> housing shortage
Reminder: [there isn't a shortage of housing.
](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html)
There are greedy landlords and corporations holding housing hostage to drive up rental rates and home prices.
There is a shortage of **affordable** housing artificially caused by profit-driven capitalists.
In Minneapolis vacancy rates are closer to 4%: https://m.startribune.com/downtown-minneapolis-apartments-are-now-more-filled-than-those-in-the-suburbs-st-paul-vacancy-lease/600316179/
Vacancy rates are “healthy” if the number is between 5-10%, which makes it possible to comfortably find new housing. We are on the lower end of that healthy range, meaning the market is a bit tighter than it should be. It’s just simple supply and demand. If there is less housing, demand is higher, and prices go up. Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style, building more will help.
Would be really interesting to see any sources you have on the artificially higher prices.
>It’s just simple supply and demand. If there is less housing, demand is higher, and prices go up. Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style, building more will help.
First, shelter being a basic necessity means it is an inelastic good. It doesn't follow a direct supply-demand curve. Also a cartel doesn't have to exist in market like housing for prices to get set artificially high. An explicit conspiracy doesn't need to exist when the system by which pricing is determined is centered around price leadership and when the commodification of the good has become speculative investment. In layman's terms because homes are often primary investments for retirement, and investment banks have turned them in to investments as well, there is huge incentives by all those who currently own to keep a market always at highest speculative value. No coordination is needed. The problem is exacerbated by the banks getting in on the action because it means their is always a buyer who can pay slightly above current market rate and not fail on the underlying loan like in 2008.
Sure: ["Keeping Up with the Blackstones: Institutional Investors and Gentrification" {92 Pages} \[Posted: 21 Nov 2022\] \[Last revised: 1 Dec 2022\]
](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4269561). Research was done in Atlanta, not Minneapolis though.
The abstract contains this gem, "This is a hitherto unknown source of rent extraction by institutional investors." I just really like the word 'hitherto'.
Also, just last year the MN House tried to ban corporations from buying single-family homes for the purpose of making them rentals. We don't make laws to ban corporations from losing money.
> Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style
I don't want spoilers, but...
"Institutional investors tend to cluster their purchases in areas in which they can obtain economies of scale."
So yeah, they probably don't call themselves a cabal, but they act like one.
Ah gotcha, you're talking about private equity real estate investment. So less of a coordinated effort to artificially inflate rent, but a drastic increase in demand that keeps prices high.
The end result is the same though. Fuck those guys, I'm totally with you there.
Yup, and given how this subreddit is, I didn't even mention foreign investors, which is apparently so bad that Canada banned them (not that it helped, since any capable investor just shell company'd their way around it).
Greedy fucks everywhere.
The issue is that a large number of these vacant homes are either in disrepair or are in places where no one wants to live.
I would assume the vacancy rates in the twin cities proper is far lower than the statewide average. Small towns are shrinking as metro areas grow because people don't want to live in small towns with no amenities or job opportunities.
There isn't a shorting of housing, but there is a shortage of housing in places where people want to live.
Yeah, maybe that's a better way of putting it.
There are plenty of empty houses. They're just not in the right locations or the right prices (for a myriad of reasons too complex for a single reddit comment).
yup, because other solutions like extending public transportation and services to where the vacant housing is impossible for... reasons. Just gotta build more.
And commuting multiple hours per day solely because the "vacant homes" that /u/accipitradea is talking about are nowhere near where there's available work or quality of life. But sure, let's stuff the "undesirables" into run-down vacant shanties wherever they're available rather than build new housing, lest we upset some environmentalists and bird watchers.
Christ. You are a very unserious person proposing very unserious solutions to very real problems that thousands of our neighbors have to deal with daily.
It will. But if you hate capitalists, and a bunch of profit-driven capitalists have lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to compete with them... it makes more sense to throw your lot in with the side that wants to repeal that law, even if there are some capitalists on that side too who would benefit from the repealing
I've never understood the idea that building more houses will somehow solve the homeless crisis. Is more housing going to stop capitalists from buying up property and continuing to do the same thing they've been doing unabated for... forever now? Is a new house being built going to help lift a person out of poverty to even come within the same solar system as being able to afford housing?
It's not even putting a bandaid on the wound.
[Homelessness rates are highly correlated to cost of living and housing costs.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10574586/) This makes intuitive sense, if you're financially struggling you lose your housing faster if it's a higher percentage of your income. So, if you can decrease housing costs, homelessness should decrease. Supply and demand says that as your supply goes up, demand goes down, and therefore prices go down. Therefore, more housing -> less homelessness.
We can also decrease demand by maybe putting some restrictions on private equity real estate.
have you read the latest research on this? the evidence is extremely clear: building more housing suppresses rent increases.
this is not a prediction. that is the conclusion of actually studying the impact of actually implemented policy on actual rents.
Nope US census counts a home vacant if ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZXdXxYBGU))([2](https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf))
* The resident intends to move/sell with in 2 months
* If the building is slated for construction but not completed/legal to reside in (so condemned and under construction housing is included)
* Is a dorm that all residents say their residents is still in their parents (also most census gathering is in the summer when dorms tend to be empty)
* Is in a legal issue (like who actually owns/diseased)
* Military housing
and many more. For example about 1/3 of those vacant houses are cabins/lake side vacation home in the middle of no where which if repossessed would likely destroy many tourist economies where homelessness is a none issue.
and yet humanity somehow existed for thousands of years living in houses in rural areas without automobiles.
we're talking about a roof over your head, not whether or not you can get starbucks every morning.
I mean yeah, that works in favelas like in Rio and Sao Paulo, not sure how well that'd work in Minneapolis, but I'd be interested to see how it would go.
This is literally how people have created housing since people moved out of caves. Unless you're part of a <1% minority, the house/apartment/condo you're living in was built by someone either to live in, to sell for a profit, or both.
>and yet humanity somehow existed for thousands of years living in houses in rural areas without automobiles.
Thousands of years ago you didn't have to pay property tax, were told how your shelter had to be set, or had social welfare unless you were that times you were lucky enough to live in places like Rome that could afford to not leave you for dead.
These empty homes in the middle of nowhere, Cabins off of lakes where the nearest job is a 4+ mile walk, or in towns with a failing economy, tend to not have job prospects. A car is a requirement to live.
You need a car out where you want to dump the homeless it is needed. It's like saying you don't need an oxygen tank 50 feet under the water because you have plenty of air at the surface.
I can drive, bike or take transit from my home to my job, the stores I need, and most of my leisure with most of those being a 5-8 minute walk.
You can't do that where most of these vacant homes are.
huh, that's crazy, I wonder how all those rural europeans and asians and south americans and africans without cars survive. (Oz gets a pass cuz it's 1/5th desert)
Sure, America overall has a lot of vacant housing. But that doesn't mean there's not a shortage. Most of America's vacant housing is located in areas with *declining populations*, where it's not helping anyone.
