Revised May 1st, 2024
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:
I oppose this bill
I feel Shorewood, like Excelsior needs a whole new council with some of the things they have passed and are planning to pass.
Also, there is a bill to expand Mpls’s Sanctuary City laws to include the entire state of MN.
My question is, are these proposed housing bills intended to prepare for increased population from undocumented people that will relocate to MN, a Sancuary State?
I don’t understand the legislation. I thought “the left” already solved this zoning “problem” by creating the unelected Met Council to dictate zoning. The MC was supposed to do the dirty work (crushing diversity amongst cities) for the democrat party so it wouldn’t suffer defeat at the polls.
What went wrong? Why the need for new legislation? I need to be enlightened.
Evidently that plan didn’t go far enough? So this is another DFL idea to seize and concentrate even more power further from the filthy, racist, local rubes (us)?
I keep forgetting that those in St. Paul are more enlightened and know what is best for us, and the world collective. We are getting what the majority of voters want. Good and hard.
What a load of ignorant, lazy, revisionist poppycock! Did the comment author even read the article? They clearly did not research Minnesota history.
The Conservative majority legislature voted to create the Met Council in 1967. Republican Governor Harold LeVander signed it into law. Not a leftist among them!
If one reads (and understands) the article, one of the major points is the broad bipartisan support in the legislature. To be helpful, the Oxford dictionary defines bipartisan as “involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.”
There are clearly problematic, controversial and anti-democratic things within this proposal, but applying rhetoric from a right-wing fever dream does nothing to advance the thoughtful and intelligent discussion around this proposed legislation.
Do better!
Hi Floyd,
I’m still hoping to be educated as to why we need additional legislation? That was what the article was about and that was my primary question… which was not answered.
The Met Council’s required Master Plans – already over-ride local zoning preferences.
Today’s MN government is dominated by the left / DFL and they seem to be proposing even more concentration of power. So will the legislature be in charge of zoning or the unelected Met Council?
Politicians will trade their vote on one issue… for a vote on another. You seem to think that bipartisan support automatically equates to intelligent and Constitutional legislation. I am more skeptical. Have a great day.
Hi Marty,
Your questions are rhetorical, correct? If not, do you seriously think a single article, on an obscure blog, would provide you the enlightenment and education you say you need? I read the above article and found it informative as to the what. I did not see anywhere the author attempted to define the why. That appears to be the core of your questions.
The article helpfully provides quite a few links to the actual text of the proposed bills. Those links also include the authors of those bills. There is also a link to contact information for all state legislators. Try asking the folks that are proposing this legislation their reasoning. They are the best source for the answers to your questions. You could even share your findings with the rest of us!
“An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Finally, please re-read my reply to your original comment. I neither stated, nor inferred, that bipartisanship equates to intelligent or constitutional legislation. No honest interpretation of my comments would reach that conclusion.
Best Regards