The Odd Job of a Four-Month City Council Member

St. Paul, Minn., went all in on rent control in 2021, after voters backed the policy in a citywide ballot referendum. Almost immediately, housing development ground to a halt. The city saw an 80 percent reduction in building permits in the first three months after the ordinance was enacted compared to the same period in the previous year. There are disagreements about what caused the slowdown, but the City Council was spooked and amended the ordinance just a few months later, exempting newly built housing from the rules. This month, the council will consider changes that will limit the regulations even further. It will also consider a package of tenant protections, including new rules limiting security deposits and providing extra notice when an apartment might be sold.

One of the people who’ll be voting on those changes is Matt Privratsky. Privratsky, who works in government affairs for a solar energy company, previously served as an aide to former St. Paul City Council President Mitra Jalali, who announced her resignation amid health concerns earlier this year. He was appointed by St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter to serve a term of just four months until a special election can be held. Privratsky has no intentions of running for future office, but he has strong beliefs about housing policy and tenant protections. He recently spoke with Governing about the dual imperatives of working hard on behalf of his constituents and giving due deference to the elected members of the council. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Governing: What was your experience in St. Paul City Hall prior to this interim appointment? 

Matt Privratsky: I previously worked as a legislative aide for then-Councilmember Mitra Jalali when she started in 2018. In the years before and after that, I’ve also just been an active advocate for things like multimodal transportation, better land use, community-first public safety and stuff like that.

What was it like to transition from being an aide to being a representative? 

A lot of the day-to-day work has quite a bit of overlap. The big difference is actually carrying that water at the table and being the public representative in those formal settings. That adjustment has been really interesting and humbling because the pressures of having to be the one actually moving action at the table is a level up from what you have to handle as a staff person. As a staff person, you have the privilege of getting to give advice and guidance but you don’t actually have to execute those final moves. But it’s a lot of the same pressures and responsibilities of trying to represent the ward, of trying to balance the dynamics of the job, but that visible action at the table is the more humbling adjustment.

What are the policy issues that are animating the council at this moment? 

A little bit by coincidence, two really significant housing votes happen to be landing squarely in this four-month interim period. Those are going to be two of the bigger votes we have to take on. Aside from that, we just have a lot of local businesses and a lot of folks who want to make sure they have a responsive, helpful voice at the council. So aside from those big housing votes, a lot of it is making sure there’s steady, stable day-to-day help available for all of our residents and small businesses.

Can you tell me more about the housing votes? 

The two proposals on the table are to reinstate an updated version of a tenant protection ordinance that would help support our renters and make sure they have the resources and the protections they need to find new rental housing and to stay in that safe, stable rental housing. I’m very strongly in favor of that, and I worked extensively on the first version of that ordinance when I was an aide.

The rent stabilization bill is being proposed by several council members as well as the mayor to make a further change to our existing rent-stabilization policy. The proposal is to exempt newly constructed buildings entirely from the rent stabilization requirement. It’s pretty contentious. It’s a very significant change for us to consider. And for me I view the two as being very interrelated and I care very deeply about making sure the tenant protections ordinance is put in place. And really, only because we’re considering tenant protections am I open to that sort of a change to rent stabilization.

There’s been a sort of pendulum swing with rent control in St. Paul in recent years, right? 

The basic history of it is after the tenant protections ordinance was repealed in 2020 or around then, community members who had fought for that ordinance change really felt like they were boxed into a corner and led a very successful ballot initiative to pass a rent stabilization ordinance. Since then a couple changes have taken place. That first ordinance was then fully drafted based on that ballot initiative and since then, there was a 20-year construction exemption put in place and then this would be the next phase of conversation about further change.

I’m curious how much you, as an interim member, feel empowered or authorized to push your views on this kind of stuff alongside the other members who have been elected to full terms. 

I think that dynamic is very real. But to be honest with you, a lot of that dynamic is impacting me as much in the sense of not just the interim-versus-permanent member but even more in the sense that I’m coming in very late in these policy discussions. I take very seriously how I’m balancing the need to fully engage and do my homework and make sure I’m being as helpful as possible but also not coming in at the last minute and entirely upsetting the apple cart. The people of Ward 4 deserve to have someone who’s working hard and engaging on this. But also for me to try and pretend that I get to restart the whole process would be sort of unfair. It is a tough balance to strike, but it’s something I knew going in.

How did you get your name in contention for this post in the first place?