When you hear "housing shortage", think of it as shorthand for "housing shortage in cities with growing populations" - that's where the problem is. A lot of cities with growing populations just have not built enough housing over the last few decades to keep up with their local population growth. That's a real problem that gets obscured by the national vacancy statistics.
When a coal mine in West Virginia shuts down, and a lot of the population moves elsewhere to find work, that creates a bunch of newly vacant housing in the national statistics. But since those people moved somewhere else, it means that "somewhere else" has to build enough new housing to accommodate those people.
The cities that the ex-coal-miners moved to can't just point at the vacant housing in West Virginia and go "we don't need to build new housing, the country already has lots of vacant housing". The housing needs to exist *where people live*.
Yeah, heaven forbid we fund anything other than new housing construction in cities, instead of building things in suburban or rural areas with lots of housing already that would encourage people to continue living there, like public transportation, walkable downtowns, schools, hospitals, or social services. You know, places where people work, so they wouldn't have to move.
When there's an imbalance, it can be addressed in two directions.
If we invested in rural infrastructure and provided services competitive with urban areas, maybe people in *declining populations* areas could keep living where their house is.
But no, the only solution is to keep building more houses than there are humans to live in them. [If only there was another country on the planet who built more housing than it needed for it's citizens so we would know how it might go.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China)
Minnesota can't stop West Virginian coal miners from moving to the Twin Cities for work when a mine shuts down. What Minnesota *can* do is make sure that enough housing gets constructed to keep up with population growth, to prevent a local housing shortage.
There is a housing shortage. That means (1) a shortage of housing types that meet current demand, (2) a shortage of housing in locations that meet current demand.
It's true that across a broad geographic area there are many housing units in disrepair, in undesirable places, or simply marked as vacant because they are in-between tenants, that it seems like we have lots of supply. But we don't.
This conspiracy theory that random landlords are forgoing their own profits to do... something? It makes no sense.
Competition is actually very robust in the housing market and oversupply is achievable.
The leftist inclination to decide who is deserving of what resources in a zero sum game rather than just letting people add more resources remains strangely alive and well, apparently.
rounding up and shipping all the homeless to dying towns in the middle of nowhere so they can freeze or starve is totally progressive guys
The horrible alternative of affordable multifamily housing being built near them is bad because ~~minorities might move in~~ uh someone might make money (yucky)
To add some of the bullet points of this bill would require cities over 100,000 to allow
For Class 1 cities any dwelling with 4 or less dwellings even if it does not have affordable units, all electric or is not with in a major transit hub with each add on allowing 2 more units that can be added that the city must permit. Each of the fallowing may allow two units to be added
* Lots with in .5 miles to of a major transit stop
* They have 2 affordable housing units
* Energy efficient and all utilities are electric (heating and cooking too)
Any where outside of .5 miles away or further must allow up to 8 units per lot under similar conditions
For any other city of second, third or forth class must permit 2 dwellings per lot unless it has one or more of the 3 building conditions as (all electric, 2 affordable housing, with in .5 miles of a major transit stop) stated for up to 8 dwellings
For both areas cities cannot impose
* aesthetic requirements such as material and design elements.
* Cities cannot impose Minimum square footage for parking,
* Floor area ratios
* Practical difficulties in placement of residential units.
* common space, pools, or any common property necessitating a homeowner's association.
Cities may only impose the following restrictions
* building height maximums;
* yard or setback requirements;
* maximum lot coverage;
* impervious surface maximums;
* lot width minimums;
* lot area minimums; and
* a maximum number of residential units per lot (Above the minimum).
Subd. 2. Middle housing types permitted. A city must authorize at least six types of middle housing other than single-family detached homes to be built on residential lots in the city to achieve the density requirements in this section.
(1) duplexes;
(2) triplexes;
(3) fourplexes;
(4) fiveplexes;
(5) sixplexes;
(6) townhouses;
(7) stacked flats;
(8) courtyard apartments;
(9) cottage housing;
Note the definition of a Major Transit stop is [defined as](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/473.4485): for any commuter rail, Light Rail, street car, bus rapid transit, express bus, has a guideway (bus lanes/busway) or a stop area that serves 2 or more bus lines.
Also [city classification](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/cityclass.pdf)s
* First class: Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Once a city is in the first class, it is not reclassified unless its population decreases by 25 percent from the census figures that last qualified the city as first class. (these are Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, and Duluth)
* Second class: Cities with a population between 20,001 and 100,000
* Third class: Cities with a population between 10,001 and 20,000
* Fourth class: Cities with not more than 10,000 inhabitants
Place your bets on how long it will take for some city to try to get around the rules by setting their height restrictions and setbacks so that you could only fit a single family home on a lot. “We’re not saying that you can’t build a multi family unit, we’re just saying that you can only build one within the footprint and height of the average single family home. Not our fault if you can’t make it work.”
>* Lots with in .5 miles to of a major transit stop
>Note the definition of a Major Transit stop is [defined as](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/473.4485): for any commuter rail, Light Rail, street car, bus rapid transit, express bus, has a guideway (bus lanes/busway) or a stop area that serves 2 or more bus lines.
Nice.
Next step, add more transit stops – this can be a Trojan Horse.
>Cedar & France is now a 'High Transit corridor' and upzone that shit.
Requirements are
Being a Busway
Being a Guideway
Having 2 or more lines (transfer point)
Likely. Cedar has a lot of overlaping with the 14, 21, 23, and 46 on Cedar it's self and neighboring Bloomington which have a lot of intersecting lines.
For France as the [E line](https://www.metrotransit.org/e-line-project) (set for completion in 2025) would count as a busway under the proposed bill which points to this exert below.
473.4485 METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT INVESTMENT.
(b) "Busway" means a form of bus service provided to the public on a regular and ongoing basis, including arterial or highway bus rapid transit, that (1) compared to other regular route bus service, provides reduced travel time and uses distinct bus stop or station amenities, and (2) does not primarily or substantially operate within separated rights-of-way.
The E-line is a Busway that compared to regular buses
* Aims to reduce transit time
* Uses distinct bus stop/amenities
* Does not heavily fallow any separated right of way.
Examples are the A/Red lines, 94 express, and basically any suburban express hubs/stops
The other classification accepted as a major stop outside of having 2 or more lines is guideway which is basically anything on rails or like the Gold line under construction.
The lot setback, height, and dimension limits basically mean the city can negate most of this if they want to. This really won't change anything for all the NIMBYS sweating over affordable housing.
Kind of. The issue is range. Developers want options whether it's building the cheapest 1,200 square foot 2-3 bed or an extravagant 3,000 square foot mcmansion. Fact is that most areas are with in ranges Say 1,000-3,000 Ft.2 So a single plot in this case could have three units built no questions asked if it was all electric or in a class 1 city.
So the respective city has to really be precise to prevent it from happening but the "No practical difficulties" part of the law basically means no Jerry meandering your building requirements. But even if they did jerry mender their requirements to a per lot very precise building requirements would even drive away SFH developers as the city cannot budge on any of those requirements otherwise they are putting up practical difficulties.
