Minneapolis, environmental groups face off in court over 2040 Plan ruling

Continuing to block Minneapolis from enforcing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan would drain city resources and cause "harm to the city's population," an attorney for the city argued in court Friday. His remarks drew a sharp rebuke from opponents who said the city had yet to provide evidence to back up its "bold allegation."

The immediate fate of the city's 2040 Plan rests, for now, with Hennepin County Judge Joseph Klein, who weeks ago barred city leaders from enforcing the sweeping plan unless they meet certain requirements laid out by a state law aimed at protecting the environment or provide "an affirmative defense."

The city appealed Klein's decision and is now asking him to allow officials to continue to use the plan while that case makes its way through the judicial system. At the end of a roughly 45-minute hearing, Klein promised to issue a ruling in the near future.

The case — thought to be the first of its kind in Minnesota — threatens to upend the 2040 Plan that drew national attention for eliminating single-family zoning, a change that cleared the way for more duplexes and triplexes to be constructed. It also allowed for the creation of "indoor villages" to increase the number of beds available for people experiencing homelessness and laid the foundation on which the city's transportation plan, zoning updates and a slew of other new ordinances were crafted.

City officials have postponed decisions on at least four rezoning projects while they wait for guidance from Klein, and city spokesperson Casper Hill said they would continue to do so.

Three environmental groups — Smart Growth Minneapolis, the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds — sued the city, arguing it hadn't done the review required under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA). Some other environmental groups are skeptical of the organizations' arguments, accusing them of being a cover for anti-density groups, claims they adamantly deny, saying they support thoughtful development.

At the heart of the legal case is a question of whether the city needed to conduct an environmental review of the 2040 Plan or could instead choose to evaluate projects on an individual basis.

"The Comprehensive Plan is not shovels in the ground, but it is nevertheless the driving force that permits a scale of population intensification and residential unit increase that has never before been authorized," the judge wrote in his ruling last month. "There is a certain fundamental wisdom, and the broad purpose of MERA supports such wisdom, that the one truly meaningful time to challenge a Comprehensive Plan, particularly one as far-reaching as the 2040 Plan, is when it is still just that — a plan."

Assistant City Attorney Ivan Ludmer told the judge Friday that he believes the city can prevail on its appeal and blocking officials from enforcing the 2040 Plan in the interim could have a number of consequences.

The city has argued that it could face lawsuits if it doesn't have a proper comprehensive plan in place. Ludmer told the judge near-term development will be thrown into doubt as some companies seek more stability elsewhere. On top of that, it would take "numerous staff hours" to evaluate, and possibly walk back, proposals that have passed since the 2040 Plan went into place.

City statistics show that in 2020 and 2021, Minneapolis officials issued permits for 59 duplexes and 15 triplexes, some of which were new construction and some of which were remodels. Given that, Ludmer told the judge that he predicts it will be years before the city reaches the full density levels outlined in the 2040 Plan. "We're talking centuries, millennia before that harm could materialize," he said.

Attorneys for the groups that brought the lawsuit have accused the city of making "Chicken Little" claims and said Minneapolis officials chose to make changes at their own peril knowing that their case was pending.