It got publicly posted a couple months back, as soon as the resignation from then-Council President Mitra Jalali was formally accepted. I believe a couple dozen folks applied. Eventually four of us were selected to interview with the existing council members.

And they couldn’t come to a decision about which person to hire, right? 

Right. Technically the charter says that if there’s a tie — because there’s seven council members, there’s the possibility of a tie when one of them is gone — the charter actually gives two ways for that tie to be broken. Technically when there’s a tie the mayor can break the tie. But the other thing the charter speaks to is if the council runs out of time, because they only have 30 days to select a member, then the mayor gets to appoint that way. Whatever way you point to it, it goes to the mayor.

Can you give me a sense of what you put forward in your interview? What were they asking and how did you want to present yourself? 

The main thing I tried to convey is that being a short-term interim council member is an unbelievably specific job. There’s basically no time for any learning curve at all. So essentially what I assumed the council would need is someone who already knows what the job entails, already knows how City Hall works, and already knows how to work with both the existing council and the mayor’s administration and the community stakeholders in Ward 4. So my case was pretty simple in that I was very happy to take that on and I knew I would be capable of taking it on, but I knew if folks had different priorities for who they wanted to appoint, that was perfectly fine. Technically they can appoint someone for any reason they want. They don’t have to have the same reasons I would have. My selling point was basically: If you need someone who just knows the job, can come in and do the job for these four months, I’m happy to do it.

To come back to the housing stuff for a minute, do you expect this to be a divided vote? You mentioned wanting to balance tenant protections with potential changes to the rent stabilization ordinance. What are your hopes for the outcomes of these votes? 

I would assume that because it’s so substantial that it’s very likely there will be some split, because they’re very big changes. I’m never someone that gets nervous about there being disagreements or split votes. A lot of the time when you’re working on a substantial issue, there is going to be some disagreement. I think that’s completely fine and natural. I would expect the tenant protections — it’s possible that those could be unanimous, although I’m not sure that that will happen. I think rent stabilization will be tougher just because it’s still a very new ordinance and we’re considering another change only a few years after it was originally passed on the ballot. I think that’s a very naturally sensitive dynamic to balance.

Have your own views on rent stabilization changed? 

I was gone by the time the rent stabilization ordinance was implemented, and while it was on the ballot I was a government employee, so I didn’t take direct part in the public campaign. I think my views on rent stabilization, in general as a policy tool, is that there’s plenty of places across the country that have used it as a way to try and offer housing stability for renters. It’s proven to be able to do that for a large chunk of the housing stock. There’s no doubt in my mind that it has some impact on how properties are developed and how development takes place. I think people tend to oversimplify and over-assume the amount of impact it has. But I think it would be naive to say that it doesn’t have an impact.

Has the experience in St. Paul refined or clarified your thinking about that? Or is it still too early to get any clear indications? 

I personally don’t understand how anyone could claim that we have enough data or information after this period of time to know conclusively in either direction. I’ve been continually frustrated by the way discussion happens around this topic. I think it’s particularly noteworthy that we’re in a very high interest rate environment for the development side and for financial markets. I’m someone who cares deeply about adding more homes and I’m very, very pro-development. I think my record as an aide — Councilmember Jalali and I helped build more housing in Ward 4 than the rest of the city combined. We wanted new homes then and we want new homes now. But you still need to be committed to protecting the members of your community who are most vulnerable. I don’t think the ideas have to be in conflict. I think you can accomplish both. It’s been a little bit frustrating how overly simplified and lacking nuance the discussion has been.

What else do you see as your job between now and mid-August? 

One of my responsibilities is to come in and help people appreciate that our local government can be steady, stable and responsive. I take very seriously the fact that I’m finishing out the last few months of Council President Jalali’s term. I think she was very revered and beloved for what she provided for this community. I take very seriously the fact that it’s my job to help transition from her era of representing Ward 4 to the next era, when we’ll have a new council member in August. It’s my job to be steady, stable and helpful to folks during this time and then also tee up the next council member for success.

Has this experience made you think any differently about running for the next term or for a future term? 

No. As much as I was very confident in telling the council that I was very strongly suited for this interim term, I’m equally confident that there’s someone much, much better suited than me for the permanent seat.

Do you think you’ll ever run in an election? 

No. There’s no way.

What else do you want to say? 

I’m assuming your readership is mostly folks like me who are very nerdy government-details people. I would tell them to come visit St. Paul, and if you come, come to Ward 4 and the first beer is on me at any one of our fine local breweries or restaurants. People are always welcome and I’m happy to host.