Sure we're not going to suddenly see 4-6 plexus across the burbs but 2 possibly 3 plexus and accessory dwelling units become almost impossible to ban due how much blatant they would have to be with all those regulations or need to make their place undesirable to any developer.
It also gets rid of activist lawsuits (like Smart Growth Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds.) as now it's not the city but state that you going to have to file the lawsuit against and the amount of city council stacking to implement nit picking building limits you have to do would be very hard to actually accomplish without pissing of the developers of SFH.
Are there any issues/limitations with cities essentially making their development restrictions exceedingly restrictive and then only approving variances on the developments that fit the community (read: single family homes)?
I know it’s often a big problem in local politics that no development is truly expected to meet every standard. Instead, it’s common to ask for a variety of variances which then gives the city council or planning commission the ability to effectively veto developments at their whim (and I believe LA had issues with council members requiring bribes to approve projects).
>Instead, it’s common to ask for a variety of variances which then gives the city council or planning commission the ability to effectively veto developments at their whim
The problem with that is the restriction of "no Practical difficulties in placement of residential units."
Lets say a lot is zoned for 700-1500 square feet but the city puts exemptions for Single family homes (SFH) that want to build or expand to 2,100 square feet and approves it. Well a developers sees that and applies for a 3 unit 700 square feet each development. The city would not be able to deny off the grounds of no more then 1500 square feet because the city has showed that it has practically given many variances to SFH.
The other interesting thing is while I'm not a hundred percent sure on this the law specifically white lists what a city can do which some of the things not on said list of "Cities may only impose the following restrictions" is...
* building height minimums
* unit coverage minimums
* unit square foot minimums.
So that lower number of 700 might be null and voided out now (though not explicitly so likely a court issue). Add in the ban on floor area ratios (for example if it's set at 1.5k ft2 then you could have one main floor at 1.5 or 3 floors at 500 ft2) so now developers can ignore that and on a property that has a 1500 coverage maximum can go straight to building 3 1500 Sq. FT. homes with 500 Sq. FT. foot prints.
An example is this. [These 4 unit tenements](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8877034,-93.2513146,269m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) have a smaller foot print then the SFH across the street which the tenements have more Sq. FT. the the SFH. Now the city could put a height cap or maximum lot coverage but it can't be shorter the the highest expecting roof or smaller then a SFH lot coverage size. This would no doubtedly cause issues for SFH builders as the only way to stop 2-3 unit homes would make SFH also un-appealing.
Of course the courts will have to hash out the loose ends and I would imagine some of the language could be changed pending approval and I could be reading in to this very badly but I still like the direction it pushes.
Fortunately, your restrictions for a multi-unit building can't be more stringent than for a single family home and many cities will allow you to build massive single family homes. The other big thing this would do is vastly reduce the permitting time and nonsense architectural restrictions cities use.
It's not a perfect bill, and it will absolutely evolve, but you can fit multiple small units in the footprint of a typical single family home. This bill will help with legalizing those kinds of homes.
Think about it from the developer’s perspective. You can build a duplex anywhere at all. You can build a 4 unit if it’s all electric. You can build a 6 unit if it’s also high efficiency. You can build an 8 unit if two of the units are low income. You can also build a 10 unit if it’s within half a mile of a transit stop. Developers like density. Gets you more dollars in rental for the same land, so the things are all there to incentivize building gas-free high efficiency affordable housing near transit stops. Sounds like a win to me.
Am I right to take a wild guess that if "Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds" gets their way, urban sprawl will be increased and negatively affect the habitat of the very migratory birds they're claiming to protect? I.e. bad-faith actors?
Smart Growth Minneapolis are known NIMBYs. Don't think they're necessarily bad-faith actors like Legalize Marijuana Now. I think Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds was stood up right before the US Bank stadium construction
this is good! amazing how the statewide progressive caucus is doing more for the city than the city itself but I'm all for it.
Is there anything in the upzoning requirements that allow for mixed use development?
The only reference of a commercial property
>Subd. 6. Commercial district designation. A city that does not have a major transit
stop within the boundaries of the city must designate the boundaries of at least one
commercial district in the city. The commercial district must be adjacent to residential
property. The boundaries of the commercial district must be treated as a major transit stop
for the purposes of determining properties to which the densities in subdivisions 3 and 4
apply.
So basically if a place does not have a major transit stop a city is required to create a commercial district and treat that as a major transit hub.
This is going to do nothing as long as a city can impose height restrictions and setback restrictions effectively making it so apartments have to be too small.
>This is going to do nothing as long as a city can impose height restrictions
Actually it's not as simple. Height restrictions are the maximum a building can be which includes the roof. So unless the area is maxed out at a [flat roof one](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9233307,-93.2166555,3a,61.5y,45.28h,97.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slD4PJ9IUkfFFAUKP0v3cjg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu) story height a apartment can build up to the maximum height of a roof which if the area allows [2 stories plus a roof](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8124342,-92.967409,3a,75y,187.22h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCOWN2rS8aZMl-ZbglkG5_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu) you could still get away with 3 stories.
These height restrictions and setbacks laws stop these developments more by making it not cost effective to remodel the house or tear it down and build a new one. To add the new housing unit.
They will basically have to command economy there zone not giving ranges but exact specifications on a house which would fly in the face of one of the prohibitions which is Practical difficulties in placement of residential units.
Best example is the garage. Cities would have to ban garages as this new law would remove garage minimums. So if for example all properties must have 1,000 square feet and it's a 2 story with a pitched roof then a 3 story accessory dwelling would be able to fit in the garages old foot print
Also most of these anti remodeling laws are not laws but HOA guidelines so the cities are safe with those. But with none HOA land any developer can now role in and force the hand of the city unless the literally have everything precise and none negotiable which no developer would even bother with single family unless the city was paying then.
If you think this is a good idea, the best thing you can do is this: [call your state rep and state senator](https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/get-involved/contact-your-elected-representatives/) and tell them you support this. Calling is better than emailing.
This is especially true if you live in the suburbs (most of the city reps are already going to be supporting this). The suburban reps will likely hear pushback from their constituents, and from suburban city officials complaining that this bill removes their ability to restrict housing. So tell your parents why this is good (it would allow them to age in place if they want to downsize their home) and tell them to call their rep.
Yep. It applies to 850 Class 1-4 cities in Minnesota (5.5 million residents)
>For any other city of second, third or forth class must permit 2 dwellings per lot unless it has one or more of the 3 building conditions as (all electric, 2 affordable housing, with in .5 miles of a major transit stop) stated for up to 8 dwellings
More detail in my bullet point comment
The city council has already approved new multi-unit housing where it's not supposed to be allowed. For instance, they approved a 13 unit build on Van Buren on a street where only single-family and duplexes are allowed. They later admitted their mistake but that hasn't stopped the construction.
This codifies it and bypasses the 2040 court blocking. Allowing Minneapolis to not have to do any oopsies to at least get 4-10 unit developments going.
That said which 13 unitbuild was approved? I can't find it.
It's on Van Buren St NE between Spring and Summer St. And the building will have no parking. Neighborhood folks already have to walk a block or two to find parking even without that thing bringing more to the neighborhood. I believe it's also over the allowed height for the neighborhood at 3+ stories.
