MinnPost analysis: Cities, suburbs helped ensure housing density measures’ defeat despite broad support

How did a sweeping housing density package backed by a coalition that crossed party and ideological lines go from the highest of hopes to a crushing loss in just two months?

The short answer is that effective lobbying by city governments, especially in the suburbs, raised enough questions about the measures that they lacked enough votes to advance. Having the state require more density in single-family housing zones as well as making it harder for cities to block multifamily buildings in commercial zones was portrayed as a threat to local control.

In the past decade it has been Republicans who have asserted that local zoning and land use make it both more difficult and more expensive to build housing. DFLers have tended to support local decision making over what they have seen as attempts to preempt local control. More recently, Democrats both in Minnesota and nationally have embraced the effects of local policy on housing density, housing supply and housing costs.

But during a post-mortem with housing advocates last week, the chairs of the House and Senate housing committees said backers failed to make the case that what is termed exclusionary zoning policies not only limit housing supply but harm low-income people and people of color.

“It shouldn’t be surprising to us that cities are an effective lobbying force, but what did surprise me was how hook-line-and-sinker some of our members took the messaging we heard from cities — much of it sky-is-going-to-fall hyperbole,” said House Housing Committee Chair Mike Howard, DFL-Richfield.

“Sunshine is the best disinfectant for some of the practices in cities so we need to grow our public-facing work so Minnesotans know what we hear all the time, which is they can’t find a home they can afford,” Howard told a virtual gathering sponsored by the Minnesota Housing Partnership.

Sen. Lindsey Port, DFL-Burnsville, spoke to the group three days after she was forced to halt work on a bill to set more rules over multifamily developments at the state level rather than with local governments. It came two weeks after legislative leadership determined that the so-called “missing middle” bill would not advance this session.

“Frankly we have to go stronger on the real truth that local zoning control has not worked,” Port said. “It has worked to do what it was meant to do, which is to create exclusionary zoning. We have to not shy away from that. We need to be able to say that part out loud.

“This is such a critical issue. I’m hopeful the work we did this year does lay the groundwork for us to come back stronger and more clear next year.”

The pair had announced the two bills at a press conference Feb. 20. Standing behind them were representatives of a coalition that included both DFLers and Republicans, both home builders and construction unions, both affordable housing groups and chambers of commerce, both environmentalists and developers. Social justice advocates were involved in response to concerns that restrictive zoning keeps low-income people and people of color out of many towns and neighborhoods.

The bills were aimed at providing more housing and more density in urban areas that have infrastructure and services to accommodate more residents. The missing middle bill would require cities and suburbs to allow duplexes, triplexes and more in single-family zones. The multifamily bill would make it harder for the same local governments to block or delay apartment construction in commercially zoned areas.

The missing middle bill went down first, a victim of intense lobbying by local governments and, ultimately, opposition from suburban legislators. The multifamily bill was weakened by DFL-sponsored amendments and was withdrawn by sponsors last week.

The Minneapolis comprehensive plan known as Minneapolis 2040 included many of the tenets of these efforts by ending exclusive single-family zones, allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in established neighborhoods. The plan also attempted to ease construction of multifamily buildings in commercial zones and near high-frequency transit.

That plan is suspended by courts while litigation over whether it requires more-extensive environmental review under state environmental protection laws. Separate pending legislation would end those lawsuits, however, and Howard has said he’s optimistic that piece will pass.

On the other issues, Howard and Port told a disappointed audience that the work to build the coalition will help move legislation forward in future sessions. Howard said ideas about how zoning impacts housing availability has been “under the radar” until recently. This session brought them more attention.

“We have an organizing challenge for members who haven’t spent the time with this issue and see it as a state-control vs. local-control issue,” Howard said.

