Question 3 protects renters
On November 2nd, Minneapolis voters can take a big step towards making our city a more stable and affordable place to call home by voting in favor of rent stabilization, Question 3 on the ballot. By voting yes for rent stabilization, residents will say loudly and clearly that the era of massive rent increases has gone on for too long.
Right now, renters have no protection from rent increases that have consistently grown faster than incomes. As a renter, I saw this firsthand last summer. As COVID-19 was taking off, my wife and I (like many across the country) faced uncertainties with our jobs and our health. Yet, as our lease was up, the company that managed my apartment building felt this would be a good time to raise my rent $200 a month. The offer was so disconnected from reality and so callous, it was hard to believe. While rents have been rising for a long time, this moment really showed me how vulnerable renters are in Minneapolis, and how renters — the majority of residents in the city — need to be protected from these greedy actions that place a higher value on profit than on stable housing.
I’m privileged to now own a home and know that I have stable housing costs for years to come. All residents should have that security, whether they are owners or renters. Like many of you, I’ve received mailers making bold and baseless claims against rent stabilization. But the data from the University of Minnesota’s study is clear: rent stabilization increases housing stability, limits price increases, and does not limit construction of new housing.
Everyone, no matter their race or income, should have secure and affordable housing, both now and tomorrow. Voting Yes on Question 3 for rent stabilization will create stronger communities, making Minneapolis a better place for all residents, whether you are a renter or a homeowner.
—Mike Samuelson, Minneapolis
Question 1 and Civics 101
I have heard both scholarly explanations and histrionic interpretations of Minneapolis Charter Amendment #1 on government structure.
A Civics 101 explanation might suffice. The president is the executive and Congress is the legislative body. Our governor is the executive and our Legislature the legislative. Mayor Carter is the executive and the St. Paul city council is the legislative body. In Minneapolis Mayor Frey is the executive and the the city council is the legislative and executive. We lack the American principles of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances that assure no branch of government becomes too powerful.
For 101 years the Minneapolis City Council has been too powerful and it does not serve the city well.
—Gregory Hestness, Minneapolis
MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor. The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.
Looks like rents have been very consistent for the last 3 years, appears the rent control measure is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist! From this perspective they would be better off focusing on all these absentee landlords to raise the standards on their properties and get good tenants, rather than giving them more reasons for disinvestment and neglect!
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/mn/minneapolis/
“But the data from the University of Minnesota’s study is clear: rent stabilization increases housing stability, limits price increases, and does not limit construction of new housing.”
Well, not exactly. The link says as follows as with regard to new construction:
“Little empirical evidence shows that rent control policies negatively impact new construction. Construction rates are highly dependent on localized economic cycles and credit markets. Additionally, most jurisdictions with rent stabilization specifically exclude new construction from controls, either in perpetuity or for a set period of time.”
Actually, no jurisdiction with rent control currently applies it to new construction, because it would stop new construction. The Minneapolis ballot question is just to allow rent control at all, but the St. Paul one, if passed, would be the first place that applies it to new construction.
Rent control does keep the rents of existing renters under control. But it also results in less affordable housing being available. The study linked even agrees with that:
“Rent regulations are shown to be related to an overall reduction in rental units as owners have commonly responded to rent regulation by removing units from the rental market via condominium conversion, demolition, or other means.”
Rents have risen in the cities because there is a housing shortage. The demand exceeds supply. The answer is to increase supply. What rent control will do is reduce supply. Some people will benefit, but many people will be left without housing.
Regarding Mr. Samuelson’s letter: anecdotes tell us nothing about the nature and scope of the claimed problem, including who requires assistance versus who wants it.
I will vote no on St. Paul’s rental measure and likely would do so on the Minneapolis measure rather than place the question in the hands of an as yet unidentifed group of council members with no idea of the direction proponents have in mind.
Among many other things, the St. Paul measure is overkill. (It regulates every rental in the city at every economic level while claiming to be intended to prevent lower-income residents from being priced out of housing. Even then, proponents do not present any data on the extent of the perceived problem.)
Good to see that former Assistant Chief of the Minneapolis Police Hestness values divided government, even if his reading of charter amendment #1 is exaggerated to the point of being a distortion. (The Mayor alone is currently the executive, but the council has more powers relating to appointment and reappointment of department heads than is typical for a legislative body.)
By his standards, I expect him to stand up also for charter amendment #2, so that the police department will no longer be under the “complete control” of the Mayor (i.e. precluding council from legislation pertaining to policing) as required by the charter.
Currently, when it comes to the Minneapolis Police Department: “We lack the American principles of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances that assure no branch of government becomes too powerful.” Voting yes on 1 and 2 reflects a principled affirmation of separation of powers, whereas yes on 1 and no on 2 is just an attack on our representational council.
Sorry, our 5th ward council person only represents the radical end of the progressives, has not responded to an email or sent out any type of ward update since being elected ~ 4 years back. In short us average folks, we have no representation.
That argument might have some merit if the policing ballot question only addressed mayor vs counsel control.
Mr. Samuelson opines essentially that renters should have the same certainty as he now has as a home owner due to the certainty of his mortgage payments. Forgotten in this statement is that homeowners have very little certainty except for the mortgage, assuming it is not a variable rate mortgage. The homeowner costs could spike quickly if the roof leaks, the furnace or hot water fails, the basement leaks, failure of plumbing causes excessive water use or any number of other maintenance items crop up over night. The renter has absolute certainty in all of these maintenance items. If their refrigerator or dishwasher breaks they just call the property owner and it is addressed at no cost to them. If there is any maintenance required such as a roof leak, the property owner fixes that at no cost to the renter. I’d opine that at least in most cases the renter has much greater certainty than the homeowner and even with a rent increase proposal the renter has the opportunity to receive advance notice of any potential increase in that cost and can also negotiate proposed increases by the property owner. I also wonder about these $200 increases that are being discussed. I’m wondering how often that actually happens as no actual data has been made available other than the advocates of this legislation stating that rent increases have been less than 2% which suggests that there have not been all that many huge rent increases or perhaps it would show up in some actual data. It would be helpful if proposers of legislation such as rent stabilization had actual data rather than anecdotal evidence of wrong doing by a property owner here or there.