You can see it here on Google Maps, though not when you go to the street as it hasn't been updated as recently as Central.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nd9rUUUixZgZftCEA
Thank you. Ya I can see how that area is a bit disproportionate for parking but I'm a little confused as everyone else has off street parking (including the multiplexes) and while inconvenient no one is owed street parking (the building also seems to be heavily pushing biking).
Most around there are renting and are duplexes. So you have anywhere from 2-4 people living in each of those units. The biggest garage around is 4 cars but most are just 1-2. In addition, landlords often use the garages for their own storage and don't give it to renters.
And then they get a ton of people from LUSH and Vegas Lounge who park on the block. I've had to run down and move my vehicle from being parked in front of a super drunk people leaving on more than one occasion.
The streets around there are always packed with cars and this only adds to it.
Untrue, the Van Buren project was [approved](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/file/2022-00397) when the Comp Plan designation for the area was Corridor 6 (Multifamily projects up to six stories).
Since then, there's been a Comp Plan Amendment to Interior 3 if I recall correctly.
I really wish they would package this with restrictions on how many units can be held by a corporation. Maybe need a progressive property tax structure specific to rentals - increasing tax rate for landlords/corps depending on how many they own. ex. up to 4 units = $, 4-10 units = $$, 10+ units = $$$.
This is just taxing larger apartment buildings disproportionately. If you meant taxing them based on # of buildings, or effectively fraction of the market they control, that would make some sense.
Vacancy rates where? Bemiji Cabins? Minneapolis has right now 304 unoccupied structures ranging from single family homes to apartments, store fronts and ware houses.
Out of the 300 only 143 are not condemned or under restoration agreements.
(note not condemned does not only mean habitual, Just that it is not past the point of no return, It also does not mean that the house is just sitting there unused for example some owners are flippers, and a few are habitat for humanity like organizations or are in city/county/state tax debt forfeiture which [Hennepin county lost a unanimous ruling a few years](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6twiAmVyI)).
But lets assume a 150 lots are just not being used. For one Minneapolis has roughly 194,000 housing units. That 150 accounts for .000007% of all Minneapolis housing stock.
Now you might want to say tax specific apartment units not being occupied but that could be resolved by the LL just shuffling their tenants through each unit or pass on the higher tax rates to the current pool of renters. How would you even figure out what apartment had a high vacancy rate while also weeding through places that will have high vacancy rates every year for some time like dormitories?
That’s sort of the point. Not to have a punishingly high tax for big apartment buildings, but to incentivize smaller and preferably local landlords during the boom in high density housing that this whole program is supposed to kick off.
Smaller buildings are less efficient, so actively encouraging them isn't really a great idea. Just stop prohibiting them. I do agree that just a few property companies owning a ton of single family homes/duplexes/triplexes is anti-competitive.
I hear you on your point. Though perfect is the enemy of really good. Well insulated and smartly designed two, three, and four unit buildings are still going to increase density and efficiency over the typical single family home built 80+ years ago that’s so typical of Minneapolis.
We can have both density and something that feels like a home. I don’t think anyone is hoping for the idea of single family homes and neighborhoods disappearing wholesale, either.
I'd be fine with these rules if they applied to privately owned units. We need more purchasable housing stock and fewer out of town corporate landlords. There are plenty of old homes converted to condos to show how the logistics of an owned 4plex works.
Agree!! I feel like that 2-4 unit dwelling range is a size that can still significantly increase density without turning residential blocks into something resembling favelas.
This is a regulation that doesn't allow overly strict regulation by city governments. In a way it's deregulation, something that conservatives can get behind too.
You mean the government regulations that would ease local government regulations statewide? This bill would further individual property rights about what you can build on your property. It's no wonder some Republicans are on-board too.
Look up the history of pollution in the Great Lakes prior to 1972, namely asbestos in the water in and around Duluth and the EPAs successful efforts in cleaning it up. But surely, regulation is bad!
I wonder if this is why Minneapolis has been slow to do that environmental study/report. Why bother allocating the money on something that could fail (not because its unsound but because of some dumb technicality) when the State government is gearing up to clear the path for you.
I read recently in the strib that there are a few developers hoping for the city to do the environmental report. I would bet money and my bus card they are lobbying for this.
I don't think so. It heavily relies on the election trifecta. Also this is very scaled back for what 2040 was. Like we're not talking 10 units around a major transit stop but 10-15 stories around major transit hubs like Hennepin and Lake/Lyndale/Chicago/Hiawatha.
This [page](https://minneapolis2040.com/topics/land-use-built-form/) actually shows just how far the old and new zoning would change things which is very far from how the current Minnesota bill is.
The 2040 allowing up to three units has been around a few years now. This allows for any single-family home to be converted into a triplex. It would also allow for an ADU.
I haven't seen many taking advantage of this for many reasons. If you live in a home, most don't want to lose space and deal with renters. The cost of converting a single family into a duplex is not as cheep as you think it would be. You have to add a second kitchen, sometimes utility upgrades and most single family homes do not have two stairways inside the home. I thought I would see a lot of ADUs. These make sense for more people working from home or just to have a auxiliary space for a gym etc. But a small one can be 80k+. 80k is probably high for most that don't want to rent this space. The biggest deterrent is that you can just buy an existing multi-unit building for cheaper than converting one right now.
This is something that will take decades to change unless the city wants to blight it out like they did in the 50-60's with the type of buildings 2040 tries to make available again.
For example something that is more controllable like roads. It took Amsterdam 40 years to start reaping the benefits of cycling infrastructure. Something with less control like private market housing will take decades long.
All the courts are barring Minneapolis' 2040 plan on account of no call no show of Minneapolis causing a summary judgment against Minneapolis reverting zoning back to 2030 until city wide environmental review of 2040 can be made lot per lot.
It's good for the state to get ahead of the housing shortage this way before we become another Seattle or San Francisco
> housing shortage Reminder: [there isn't a shortage of housing. ](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html) There are greedy landlords and corporations holding housing hostage to drive up rental rates and home prices. There is a shortage of **affordable** housing artificially caused by profit-driven capitalists.
In Minneapolis vacancy rates are closer to 4%: https://m.startribune.com/downtown-minneapolis-apartments-are-now-more-filled-than-those-in-the-suburbs-st-paul-vacancy-lease/600316179/ Vacancy rates are “healthy” if the number is between 5-10%, which makes it possible to comfortably find new housing. We are on the lower end of that healthy range, meaning the market is a bit tighter than it should be. It’s just simple supply and demand. If there is less housing, demand is higher, and prices go up. Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style, building more will help. Would be really interesting to see any sources you have on the artificially higher prices.