Related

• Minnesota supporters of Equal Rights Amendment optimistic despite Senate turmoil
• Minnesota House approves ban on ‘mommy’ social media accounts that profit off of kids’ images
• Minnesota DFL-controlled House passes bill aimed at straw purchases through new mandatory reporting requirements

Port said she worries that without zoning changes, the battle to increase the supply of affordable housing will struggle. The current budget took advantage of a $19 billion revenue surplus to devote $1 billion toward housing projects — five-to-10 times a normal budget. But without this rare surplus, she said she expects future housing budgets to fall back to lower levels.

“Yet even that huge investment won’t dent the supply shortages if affordable housing projects can’t be built,” she said.

“We put a billion dollars into this and we’re still hearing from folks who are trying to develop these units” who face resistance, Port said. “We can’t just throw money at this problem because it isn’t just that. It is a policy choice in how our zoning laws are laid out and make it really, really, really hard to build the kind of housing the state needs to have an interest in, which is affordable and deeply affordable housing.”

She frequently held up a chart, below, produced by the housing partnership that compared the number of housing units needed and the number produced. This despite state law that requires local governments to provide for more housing, including affordable housing.

“They’re telling you they have a plan for this but nothing comes out of the plan. The plan isn’t working,” Port said.

As if the loss of both zoning bills wasn’t disappointing enough, housing advocates have also been told that a proposed constitutional amendment to fund housing won’t move to the November ballot. That plan would have increased the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1% to pay for projects statewide.

Port and Howard agreed to hold a joint informational hearing on the measure before the 2024 session ends May 20.

“We’re going to be back to base levels in future years if we don’t raise revenue,” Port said. “This issue is not going away. It affects every community around Minnesota and it has to have dedicated funding. It has to.”

“We need structural change,” added Howard. “We need to do things differently. On the funding side, I think the constitutional amendment is the thing we need to do differently.” The policy that needs to be different is to have some state rules on zoning, he said.  

“Those will anchor us on what we need to do next year,” Howard.

Cities’ lobbyist responds

Daniel Lightfoot works on legislation for the League of Minnesota Cities and was active on the zoning bills this past session. He said Tuesday the league hopes to keep working on the issues with sponsors and advocates.

“We are very willing to have interim discussions and understand that proponents will continue to push the conversation around land use and zoning preemption,” Lightfoot said in a written response. “We look forward to engaging on this issue and hope to be included much earlier in the drafting process as well as discussing how to turn the approach from a rigid statewide mandated and preemptive framework into a more locally-driven framework of options and incentives that can be state supported while still allowing for zoning and land use changes to be locally led and implemented that can be better tailored to individual community needs and sensitive to regional market differences.”

Polling by advocates

Supporters of zoning reform are using a poll paid for by Neighbors for More Neighbors and conducted by YouGov to back up their efforts. The online poll of 820 state voters (with link to crosstabs here) was conducted between April 4 and April 14 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2%.

“Would you say that the cost of renting or buying a home in Minnesota is a major problem, somewhat a problem, a minor problem, or not really a problem?” the poll asked. Some 46% answered that it was a major problem, 39% said it was somewhat of a problem and 11% said it was a minor problem. There was little difference based on partisanship or ideology, though higher-income respondents generally said it was less of the problem.

Respondents were also asked to agree or disagree with this statement: “State legislators should take action to address Minnesota’s housing shortage and cost of housing in the state.” Forty-five percent said they strongly agreed and 31% said they somewhat agreed.

On the question of missing middle housing, those polled were asked whether they supported a proposal that “would allow these smaller homes types — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes — to be built on all residential lots in larger cities in Minnesota, and duplexes and townhomes to be built on all residential lots in suburban and rural Minnesota.”  Twenty-four percent said they strongly supported this statement, 41% somewhat supported it, with 26% saying they either strongly opposed or somewhat opposed.

Finally the poll asked respondents to choose between two statements: “Building more affordable housing is more important for Minnesota,” or, “Protecting the character of neighborhoods from change is more important for Minnesota.” Fifty-five percent agreed with the first statement and 31% agreed with the second statement.