2023-24 Minnesota Legislature

[Bakken2016]

Bill looks to supersede residential zoning rules across the state

Pleasantly surprised that this bill has bipartisan support - as it should!

That's awesome, looking forward to seeing this pass!

[angrysuburbanite]

https://www.swnewsmedia.com/chanhassen_ ... d5773.html

*sigh* get ready to hear a lot of this kind of stuff

This could result in developers underbuilding parking resulting in spillover onto city streets that were not designed to accommodate dense on-street parking.

They are so close to getting it...

[amiller92]

Says mayors of 4 cities that will never possibly be dense enough for there not to be "enough" parking.

[Tom H.]

Chaska has excellent urban form in its downtown (especially after the recent road diet on Chestnut) and Chanhassen has densified somewhat along its weird semi-walkabale-but-mostly-driveable main street, so I'm disappointed to hear it from those two mayors especially.

At the end of the day, they fear losing SimCity-levels of control and don't *actually* trust the free market to produce good outcomes. If the political roles were reversed on this issue, Fox News would be calling modern zoning laws "command and control economics" and the neighborhood meetings that derail so much development would be branded "socialized housing".

Housing / development is the one weird blind spot for free-market conservatives in this country. Like, isn't expanding and protecting property rights for homeowners the most slam-dunk conservative economic cause imaginable? I know some people have problems with StrongTowns, but it really is a consistent framing of these issues from a free-market mindset, and I've found it can be a persuasive tool to make progress with people who suffer from this particular political blind spot.

[angrysuburbanite]

A lot of Chaska and Chanhassen's more recent development has been along the 212 corridor rather than their downtown/central districts (which were both bypassed by the freeway), with more sprawly highway-oriented growth patterns that are basically the opposite of what this bill is going for. I feel like this bill will most likely pass as it does have bipartisan support. Hopefully this means more centralized high-intensity housing, around the downtown districts rather than continuing development along the highway. The emerging 212 strip is not walkable by any stretch of the imagination and probably never will be (see the vicinity of the Chaska Target), but Chanhassen's "downtown" has potential, and Chaska's is very walkable and could sustain more higher intensity land use without being too car dependent.

I agree, it is very disappointing, especially from Chaska with their wonderful downtown, that the mayors oppose the bill. Unfortunately, I think that the attitude of these cities is similar to that of many suburbs, exurbs, and especially rural towns across Minnesota.

As for your last point, nowadays it seems that US conservatives have this weird "freedom but also protect the status quo" mindset. Many want freedom to do what they want, but are not willing to allow different lifestyles to coexist--including urban living. I know there are many people who fear density as being like "the government is going to upzone all of the single family homes around me and turn it into New York City!" or "the character of our town will be destroyed by huge communist apartment blocks!" I think some public education on the environmental benefits of denser developments could improve the public's opinion, as well as displaying the different forms dense housing can take--it's not all giant apartments!

[amiller92]

A lot of politics comes down to how you feel about other people. Are other people competition for scarce resources who may be out to get you? Or are they neighbors who are part of community?

[twincitizen]

If I had to pick two provisions of the housing bill that are "must pass" items, and I could live without the rest of the bill, it would be:
-capping residential parking requirements at 1 space/unit.
-capping minimum lot area requirements.

On capping minimum lot size, I'll be fine with whatever size the legislature can find compromise on, whether it be 5,000 sq ft (40' wide city lot) up to ~8,000 sq (effectively 60' x 133' lot on the standard city/i1st-ring grid block without an alley). The lower number would make me happier, but even setting the "maximum minimum" at 8,000 square feet will force all 2nd- & 3rd-ring (and some inner ring) communities to change their ordinances to allow smaller lots. There are a few inner ring burbs like Golden Valley that have insanely large lot requirements. Even Bloomington, which got a lot of good press last year for reducing their minimum lot size, only reduced their minimum to 7,800 sq. ft. for interior lots and 11,050 sq. ft. for corner lots. (Interestingly, neither Mpls or Richfield require corner lots to be larger than non-corners) Bloomington already allows duplexes in their R-1 district, but requires much larger lots (13,000 for interior lots and 16,250 for corner lots).

Capping minimum lot size has the potential for allowing a lot of current property owners to subdivide their lot, whether in the near-term or in the future when they're ready to sell. A good proportion of subdivisions of existing lots could be done without tearing down the current structure. I think a lot of people assume that allowing subdivision of large lots automatically mean teardowns. In many cases it will, because the current house is a ranch-style rambler set in the middle of the lot. But in a lot of cases you've got these huge 100' or 120' wide lots, you could quite easily subdivide off a 40-50' wide lot without touching the existing house. Or maybe you have to tear down a detached garage and build a new one on the other side of the house. Or maybe you and your nextdoor neighbor are both interested in subdividing out the 50' between your houses to create a new lot.

Some of you are probably thinking "I'd choose allowing 2 units on any lot over the lot size provision". Here's why I wouldn't - I think there's potential to add more housing units in more neighborhoods around the metro through subdividing existing lots than through a "duplexes allowed everywhere" policy. The market just doesn't build or finance a lot of duplexes, it's not a common housing product, and the vast majority of homeowners have zero interest in taking out loans to convert their house or being a landlord, so this change simply isn't going to produce that much new housing. Many, many more homeowners would be amenable to splitting off a chunk of their lot because it doesn't cost them anything (maybe a grand for a lot survey) and they can have a pretty good idea what a vacant lot will be worth in their area. Most SFH owners, especially suburban, clearly prefer that no change ever happens to their neighborhoods, but money talks. If you're selling your house anyways, why not take a closer look at subdividing if you could get an extra $100,000 for the vacant lot. In desirable locations, a vacant lot will fetch considerably more than that.

