The Star-Tribune unsigned editorial doesn't dislike the idea of citywide coverage, but suggests careful planning before leaping in: This editorial isn't opposed to the lovely notion of ubiquitous coverage through Minneapolis, as described in the city's request for proposal. In fact, it describes the idea as "cool." But it suggests that there's not enough detail in the current RFP to answer many outstanding questions, and that until proposals are received from bidders, the details will remain unknown.
Minneapolis is proposing a network that's of a larger scale than Philadelphia's with a more extensive purpose and that uses Wi-Fi for access but is tied together with fiber optic which will be used for other purposes. The city won't put a cent of funding into the plan, but will guarantee its telecom business to the project's winner, thus ensuring early revenue. (Both Minneapolis and Philadelphia project large cost conservation by shifting their telecom spending to this kind of network.)
The editorial notes that a previous effort to have Time Warner, the city's cable franchisee, install fiber-optic links among city buildings was agreed on in 2000--and still hasn't been built. This proposal might be an effort to route around that blockade, but it does create essentially a new kind of franchise.
The editorial concludes, "As this ambitious proposal goes forward, its balancing of complicated interests will bear very careful scrutiny."
I admire the stance of this editorial because it doesn't throw any strawmen onto a pyre and fling matches at them. Instead, it looks at the reasons advanced by the city for having this network built, analyses the risks without overstating them, and generally endorses the concept while remaining patient about how the concept turns into reality.