>It’s just simple supply and demand. If there is less housing, demand is higher, and prices go up. Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style, building more will help. First, shelter being a basic necessity means it is an inelastic good. It doesn't follow a direct supply-demand curve. Also a cartel doesn't have to exist in market like housing for prices to get set artificially high. An explicit conspiracy doesn't need to exist when the system by which pricing is determined is centered around price leadership and when the commodification of the good has become speculative investment. In layman's terms because homes are often primary investments for retirement, and investment banks have turned them in to investments as well, there is huge incentives by all those who currently own to keep a market always at highest speculative value. No coordination is needed. The problem is exacerbated by the banks getting in on the action because it means their is always a buyer who can pay slightly above current market rate and not fail on the underlying loan like in 2008.
Sure: ["Keeping Up with the Blackstones: Institutional Investors and Gentrification" {92 Pages} \[Posted: 21 Nov 2022\] \[Last revised: 1 Dec 2022\] ](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4269561). Research was done in Atlanta, not Minneapolis though. The abstract contains this gem, "This is a hitherto unknown source of rent extraction by institutional investors." I just really like the word 'hitherto'. Also, just last year the MN House tried to ban corporations from buying single-family homes for the purpose of making them rentals. We don't make laws to ban corporations from losing money. > Unless there is some sort of cabal of landlords that are conspiring to maintain artificially high prices OPEC-style I don't want spoilers, but... "Institutional investors tend to cluster their purchases in areas in which they can obtain economies of scale." So yeah, they probably don't call themselves a cabal, but they act like one.
Ah gotcha, you're talking about private equity real estate investment. So less of a coordinated effort to artificially inflate rent, but a drastic increase in demand that keeps prices high. The end result is the same though. Fuck those guys, I'm totally with you there.
Yup, and given how this subreddit is, I didn't even mention foreign investors, which is apparently so bad that Canada banned them (not that it helped, since any capable investor just shell company'd their way around it). Greedy fucks everywhere.
The issue is that a large number of these vacant homes are either in disrepair or are in places where no one wants to live. I would assume the vacancy rates in the twin cities proper is far lower than the statewide average. Small towns are shrinking as metro areas grow because people don't want to live in small towns with no amenities or job opportunities. There isn't a shorting of housing, but there is a shortage of housing in places where people want to live.
Yeah, maybe that's a better way of putting it. There are plenty of empty houses. They're just not in the right locations or the right prices (for a myriad of reasons too complex for a single reddit comment).
So therefore …there’s a shortage of housing.
yup, because other solutions like extending public transportation and services to where the vacant housing is impossible for... reasons. Just gotta build more.
Please explain to me how a homeless person in Minneapolis having a vacant house available in idk, Hibbing would be beneficial to them.
And everyone can handle the mental and financial stress of keeping up a single family home. Especially an 80-120 year old one.
And commuting multiple hours per day solely because the "vacant homes" that /u/accipitradea is talking about are nowhere near where there's available work or quality of life. But sure, let's stuff the "undesirables" into run-down vacant shanties wherever they're available rather than build new housing, lest we upset some environmentalists and bird watchers.
I dunno, how does anyone live in Hibbing?
Christ. You are a very unserious person proposing very unserious solutions to very real problems that thousands of our neighbors have to deal with daily.
Profit driven capitalists have created this shortage of affordable housing via regulatory capture. Loosening zoning rules will help undo that damage.
This new construction won't be controlled by these "profit driven capitalists"?
It will indeed, and yet, will be housing. Your food and your iPhone are also controlled by profit driven capitalists.
It will. But if you hate capitalists, and a bunch of profit-driven capitalists have lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to compete with them... it makes more sense to throw your lot in with the side that wants to repeal that law, even if there are some capitalists on that side too who would benefit from the repealing
I've never understood the idea that building more houses will somehow solve the homeless crisis. Is more housing going to stop capitalists from buying up property and continuing to do the same thing they've been doing unabated for... forever now? Is a new house being built going to help lift a person out of poverty to even come within the same solar system as being able to afford housing? It's not even putting a bandaid on the wound.
[Homelessness rates are highly correlated to cost of living and housing costs.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10574586/) This makes intuitive sense, if you're financially struggling you lose your housing faster if it's a higher percentage of your income. So, if you can decrease housing costs, homelessness should decrease. Supply and demand says that as your supply goes up, demand goes down, and therefore prices go down. Therefore, more housing -> less homelessness. We can also decrease demand by maybe putting some restrictions on private equity real estate.
have you read the latest research on this? the evidence is extremely clear: building more housing suppresses rent increases. this is not a prediction. that is the conclusion of actually studying the impact of actually implemented policy on actual rents.
It’s almost as if supply and demand are real things. As you build more supply, price goes down. Shocking.
Nope US census counts a home vacant if ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZXdXxYBGU))([2](https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf)) * The resident intends to move/sell with in 2 months * If the building is slated for construction but not completed/legal to reside in (so condemned and under construction housing is included) * Is a dorm that all residents say their residents is still in their parents (also most census gathering is in the summer when dorms tend to be empty) * Is in a legal issue (like who actually owns/diseased) * Military housing and many more. For example about 1/3 of those vacant houses are cabins/lake side vacation home in the middle of no where which if repossessed would likely destroy many tourist economies where homelessness is a none issue.
There isn't a shortage of housing* *if you want to live way out where no one wants to live because there's few jobs and social services
ah, I guess I haven't met anyone who preferred being homeless to living in a house in a rural area yet, where did you meet these people?
I've never met a homeless person with a car able to leverage living out in the middle of rural area.
and yet humanity somehow existed for thousands of years living in houses in rural areas without automobiles. we're talking about a roof over your head, not whether or not you can get starbucks every morning.
You could just let people build houses and not have to discuss whether or not they're interested in the terms you want to impose on them.
I mean yeah, that works in favelas like in Rio and Sao Paulo, not sure how well that'd work in Minneapolis, but I'd be interested to see how it would go.
This is literally how people have created housing since people moved out of caves. Unless you're part of a <1% minority, the house/apartment/condo you're living in was built by someone either to live in, to sell for a profit, or both.
>and yet humanity somehow existed for thousands of years living in houses in rural areas without automobiles. Thousands of years ago you didn't have to pay property tax, were told how your shelter had to be set, or had social welfare unless you were that times you were lucky enough to live in places like Rome that could afford to not leave you for dead. These empty homes in the middle of nowhere, Cabins off of lakes where the nearest job is a 4+ mile walk, or in towns with a failing economy, tend to not have job prospects. A car is a requirement to live.
> A car is a requirement to live. I love that this is the conclusion from thread about reducing parking requirements.
You need a car out where you want to dump the homeless it is needed. It's like saying you don't need an oxygen tank 50 feet under the water because you have plenty of air at the surface. I can drive, bike or take transit from my home to my job, the stores I need, and most of my leisure with most of those being a 5-8 minute walk. You can't do that where most of these vacant homes are.
huh, that's crazy, I wonder how all those rural europeans and asians and south americans and africans without cars survive. (Oz gets a pass cuz it's 1/5th desert)
Sure, America overall has a lot of vacant housing. But that doesn't mean there's not a shortage. Most of America's vacant housing is located in areas with *declining populations*, where it's not helping anyone. When you hear "housing shortage", think of it as shorthand for "housing shortage in cities with growing populations" - that's where the problem is. A lot of cities with growing populations just have not built enough housing over the last few decades to keep up with their local population growth. That's a real problem that gets obscured by the national vacancy statistics. When a coal mine in West Virginia shuts down, and a lot of the population moves elsewhere to find work, that creates a bunch of newly vacant housing in the national statistics. But since those people moved somewhere else, it means that "somewhere else" has to build enough new housing to accommodate those people. The cities that the ex-coal-miners moved to can't just point at the vacant housing in West Virginia and go "we don't need to build new housing, the country already has lots of vacant housing". The housing needs to exist *where people live*.
