Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

The community engagement process surrounding the future of George Floyd Square should have been a powerful opportunity for healing, collaboration and learning, centering marginalized voices in a city with some of the deepest racial inequities in the country. Instead, it was weaponized as a political tool for Mayor Jacob Frey, driven by flawed data, biased methodologies and an over-representation of white voices to push a predetermined agenda and bolster Frey’s struggling political career in an election year.

From the start, the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) community survey, intended to evaluate public opinions on the direction of George Floyd Square, was plagued by a lack of transparency and flawed methodology. Of the 6,946 responses, only 5,896 were considered usable, with 1,050 responses — 15% of the data — excluded without clear justification, merely explained away as “non-responses” and “repeat responses.”

Even within the usable data, the survey demographics revealed glaring discrepancies. While 70% of respondents were White, only 38% of Ward 9 residents share that demographic. Black voices, representing 21% of the community, made up just 11% of responses, while the Latino community (29% of Ward 9) accounted for only 10%. These are not just statistical anomalies; they reflect a persistent pattern in Minneapolis, where the voices of people of color are systematically sidelined or erased in public engagement.

What’s more, this survey process not only failed to center local voices but actively invited external influence. Only 18% of respondents were from the immediate George Floyd Square area, while nearly 40% came from outside the surrounding south Minneapolis neighborhoods. This imbalance became even more stark when a CrimeWatchMpls social media post encouraged trolling, leading to more than 2,000 responses flooding in within two days, many with hostile views toward George Floyd Square.

How can this process be considered legitimate when the loudest voices came from external actors with conflicting interests? The lack of respondent verification measures allowed bad-faith responses to skew the data, intentionally silencing authentic community voices.

Worse still, the Community Co-Creation Team (CCT) — meant to amplify local voices — was undermined by a built-in conflict of interest within the city. While the CCT’s role was to guide the engagement project, real power rested with the project team, led by Minneapolis Public Works under Frey. If the CCT’s recommendations didn’t align with city goals, the city’s project team could present its own proposal to the City Council, effectively dismissing community input unless it fit the city’s narrative.