[Lando Laker]

I like the idea of allowing the subdividing of lots. It's practical. One could build a small house for a young couple or senior. They get the amenities of the neighborhood without the larger lot. It would be more palatable to the neighborhood.

[Anondson]

Pretty pissed about “local control” arguments right now.

http://www.minnpost.com/state-governmen ... s-session/

[Tom H.]

Well shit.

[angrysuburbanite]

Dang it. That's so disappointing!

[Wezle]

As long as the DFL trifecta makes it through this upcoming election, I could see a slightly watered down version of this bill making it through next session. Seems like party leadership will look for some compromise with Minnesota cities.

Shame that the bill as currently written didn't make it though. Would have been a transformative change for legalizing moderate density all over.

[angrysuburbanite]

I think it may have been too much at once for some people. Starting with removing parking minimums would be great, and slowly passing other sections of this bill over the course of a couple years would be more palatable for those fearing communist IDS towers in random cornfields.

[Nick]

I would be interested to read some more behind the scenes reporting about why it didn’t work out. Reading between the lines a bit (and there’s something extra annoying about the word salad quotes from electeds on this one) it seems like the opposition was largely coming from the metro suburbs, which are mostly not in Anoka County. People may have thought a couple steps ahead and worried that it’d be bad for the local government business if (housing, but also other) problems started working themselves out without becoming big projects for electeds to posture for and staff to fill out reports about.

[Anondson]

The League of Minnesota Cities likes keeping a housing shortage status quo.

https://finance-commerce.com/2024/04/lo ... ning-bill/

The LMC heavily activated the exurban fear caucus to lobby against the bill for zoning reform.

[thespeedmccool]

The state created cities. In a political sense they don't even exist if the state doesn't want them to. All their authority is just state authority that the legislature has granted to them. Without state-granted authorities, mayors and city councils are just HOA boards with fancy titles.

Cities don't have "local control" (as LMC and NIMBYs so love to put it,) they have "state permission," and we ought to regularly remind them of that.

How we govern our neighborhoods should very quickly change if these "governments" keep standing in the way. I wish legislative leaders were more comfortable underlining this.

[MNdible]

The DFL trifecta is not a foregone conclusion -- in fact, the house and senate are always teetering on the verge of flipping, and the apparent solidity of the governorship may only be a mirage created by the GOP nominating terrible candidates.

I think the approach of tackling a few meaningful policy victories that on their own are difficult to argue with, rather than creating a big scary bill that practically writes its own anti-DFL campaign ads in otherwise safe suburban seats, would have been the smarter approach.

[thespeedmccool]

The DFL trifecta is not a foregone conclusion -- in fact, the house and senate are always teetering on the verge of flipping, and the apparent solidity of the governorship may only be a mirage created by the GOP nominating terrible candidates.

I think the approach of tackling a few meaningful policy victories that on their own are difficult to argue with, rather than creating a big scary bill that practically writes its own anti-DFL campaign ads in otherwise safe suburban seats, would have been the smarter approach.

This is correct, and a smaller bill may have inspired less lobbying, but three things here:

1. A smaller version is still under consideration. It would require mixed-use in any area zoned commercial plus some other tweaks but even that is hardly a sure thing.
2. I think between 2023 and 2024, there are more than enough "big scary" policies the DFL has passed that Republicans could run on. There clearly isn't a lot of fear among DFL legislators that doing big things will result in electoral pushback. A bold proposal was probably not much less likely than a narrow one to succeed given the legislature's recent work.
3. The DFL has also seemingly punted on another major policy priority this year: Reforming the Met Council.

I point this out because I think this adds up to an interesting dynamic within the party: They don't really know what to do about urban policy, or at a minimum, this is the issue they're the most divided on. On every other issue, DFLers in the legislature have basically told lobbyists to buzz off, but they were (in my opinion) weirdly susceptible to LMC on an issue that I think is very unlikely to decide control of the legislature.

The DFL needs a unified message on this issue and a serious advocate for housing supply. Someone who will lay the housing crisis at the feet of the suburbs unapologetically and lead on urban policy. They're clearly missing that boldness right now, and it's hurting the state's economy and its people.

[MNdible]

I think between 2023 and 2024, there are more than enough "big scary" policies the DFL has passed that Republicans could run on. There clearly isn't a lot of fear among DFL legislators that doing big things will result in electoral pushback. A bold proposal was probably not much less likely than a narrow one to succeed given the legislature's recent work.

While a lot of the 2023 legislative work was "controversial", it wasn't necessarily unpopular (at least outside of the GOP caucus). The divisiveness of this bill cutting across the political spectrum seems different to me. And I've read a number of thoughtful criticisms of the bill from people who are very much pro-urbanism.

[Anondson]

The executive director of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities opines that local governments try really really hard to actually allow development that makes sense. They put lots of thought in keeping more housing from being built where they don’t want more people to be.

It’s not their fault regulations they made are there, the costs are from other reasons than abiding local ordinances.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/04/1 ... se-policy/