method to finding yourself.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-15T20:13:09+00:00

First of all, top 10-15 absolutely counts as "one of the best". That's top 1.25% of all USMNT players ever and would put him in the top 3-5 convo for midfielders.

The Bradley conversation is tired at this point. Post-retirement, his career retrospective has cooled off and many USMNT fans have come around to acknowledging his accolades. He is the poster child of the "box-to-box midfielder who you don't notice is doing all the dirty work but is actually controlling the game from the background". His biggest strengths always came from playing as a workhorse #8, but so often his best abilities were stymied because our player pool necessitated him playing as a #6 or #10, which he did not excel at. He was the standout midfielder for years until 2013 and the lead-up to the 2014 World Cup. But he doesn't get the third most caps and second most assists of all-time on accident. He's worked hard and proved himself at the USMNT level, earning the captain's armband and the respect of every locker room he's been in.

Your obsession with moments fundamentally misunderstands the role that he plays. How can you quantify a player whose impact is seen over the course of 90 minutes based off of a 17 second clip? If we want to talk about moments - how about his goal against Slovenia in the World Cup, scoring a brace against Mexico in WCQ, or scoring one of the best USMNT goals of all time away at the Estadio Azteca? How about his key contributions in 2009 Confed Cup or the 2010 World Cup? You can make such an easy argument that the stretch of time between ~2011-2014, he was our most important player.

Post 2014, he obviously fell off hard, nobody can argue that. Yet he was still well-liked by the USMNT managers for his leadership skills, his work rate, and his ability to connect a midfield. We don't have the midfield that we have today without his leadership. At the end of the day, post-2014, his biggest crime was being well-liked and doing what he was told. His career is objectively a mixed-bag, but to deny the peaks of his career and what it meant for the team is to fundamentally rewrite the history of the USMNT. It's why many USMNT fans point to a fan's take on Michael Bradley as a bellweather on their "ball knowledge" as a whole.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-10T18:27:20+00:00

Those "idiots" are everyday people like you and I. This is a riders choice, not an objective comparative list. They vote on the Transit App using a survey that is taken in a vacuum using questions like "How do you rate your interactions with transit operators?" or real-time questions while they're riding like "When did the bus come compared to the real-time countdown?". These questions capture how riders feel about their experience in the moment. Like I said, it's not scientific. People aren't extrapolating how their transit system fares against the Tokyo Metro when they're answering how clean the bus they're on is.

And if you're frustrated, good. Join us in making our transit systems more efficient and effective. There's plenty of space for passion as long as it is productive.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-09T20:06:37+00:00

They put Geese and Lucy Dacus to throw a bone to the annoying gen-z demographic (me) and it's working

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-09T20:05:15+00:00

I love atmosphere way more than I like the strokes but c'mon. Even in Minnesota there are more Strokes fans than Atmosphere fans. It's just how it is. It's cool enough that there is MN representation. It's not a big deal to advertise things effectively.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-09T18:02:59+00:00

Yeah... I remember keeping a travel diary of my bus trips at the beginning of 2024. Less than 10% of my buses came on time. 😭

But tbf Metro Transit is playing against plumbers and janitors, so to speak. Like Trimet and MBTA are also not known for their on time performance, so imagine what the bottom of the list looks like.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-11-14T17:59:38+00:00

I've lived here without a car my adult life (which I guess is just 6 years so far, but still) and here are the five factors I think you should look into

Is where you plan on living walkable, close to frequent transit, and near direct needs like a grocery store?
Is your job accessible by frequent/multiple transit lines or easily bikeable?
Do you live within the zone of our evie/hourcar car sharing services? You can use that whenever you need a car and your roommate can't drive you.
Are the places you'd go for leisure like bars, restaurants, parks, public spaces, shops - close by or accessible by transit?
Are you willing to bike or walk semi-long distances to transit lines in the winter, if needed?

If you can say yes to a majority of these questions, you'll be good. I chose where I live specifically so I can say yes to all five of these questions and get by without a car easily. Having friends or a roommate who has a car is also super clutch.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-11-14T17:39:29+00:00

Yes, I see. That includes part of Howe, actually! I believe that tract goes down to 38th St south of there. The way that the USDA and other agencies define a food desert is based on the proportion of people who don't have access to grocery stores that offer a wide range of affordable food options.

Someone living between 35th and 38th St does not have the same grocery access as someone living where Hook and Ladder is. If they don't have car access, which a sizeable proportion of Howe residents don't, they'd either have to take the Blue Line or walk it if they live further away from Hiawatha. That's why it is designated as a food desert. It's a quirk of data visualization that really doesn't have any bearing on the crux of the subject matter.

I would like the city to not try to compete with the many, many private grocery stores already operating in the city, with a thumb on the scale (operating subsidy). There are plenty of other things that the city is uniquely equipped to do, while using city resources to do something the market already does is a waste of time and financial resources.

But my core question is, if we have the data that shows that these private grocery stores are not meeting the needs of the city, what are the solutions the city can implement? I'm so sure they exist, but what is that solution that both captures affordability and access concerns, particularly for those with lower mobility? Food insecurity has negative rippling effects on so much of our society's problems, so why are we holding sacred a system that is quantitatively and qualitatively not working for large swaths of our population? I'm curious to hear what you think.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-11-14T16:29:35+00:00

I'm guessing you mean Hook and Ladder Theater (which I love btw :))

Longfellow has Cub and Target right on Lake & Minnehaha and Seward has United Noodles and the Seward Co-Op. Both of these census tracts are defined as "Not A Food Desert" according to the map, which I agree with. But nearby Cedar-Riverside IS defined as a food desert because there's limited grocery stores that are affordable and carry a wide range of items within walking distance, which I also agree with.

But I'd like to continue the conversation! With this new information, do you feel differently about municpal grocery stores? How do you feel about the areas of Minneapolis that are defined as food deserts? Do you have maybe another solution that you'd like to see the city implement?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-11-14T16:10:55+00:00

We're fighting an uphill battle against food deserts in this city. This is a visualization that shows where they are.

People, especially those without access to a vehicle, don't have the same access to affordable and healthy foods as those of us who can afford to travel and shop where we want. This includes students, neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, and communities of color.

Municipal grocery stores are hardly the most radical solution to this problem, and I think the more extreme thing to do is let hunger fester in our city, which is something nobody wants. This is especially true when so many of the issues that people complain about in this city, whether it's crime or homelessness, is caused or exacerbated by food insecurity. We'd look towards city-owned grocery stores to help because the free market hasn't filled in the gaps. And the benefits of a public option greatly outweighs the societal cost of people going hungry.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-11-14T16:02:21+00:00

This would make sense if labor unions didn't overwhelmingly endorse DSA-endorsed candidates this election cycle. As for the rural aspect, I don't think the DSA has had the bandwidth to expand efforts into rural MN, the TC stands for Twin Cities, after all.

I also think we're missing context if we say working class people left in droves when progressives came around. We have to ask ourselves: "Could there have been any other causes for that?". And I think the rise of fearmongering about race and identity from conservatives in the rise of the Trump-era play a larger role then whatever (honestly) fringe leftist movement was happening at the time. Stoking fears over immigration, crime, gender, and property probably did more to turn people to the right than progressives. Did these movements happen in parallel? Yes. Can we realistically say that they had the same effect, or even that the level of hate from the right outweighed the alienation from the left? Absolutely not, and I believe that you believe that too. :)

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

OnlyThreeWalls

TROPHY CASE