Revised May 1, 2024
Note: This content has been archived and may no longer be accurate or relevent
UPDATE: MinnPost, has done an in-depth series of how this proposed legislation came to be, and why it never came to a vote. Pushback from citizens and local government was too much for the bills to survive the session.
There were a series of bills with strong bipartisan support that would have drastically changed the way local government regulates multi-family housing. On March 25 the bill was modified, with several provisions removed, and others altered, through the efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities. Read about it here.
Read SCA’s original article below:
A proposed new law will change the way Minnesota cities regulate multi-family housing. The bi-partisan proposal, a unique political dynamic between both major parties, HF 4009/SF 3964, passed its first committee on Feb. 20. On Feb. 26 an amendment was added to raise the minimum city population from 5000 to 10,000.
The bills were later split into
HF4009, HF4010, HF3168, HF 2235, SF3964, SF 3303, SF 3080, SF 3980.
The details:
- Republicans and Democrats broadly supported the proposal suggesting a recognition across party lines of the need for comprehensive housing reform.
- This bipartisan support underscored the significance of the issue and the acknowledgment that addressing housing affordability and access requires collective action.
- If passed, this would have significantly impacted local (city) control: The proposals would limit the ability of cities and suburbs to restrict the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in single-family areas.
What’s the impact?
- It would override local zoning regulations aimed at preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods.
- It will reflect a broader trend in many regions where state governments are intervening to promote denser development in response to housing shortages and affordability challenges.
- Mandatory housing requirements would require cities to allow apartment buildings, particularly those offering affordable housing, in commercial zones.
- The proposals would reduce the opportunity for public comment aimed at halting housing development in cities.
- Streamlining the development approval process would expedite the construction of much-needed housing, but also raises questions about transparency, community engagement, and the democratic decision-making process.
- It also raises important questions about the balance between state intervention and local autonomy, and the trade-offs between housing development and community expectations.
- Overall, the proposal represents a significant departure from traditional approaches to land use and housing policy, emphasizing the demand for bold action to address pressing housing challenges.
Pro & Con:
- Cities say the bills would weaken local control, add costs for water, sewer and other infrastructure and make it more difficult for locally elected officials to respond to the concerns of their residents.
- Meanwhile, housing advocates say removing local barriers, vocal neighbors, and councils fearful for their political futures, would allow for more “middle” housing to be built.
Sources:
