The second of two major attempts to increase housing density in Minnesota has been declared dead by the measure’s sponsors in the Legislature.
After a Senate committee adopted amendments Tuesday that weakened a measure to make it easier to build multi-family housing in commercially zoned areas, the prime sponsor said the issue is “on pause” for the remainder of the 2023 session.
It comes two weeks after legislative leadership killed another bill that would have increased housing density in single family zones. The so-called “missing middle” bill would have required larger cities to allow duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes in what has been zoned for single-family housing. But it fell victim to objections from local government groups and suburban DFL lawmakers.
Only one measure remains of the package pushed by housing density advocates as a way to control suburban sprawl, put less pressure on climate and improve the economics around transit use. Housing advocates are still pushing bill language that would declare that comprehensive plans adopted by cities are not subject to legal challenges under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, or MERA.
That bill would both end an ongoing — and so-far successful — legal challenge to the Minneapolis 2040 plan as well as make it clear that other cities that have adopted comprehensive plans cannot be sued under the state’s primary environmental law. Individual construction projects could still be challenged in court to assure that they follow state environmental protections, but not the foundational planning documents cities must adopt every 10 years under the supervision of the Met Council.
“We’ve made good progress this session bringing the conversation about exclusionary zoning reform to our chamber, and the coalition will continue this work moving forward,” Sen. Lindsey Port, a Burnsville DFLer who chairs the Senate Housing Committee, said in a statement. “While the missing middle and multi-family bills are both on pause for the session, the comprehensive plan bill is still in discussion, and we’re continuing to work on language. I am optimistic that we will be able to move that bill this year.”
Port’s counterpart in the House, Rep. Mike Howard, said he has reached a similar conclusion: that the multi-family bill is dead for this year but the so-called comp plan clarity bill still has life.
“It’s definitely starting to look like the multi-family in commercial zones is something we’ll need to build the support for to pass it next year,” the Richfield DFLer said Thursday. He told a Habitat for Humanity rally that the coalition was large and will get larger.
“We have built a coalition that’s here to stay,” Howard said. “We’re going to keep working on this issue until we get it done.”
While DFL members, especially those from suburban districts, did not favor the bills, hoped-for support from Republicans did not materialize. Howard said the same pressures from suburban cities weighed on GOP members as well.
“Every state that has passed something like this has been bipartisan,” he said.
Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, stood with supporters of the package when it was announced in February. While he said he still supports some of the proposals, there were others he didn’t agree with.
He said it is better to come back and try to win a comprehensive bill rather than taking some aspects this year.
“I fear the people who are not on board with this bill, if they give a concession, they’ll say, ‘We gave you that thing last year. Now we can’t give this new thing,’” Nash said. “I’d rather regroup and see another day.”
The density package was backed by an unusually large coalition of lawmakers and organizations. Several environmental groups were joined by homebuilders, developers, chambers of commerce, labor, senior citizen organizations, affordable housing agencies and social justice activists. Both DFLers and Republicans were in support as GOP members have for years complained that city zoning and rules make housing more expensive, if not impossible to build.
While lobbying associations representing cities supported the MERA changes, they opposed the missing middle and multi-family bills as assaults on local control. Not all local officials were in opposition. A letter supporting Port’s bill was signed by 28 locally elected people from Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Twin Cities suburbs and Duluth.
In the end, DFL-sponsored bills to increase housing density in Minnesota died due to resistance from … DFL legislators. That included House DFL leadership, especially Speaker Melissa Hortman. The day after the missing middle bill was declared dead, Hortman said she thinks it is too soon for what she called a significant policy change.
“How will it actually play out?” she asked about the effect of the density requirement. “That’s one of the issues with the single family dwelling proposal. The other issue is it kind of pits current homeowners against potential future homeowners in terms of their property rights. And I think that we can probably do some things to increase the supply of affordable housing without pitting those two groups of folks against each other.”
The demise of the multifamily housing bill came after a Senate committee Tuesday amended Port’s bill in such a way that she asked that the committee table it. The original bill would declare that developers can build multi-family buildings in commercial zones “by right.” That is, if they meet the underlying zoning requirements, they can’t be blocked or delayed.
“Disparities in housing continue to grow in Minnesota, not by accident but because of specific policy decisions we have made at all levels of government,” Port told the Senate state government committee. “From the days of redlining to the current NIMBYism, keeping communities separated has been the result of nearly every housing policy.
“We know a single policy won’t be a silver bullet. But building more housing, more easily, is part of the solution,” Port said, calling the multifamily bill “the very last piece that we have to take one aspect, just one aspect, for allowing multifamily to be built in commercial zones.”
Port had agreed to some changes that local governments sought. They would be allowed to assure that proposals meet public health and safety rules and they could protect the retail storefronts if a developer sought to put apartments in existing buildings.
But an amendment that was offered by Sen. Heather Gustafson, DFL-Vadnais Heights, weakened the bill too much for Port. It would have removed a requirement that cities issue permits within 60 days or they would be deemed approved. Port said some cities use the lack of a deadline to draw out project approvals “for six months, 10 months, two years” which increases costs.
“It simply kills affordable projects,” Port said.
“I find myself in a tough spot,” Gustafson said. “My cities are very much opposed to this bill.”
Said Port: “Mine too.”
Gustafson went on to echo city concerns that 60 days might not be enough time for thorough review. When the amendment came to a vote, it passed 9-4 with three DFLers joining six Republicans in support. Port then asked that the bill be tabled.
Howard said it was that vote that showed sponsors that they didn’t have enough support to pass the bill.
“It signaled where some members still are and that we have to have more discussion with members and with Minnesotans on this,” Howard said. “We had an uphill battle in both the House and the Senate, and that made it clear.”
What about Minneapolis 2040?
The MERA bill is alive after it was included in the House State Government omnibus bill Thursday. While the amendment language is somewhat different than what was initially proposed, it still works, backers said.
But the House MERA amendment is missing a key component: language to make it retroactive to before a lawsuit challenging the Minneapolis plan was filed. The effect would be to make the lawsuit filed in 2018 by Smart Growth Minneapolis invalid and allow the city to ask a judge to dismiss it. The bills to remove the threat of litigation using MERA are meant to give cities in the seven-county metro area — not just Minneapolis — assurances that plans that increase density can’t be held up in court or trigger expensive environmental studies, sponsors said.
The suit has been successful so far and the new comprehensive plan is on hold. The effort to clarify the environmental laws came in response to questions asked by the state Supreme Court when it sent the suit back to district court. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club are concerned that density requirements that support environmental goals for density and against sprawl shouldn’t be thwarted using environmental protection statutes.
The Minneapolis plan does what both the multifamily bill and the missing middle bill were attempting to do — increase density in already built-out urban areas. The lawsuit, however, said the city needed to do environmental assessments on the impacts of the population growth on water supply, sewage systems, air and noise pollution.
Howard said he will ask the House Ways and Means Committee to reinstate the retroactive clause then the state government bill is discussed there next week.
“I do feel optimistic we can get that across,” Howard said. “There is momentum to do it among suburban members but particularly the Minneapolis members are committed to seeing this happen.”
Peter Callaghan
Peter Callaghan covers state government for MinnPost. Follow him on Twitter @CallaghanPeter or email him at pcallaghan@minnpost.com.