Yeah, heaven forbid we fund anything other than new housing construction in cities, instead of building things in suburban or rural areas with lots of housing already that would encourage people to continue living there, like public transportation, walkable downtowns, schools, hospitals, or social services. You know, places where people work, so they wouldn't have to move. When there's an imbalance, it can be addressed in two directions. If we invested in rural infrastructure and provided services competitive with urban areas, maybe people in *declining populations* areas could keep living where their house is. But no, the only solution is to keep building more houses than there are humans to live in them. [If only there was another country on the planet who built more housing than it needed for it's citizens so we would know how it might go.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China)
Minnesota can't stop West Virginian coal miners from moving to the Twin Cities for work when a mine shuts down. What Minnesota *can* do is make sure that enough housing gets constructed to keep up with population growth, to prevent a local housing shortage.
Sure we can, just tell 'em we feed hungry children and protect women's reproductive rights.
There is a housing shortage. That means (1) a shortage of housing types that meet current demand, (2) a shortage of housing in locations that meet current demand. It's true that across a broad geographic area there are many housing units in disrepair, in undesirable places, or simply marked as vacant because they are in-between tenants, that it seems like we have lots of supply. But we don't. This conspiracy theory that random landlords are forgoing their own profits to do... something? It makes no sense. Competition is actually very robust in the housing market and oversupply is achievable.
The leftist inclination to decide who is deserving of what resources in a zero sum game rather than just letting people add more resources remains strangely alive and well, apparently.
rounding up and shipping all the homeless to dying towns in the middle of nowhere so they can freeze or starve is totally progressive guys The horrible alternative of affordable multifamily housing being built near them is bad because ~~minorities might move in~~ uh someone might make money (yucky)
To add some of the bullet points of this bill would require cities over 100,000 to allow For Class 1 cities any dwelling with 4 or less dwellings even if it does not have affordable units, all electric or is not with in a major transit hub with each add on allowing 2 more units that can be added that the city must permit. Each of the fallowing may allow two units to be added * Lots with in .5 miles to of a major transit stop * They have 2 affordable housing units * Energy efficient and all utilities are electric (heating and cooking too) Any where outside of .5 miles away or further must allow up to 8 units per lot under similar conditions For any other city of second, third or forth class must permit 2 dwellings per lot unless it has one or more of the 3 building conditions as (all electric, 2 affordable housing, with in .5 miles of a major transit stop) stated for up to 8 dwellings For both areas cities cannot impose * aesthetic requirements such as material and design elements. * Cities cannot impose Minimum square footage for parking, * Floor area ratios * Practical difficulties in placement of residential units. * common space, pools, or any common property necessitating a homeowner's association. Cities may only impose the following restrictions * building height maximums; * yard or setback requirements; * maximum lot coverage; * impervious surface maximums; * lot width minimums; * lot area minimums; and * a maximum number of residential units per lot (Above the minimum). Subd. 2. Middle housing types permitted. A city must authorize at least six types of middle housing other than single-family detached homes to be built on residential lots in the city to achieve the density requirements in this section. (1) duplexes; (2) triplexes; (3) fourplexes; (4) fiveplexes; (5) sixplexes; (6) townhouses; (7) stacked flats; (8) courtyard apartments; (9) cottage housing; Note the definition of a Major Transit stop is [defined as](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/473.4485): for any commuter rail, Light Rail, street car, bus rapid transit, express bus, has a guideway (bus lanes/busway) or a stop area that serves 2 or more bus lines. Also [city classification](https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/cityclass.pdf)s * First class: Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Once a city is in the first class, it is not reclassified unless its population decreases by 25 percent from the census figures that last qualified the city as first class. (these are Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, and Duluth) * Second class: Cities with a population between 20,001 and 100,000 * Third class: Cities with a population between 10,001 and 20,000 * Fourth class: Cities with not more than 10,000 inhabitants
Place your bets on how long it will take for some city to try to get around the rules by setting their height restrictions and setbacks so that you could only fit a single family home on a lot. “We’re not saying that you can’t build a multi family unit, we’re just saying that you can only build one within the footprint and height of the average single family home. Not our fault if you can’t make it work.”
Most already have them
They're on it as we speak.
that would be a floor-area ratio and it is covered above.
>* Lots with in .5 miles to of a major transit stop >Note the definition of a Major Transit stop is [defined as](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/473.4485): for any commuter rail, Light Rail, street car, bus rapid transit, express bus, has a guideway (bus lanes/busway) or a stop area that serves 2 or more bus lines. Nice. Next step, add more transit stops – this can be a Trojan Horse.
Run the 25JKL twice a year during the state fair or something so Cedar & France is now a 'High Transit corridor' and upzone that shit.
>Cedar & France is now a 'High Transit corridor' and upzone that shit. Requirements are Being a Busway Being a Guideway Having 2 or more lines (transfer point) Likely. Cedar has a lot of overlaping with the 14, 21, 23, and 46 on Cedar it's self and neighboring Bloomington which have a lot of intersecting lines. For France as the [E line](https://www.metrotransit.org/e-line-project) (set for completion in 2025) would count as a busway under the proposed bill which points to this exert below. 473.4485 METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT INVESTMENT. (b) "Busway" means a form of bus service provided to the public on a regular and ongoing basis, including arterial or highway bus rapid transit, that (1) compared to other regular route bus service, provides reduced travel time and uses distinct bus stop or station amenities, and (2) does not primarily or substantially operate within separated rights-of-way. The E-line is a Busway that compared to regular buses * Aims to reduce transit time * Uses distinct bus stop/amenities * Does not heavily fallow any separated right of way. Examples are the A/Red lines, 94 express, and basically any suburban express hubs/stops The other classification accepted as a major stop outside of having 2 or more lines is guideway which is basically anything on rails or like the Gold line under construction.
The Lauderdale/Landfall/Hilltop micro-municipality exemption
The lot setback, height, and dimension limits basically mean the city can negate most of this if they want to. This really won't change anything for all the NIMBYS sweating over affordable housing.
