Terry White is a regular contributor. He is also the author of the Better Minneapolis newsletter and podcast. He lives in Field.
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board voted Feb. 4 to advance two controversial measures affecting city parkways and rejected amendments that supporters said would have strengthened community input.
Seven commissioners supported both the Mall and Open Parkways resolutions. Commissioners Kay Carvajal Moran, Dan Engelhart, Meg Forney, Amber Frederick and Jason Garcia, along with Vice President Kedar Deshpande and President Tom Olsen, voted in favor. Commissioners Cathy Abene and Charles Rucker opposed both measures.
What the Measures Do
The Mall resolution directs the superintendent to study possible implementation of parts of the long-range plan for the Mall that includes removing roadway and creating a shared-use space called a “Woonerf.” The Open Parkways resolution calls for creating criteria to evaluate permanent infrastructure for temporary closures of parkways.
Both passed on 7–2 votes.
Amendments Rejected
In a 6–3 vote, the board defeated amendments from Abene and Rucker that would have required forming a community advisory committee before any additional steps on the Mall plan and on the Open Parkways proposal, which is intended to close select parkways to automobile traffic.
Abene said the amendments were intended to increase community engagement. Rucker, a longtime firefighter, warned that narrowing or removing road access could slow fire and emergency response. He noted that several nearby apartment buildings use older balloon construction that can allow fires to move rapidly. He said emergency vehicles need clear and direct access.
Several residents who spoke during open time echoed those concerns. They cited petitions and neighborhood surveys showing opposition to roadway removal and expanded closures. Some urged the board to adopt the amendments to rebuild trust and ensure meaningful public input.
Majority Says Existing Policy Is Enough
A majority of commissioners argued the additional advisory requirement was unnecessary. Staff said the Park Board already has an engagement policy that requires assessing what level of public input is appropriate for each project. Larger capital projects also require public hearings under board rules.
Supporters said a new advisory committee would duplicate safeguards already in place and that engagement will continue under existing policy.
After rejecting the amendments, the board voted to approve the Mall resolution. Supporters described it as investigative rather than a final decision, saying it keeps long-term planning moving and allows coordination with upcoming Metropolitan Council work.
Ongoing Tension Over Parkway Closures
The board also approved the separate Open Parkways resolution. Supporters said temporary closures expand pedestrian and recreational access.
Opponents raised concerns that closures could expand beyond current policy, which allows two events per month. Some speakers worried that increased closures could affect older adults, people with disabilities or residents who rely on vehicle access.
Commissioners did not announce any expansion of closure limits. Supporters said the resolution is aligned with existing policy and engagement processes.
A Divided Board
The 6–3 rejection of the Abene and Rucker amendments showed that most commissioners believe current engagement rules are sufficient. The majority signaled confidence that safety, feasibility and public input can be addressed during implementation rather than through additional requirements at the front end.
Opponents focused on public safety and neighborhood trust.
By centering the debate on emergency access and fire response, they highlighted concerns about safety rather than traffic.
“The deeper divide is over the role of cars in our park spaces.”
The Open Parkways vote also underscored a broader divide over the role of cars in Minneapolis park space. Supporters view temporary closures as part of a shift toward recreation and reduced car dominance. Critics warn that closures can limit access and create new inequities.
For residents watching the meeting, the takeaway is not only that the Mall and Open Parkways measures passed.
It is that the board majority appears unified and willing to move forward, even in the face of organized opposition.
Similar debates over parkways and public space are likely to follow the same voting lines.
