Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the George Floyd Square topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes to return George Floyd Square concept to full council after weeks of competing proposals
Summary
Council member Jenkins' motion to return the George Floyd Square concept layout to the full council for consideration on Dec. 11 passed 8–5 after extended debate. Members and community groups disagree over a staff 'flexible mixed‑use' layout, a community‑led 'pedestrian mall' idea and a new Community Vision Council proposal; town hall Dec. 2 and CNI presentations Dec. 4 will inform next steps.
The Minneapolis City Council narrowly voted on Nov. 20 to return consideration of the George Floyd Square concept layout (file 2024‑01336) to the full council so members can consider competing proposals in the council’s final meeting of the term.
Council member Jenkins moved the measure, saying the motion would allow the full council to consider the flexible/mixed‑use concept plan that had previously been on file if a separate pedestrian‑mall option is found to be non‑viable. The motion prompted an extensive floor debate that foregrounded competing visions: a staff‑driven flexible, mixed‑use street concept; a community‑led pedestrian mall proposal requiring additional statutory steps; and a community visioning proposal to be presented by local groups.
Council member Chavez, representing a precinct at the square, opposed Jenkins’ motion while urging compromise: "I do not support this proposal or this motion, although I am ready to find a compromise," he said, and reminded the council of community demands for a decision on the related People's Way work.
Council member Cashman emphasized the need to provide clarity so reconstruction and street‑work can proceed, noting that community presentations (a town hall on Dec. 2 and a CNI committee presentation on Dec. 4) would inform the council. Council member Wansley and others urged deference to community‑led proposals and cautioned against city‑led reuse that could feel like erasure of the site's history.
The clerk explained both major items remain in play: the flexible/mixed‑use concept previously filed and a separate pedestrian‑mall idea that would require ordinance drafting and statutory analysis. The Jenkins motion does not itself adopt a plan; it places the open concept back on the Dec. 11 agenda for an up‑or‑down vote if the council chooses.
After debate and roll call, the motion carried with 8 ayes and 5 nays. Council members and staff stressed that the pedestrian‑mall route requires an ordinance and statutory findings and is unlikely to be completed in the current term; community groups will continue presenting proposals through CNI and other forums.