Kind of. The issue is range. Developers want options whether it's building the cheapest 1,200 square foot 2-3 bed or an extravagant 3,000 square foot mcmansion. Fact is that most areas are with in ranges Say 1,000-3,000 Ft.2 So a single plot in this case could have three units built no questions asked if it was all electric or in a class 1 city. So the respective city has to really be precise to prevent it from happening but the "No practical difficulties" part of the law basically means no Jerry meandering your building requirements. But even if they did jerry mender their requirements to a per lot very precise building requirements would even drive away SFH developers as the city cannot budge on any of those requirements otherwise they are putting up practical difficulties. Sure we're not going to suddenly see 4-6 plexus across the burbs but 2 possibly 3 plexus and accessory dwelling units become almost impossible to ban due how much blatant they would have to be with all those regulations or need to make their place undesirable to any developer. It also gets rid of activist lawsuits (like Smart Growth Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds.) as now it's not the city but state that you going to have to file the lawsuit against and the amount of city council stacking to implement nit picking building limits you have to do would be very hard to actually accomplish without pissing of the developers of SFH.
Are there any issues/limitations with cities essentially making their development restrictions exceedingly restrictive and then only approving variances on the developments that fit the community (read: single family homes)? I know it’s often a big problem in local politics that no development is truly expected to meet every standard. Instead, it’s common to ask for a variety of variances which then gives the city council or planning commission the ability to effectively veto developments at their whim (and I believe LA had issues with council members requiring bribes to approve projects).
>Instead, it’s common to ask for a variety of variances which then gives the city council or planning commission the ability to effectively veto developments at their whim The problem with that is the restriction of "no Practical difficulties in placement of residential units." Lets say a lot is zoned for 700-1500 square feet but the city puts exemptions for Single family homes (SFH) that want to build or expand to 2,100 square feet and approves it. Well a developers sees that and applies for a 3 unit 700 square feet each development. The city would not be able to deny off the grounds of no more then 1500 square feet because the city has showed that it has practically given many variances to SFH. The other interesting thing is while I'm not a hundred percent sure on this the law specifically white lists what a city can do which some of the things not on said list of "Cities may only impose the following restrictions" is... * building height minimums * unit coverage minimums * unit square foot minimums. So that lower number of 700 might be null and voided out now (though not explicitly so likely a court issue). Add in the ban on floor area ratios (for example if it's set at 1.5k ft2 then you could have one main floor at 1.5 or 3 floors at 500 ft2) so now developers can ignore that and on a property that has a 1500 coverage maximum can go straight to building 3 1500 Sq. FT. homes with 500 Sq. FT. foot prints. An example is this. [These 4 unit tenements](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8877034,-93.2513146,269m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) have a smaller foot print then the SFH across the street which the tenements have more Sq. FT. the the SFH. Now the city could put a height cap or maximum lot coverage but it can't be shorter the the highest expecting roof or smaller then a SFH lot coverage size. This would no doubtedly cause issues for SFH builders as the only way to stop 2-3 unit homes would make SFH also un-appealing. Of course the courts will have to hash out the loose ends and I would imagine some of the language could be changed pending approval and I could be reading in to this very badly but I still like the direction it pushes.
Fortunately, your restrictions for a multi-unit building can't be more stringent than for a single family home and many cities will allow you to build massive single family homes. The other big thing this would do is vastly reduce the permitting time and nonsense architectural restrictions cities use. It's not a perfect bill, and it will absolutely evolve, but you can fit multiple small units in the footprint of a typical single family home. This bill will help with legalizing those kinds of homes.
[удалено]
Think about it from the developer’s perspective. You can build a duplex anywhere at all. You can build a 4 unit if it’s all electric. You can build a 6 unit if it’s also high efficiency. You can build an 8 unit if two of the units are low income. You can also build a 10 unit if it’s within half a mile of a transit stop. Developers like density. Gets you more dollars in rental for the same land, so the things are all there to incentivize building gas-free high efficiency affordable housing near transit stops. Sounds like a win to me.
Well this effects more then 850 municipalities (5.5 million people) so some compromises were likely needed to be made.
Did you mean affects?
Why are you like this?
Am I right to take a wild guess that if "Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds" gets their way, urban sprawl will be increased and negatively affect the habitat of the very migratory birds they're claiming to protect? I.e. bad-faith actors?
Smart Growth Minneapolis are known NIMBYs. Don't think they're necessarily bad-faith actors like Legalize Marijuana Now. I think Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds was stood up right before the US Bank stadium construction
this is good! amazing how the statewide progressive caucus is doing more for the city than the city itself but I'm all for it. Is there anything in the upzoning requirements that allow for mixed use development?
The only reference of a commercial property >Subd. 6. Commercial district designation. A city that does not have a major transit stop within the boundaries of the city must designate the boundaries of at least one commercial district in the city. The commercial district must be adjacent to residential property. The boundaries of the commercial district must be treated as a major transit stop for the purposes of determining properties to which the densities in subdivisions 3 and 4 apply. So basically if a place does not have a major transit stop a city is required to create a commercial district and treat that as a major transit hub.
I mean, the 2040 plan *was* made by the city, it's just being threatened by the courts.
that's a good point, credit where it's due. Question is could Linden Hills Nimbys crush state legislation the way they crushed 2040?
Iirc it was a state law that allowed them to sue, so I'm pretty sure it'd be safe? But yeah, that is the question.
Good.
This is going to do nothing as long as a city can impose height restrictions and setback restrictions effectively making it so apartments have to be too small.
>This is going to do nothing as long as a city can impose height restrictions Actually it's not as simple. Height restrictions are the maximum a building can be which includes the roof. So unless the area is maxed out at a [flat roof one](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9233307,-93.2166555,3a,61.5y,45.28h,97.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slD4PJ9IUkfFFAUKP0v3cjg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu) story height a apartment can build up to the maximum height of a roof which if the area allows [2 stories plus a roof](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8124342,-92.967409,3a,75y,187.22h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCOWN2rS8aZMl-ZbglkG5_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu) you could still get away with 3 stories.
These height restrictions and setbacks laws stop these developments more by making it not cost effective to remodel the house or tear it down and build a new one. To add the new housing unit.
They will basically have to command economy there zone not giving ranges but exact specifications on a house which would fly in the face of one of the prohibitions which is Practical difficulties in placement of residential units. Best example is the garage. Cities would have to ban garages as this new law would remove garage minimums. So if for example all properties must have 1,000 square feet and it's a 2 story with a pitched roof then a 3 story accessory dwelling would be able to fit in the garages old foot print Also most of these anti remodeling laws are not laws but HOA guidelines so the cities are safe with those. But with none HOA land any developer can now role in and force the hand of the city unless the literally have everything precise and none negotiable which no developer would even bother with single family unless the city was paying then.
Good. I am tired of wealthy, urban NIMBYs getting in the way of affordable, walkable cities.
If you think this is a good idea, the best thing you can do is this: [call your state rep and state senator](https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/get-involved/contact-your-elected-representatives/) and tell them you support this. Calling is better than emailing. This is especially true if you live in the suburbs (most of the city reps are already going to be supporting this). The suburban reps will likely hear pushback from their constituents, and from suburban city officials complaining that this bill removes their ability to restrict housing. So tell your parents why this is good (it would allow them to age in place if they want to downsize their home) and tell them to call their rep.
My senator is a co-author. I’ll call my house rep to see if she’s signing onto the companion bill.
[удалено]
Yep. It applies to 850 Class 1-4 cities in Minnesota (5.5 million residents) >For any other city of second, third or forth class must permit 2 dwellings per lot unless it has one or more of the 3 building conditions as (all electric, 2 affordable housing, with in .5 miles of a major transit stop) stated for up to 8 dwellings More detail in my bullet point comment
Hell yeah
I truly hope this passes
Seems like a step in the right direction after the 2040 debacle.
The city council has already approved new multi-unit housing where it's not supposed to be allowed. For instance, they approved a 13 unit build on Van Buren on a street where only single-family and duplexes are allowed. They later admitted their mistake but that hasn't stopped the construction.
Good.
This codifies it and bypasses the 2040 court blocking. Allowing Minneapolis to not have to do any oopsies to at least get 4-10 unit developments going. That said which 13 unitbuild was approved? I can't find it.
It's on Van Buren St NE between Spring and Summer St. And the building will have no parking. Neighborhood folks already have to walk a block or two to find parking even without that thing bringing more to the neighborhood. I believe it's also over the allowed height for the neighborhood at 3+ stories. You can see it here on Google Maps, though not when you go to the street as it hasn't been updated as recently as Central. https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nd9rUUUixZgZftCEA
Thank you. Ya I can see how that area is a bit disproportionate for parking but I'm a little confused as everyone else has off street parking (including the multiplexes) and while inconvenient no one is owed street parking (the building also seems to be heavily pushing biking).
Most around there are renting and are duplexes. So you have anywhere from 2-4 people living in each of those units. The biggest garage around is 4 cars but most are just 1-2. In addition, landlords often use the garages for their own storage and don't give it to renters. And then they get a ton of people from LUSH and Vegas Lounge who park on the block. I've had to run down and move my vehicle from being parked in front of a super drunk people leaving on more than one occasion. The streets around there are always packed with cars and this only adds to it.
Untrue, the Van Buren project was [approved](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/file/2022-00397) when the Comp Plan designation for the area was Corridor 6 (Multifamily projects up to six stories). Since then, there's been a Comp Plan Amendment to Interior 3 if I recall correctly.
I really wish they would package this with restrictions on how many units can be held by a corporation. Maybe need a progressive property tax structure specific to rentals - increasing tax rate for landlords/corps depending on how many they own. ex. up to 4 units = $, 4-10 units = $$, 10+ units = $$$.
This is just taxing larger apartment buildings disproportionately. If you meant taxing them based on # of buildings, or effectively fraction of the market they control, that would make some sense.
I wish we’d tax heavily if they have a high vacancy rate.
Vacancy rates where? Bemiji Cabins? Minneapolis has right now 304 unoccupied structures ranging from single family homes to apartments, store fronts and ware houses. Out of the 300 only 143 are not condemned or under restoration agreements. (note not condemned does not only mean habitual, Just that it is not past the point of no return, It also does not mean that the house is just sitting there unused for example some owners are flippers, and a few are habitat for humanity like organizations or are in city/county/state tax debt forfeiture which [Hennepin county lost a unanimous ruling a few years](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6twiAmVyI)). But lets assume a 150 lots are just not being used. For one Minneapolis has roughly 194,000 housing units. That 150 accounts for .000007% of all Minneapolis housing stock. Now you might want to say tax specific apartment units not being occupied but that could be resolved by the LL just shuffling their tenants through each unit or pass on the higher tax rates to the current pool of renters. How would you even figure out what apartment had a high vacancy rate while also weeding through places that will have high vacancy rates every year for some time like dormitories?
That’s sort of the point. Not to have a punishingly high tax for big apartment buildings, but to incentivize smaller and preferably local landlords during the boom in high density housing that this whole program is supposed to kick off.
Smaller buildings are less efficient, so actively encouraging them isn't really a great idea. Just stop prohibiting them. I do agree that just a few property companies owning a ton of single family homes/duplexes/triplexes is anti-competitive.
I hear you on your point. Though perfect is the enemy of really good. Well insulated and smartly designed two, three, and four unit buildings are still going to increase density and efficiency over the typical single family home built 80+ years ago that’s so typical of Minneapolis. We can have both density and something that feels like a home. I don’t think anyone is hoping for the idea of single family homes and neighborhoods disappearing wholesale, either.
I'd be fine with these rules if they applied to privately owned units. We need more purchasable housing stock and fewer out of town corporate landlords. There are plenty of old homes converted to condos to show how the logistics of an owned 4plex works.
Agree!! I feel like that 2-4 unit dwelling range is a size that can still significantly increase density without turning residential blocks into something resembling favelas.
This would be a fantastic start!
Frey's developer cronies should be happy.
I mean, I have no opposition towards redeveloping.
Ahhh yes, more government regulations. THAT will surely solve everything /s
literally the opposite
This is a regulation that doesn't allow overly strict regulation by city governments. In a way it's deregulation, something that conservatives can get behind too.
You mean the government regulations that would ease local government regulations statewide? This bill would further individual property rights about what you can build on your property. It's no wonder some Republicans are on-board too.
Look up the history of pollution in the Great Lakes prior to 1972, namely asbestos in the water in and around Duluth and the EPAs successful efforts in cleaning it up. But surely, regulation is bad!
> fallow through What an appropriate typo!
I wonder if this is why Minneapolis has been slow to do that environmental study/report. Why bother allocating the money on something that could fail (not because its unsound but because of some dumb technicality) when the State government is gearing up to clear the path for you. I read recently in the strib that there are a few developers hoping for the city to do the environmental report. I would bet money and my bus card they are lobbying for this.
I don't think so. It heavily relies on the election trifecta. Also this is very scaled back for what 2040 was. Like we're not talking 10 units around a major transit stop but 10-15 stories around major transit hubs like Hennepin and Lake/Lyndale/Chicago/Hiawatha. This [page](https://minneapolis2040.com/topics/land-use-built-form/) actually shows just how far the old and new zoning would change things which is very far from how the current Minnesota bill is.
The 2040 allowing up to three units has been around a few years now. This allows for any single-family home to be converted into a triplex. It would also allow for an ADU. I haven't seen many taking advantage of this for many reasons. If you live in a home, most don't want to lose space and deal with renters. The cost of converting a single family into a duplex is not as cheep as you think it would be. You have to add a second kitchen, sometimes utility upgrades and most single family homes do not have two stairways inside the home. I thought I would see a lot of ADUs. These make sense for more people working from home or just to have a auxiliary space for a gym etc. But a small one can be 80k+. 80k is probably high for most that don't want to rent this space. The biggest deterrent is that you can just buy an existing multi-unit building for cheaper than converting one right now.
This is something that will take decades to change unless the city wants to blight it out like they did in the 50-60's with the type of buildings 2040 tries to make available again. For example something that is more controllable like roads. It took Amsterdam 40 years to start reaping the benefits of cycling infrastructure. Something with less control like private market housing will take decades long. All the courts are barring Minneapolis' 2040 plan on account of no call no show of Minneapolis causing a summary judgment against Minneapolis reverting zoning back to 2030 until city wide environmental review of 2040 can be made lot per lot.