Readers Write: ‘Yes to homes’ bills, new tariffs

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Thanks to Greta Kaul for reporting on the Legislature’s bills on affordable housing (“Bills mandate housing density,” March 30). I encourage our readers to contact their legislators and urge them to vote in favor of these bills. In Minnesota, we look out for each other. We want a home for ourselves and our families, but everyone deserves reasonable housing. Reasonable means that it meets the needs of a person and the person’s family. That means it is affordable for them, provides a home from which they can commute to work, and is accessible to groceries and other stores.

However, exclusionary zoning laws, some of which were enacted during the days of redlining, have helped lead to a shortage of at least 100,000 homes in our state. This drives up home prices and rent.

Here are some bills that would help turn this situation around. HF 2140/SF 2231, the More Homes, Right Places Act, would allow the creation of mixed-use housing zones, including triplexes and fourplexes, in commercial areas. HF 2018/SF 2286, the Transforming Main Street Act, would allow apartments near jobs and transit, building homes above shops along main streets. HF 1309/SF 1268, the People over Parking Act, would remove parking mandates (for new developments) statewide.

These bills stand up for secure, abundant homes for all Minnesotans. We envision a future where we all find homes that we love in the neighborhoods we choose. Please contact your legislators and urge them to vote for these bills.

Ronald Williams, Robbinsdale

•••

I’m a ceramics artist living in St. Paul, and I moved last year. It was a long, exasperating process. Our current housing market is unsustainable, and if things stay the way they are now, it’s only going to get harder for Minnesotans to find homes that meet their needs — and don’t drain their wallets!

I was so excited to learn about the “Yes to Homes” bills; our housing shortage affects all Minnesotans, and I hope our state representatives take serious action by passing bills that will allow us to build more homes of more varied types. If we allow Minnesotans freedom with building our homes, we can release the pressure of the housing shortage naturally, while maintaining the charm of our cities. If we have more starter homes on small lots, more duplexes or triplexes or mother-in-law additions, we’ll have a lot more options for young people to start their families, or for older people to downsize while remaining in their communities. All these things are supported by the “Yes to Homes” bills.

People with money will always find homes in a tight market. That’s why it’s so important to increase the overall number of homes — so that average people aren’t inadvertently squeezed out of the market entirely. I’m contacting my representatives to tell them that I want to see real solutions to the housing shortage, and I want them to support the “Yes to Homes” bills!

Alana Hawley, St. Paul

•••

The cost of housing in Minnesota continues to quickly rise. Housing shortages drive up prices in big cities, small towns and in rural parts of the state. This year, the Legislature must act by passing the “Yes to Homes” bills.

More housing options are needed everywhere. Not everyone can shovel a sidewalk, mow the lawn or is mobile enough to climb up and down flights of stairs. Yet with single-family zoning, that’s what we require of residents if they want to age in a particular community. Let’s build more duplexes, small condos and apartment buildings to give residents a choice about how they want to live.

We can revitalize main streets across this state by allowing housing to be built on them, bringing customers to the doorstep of small businesses. We can also remove barriers that cities use to prevent new housing from being built: minimum lot size requirements, setback requirements and parking minimums.

Minnesota can act as a model for the rest of the nation by leading on the housing affordability issue. Abundance drives down the cost of housing, but continued inaction keeps this vital resource scarce. Without legislative action this year, Minnesota will continue to see residents leave due to high housing costs.

Anton Schieffer, Minneapolis

•••

Among the many housing bills being considered by the Minnesota Legislature this year, there is one Trojan horse that deserves consideration. The Minnesota Starter Home Act (SF 2229 and HF 1987) is part of a package of legislation called “Yes to Homes” aimed at increasing the production of housing throughout the state.

The package recognizes the legitimate concern that municipal zoning codes are sometimes used to prevent needed multifamily housing from being built. The other two bills in the package require municipal zoning codes to include a mixed-use category and to allow multifamily housing in commercial zones. These requirements leave room for municipalities to make choices about complying.

The Minnesota Starter Home Act, however, is not about starter homes. It outlaws single family zoning (R-1) in the same way the Minneapolis 2040 Plan does in the city of Minneapolis. This is a top-down solution that invites resistance from local municipalities. While the construction of more housing is a desirable goal, efforts that bypass local opportunities to participate in designing the approach to this goal are unlikely to succeed. People who value the quality of life in their communities want to protect it. Imposing more density can be scary. But increased density can be accomplished without significant harm to quality of life if it is done in partnership with community members.

It is reasonable to expect municipalities to accommodate more housing. Forcing them to do it without having a voice in how it’s done is a big mistake.

Tim Mungavan, Minneapolis

The writer is senior adviser for the West Bank Community Development Corporation.

TARIFFS

As a physician, I was trained to frame medical recommendations in terms of risk-benefit ratio. Very simply, the anticipated benefit of a medical intervention (say a prescription drug or surgery) must outweigh the risk of this medical intervention. The math varies with the specifics of the disease, of course, as more serious afflictions generally justify a higher degree of risk. Vaccination, for example, comes with a very small element of risk and large potential benefit, so it is best to get them.

With the current debate over the economic efficacy of new tariffs, I find myself wondering if the risk-benefit ratio justifies these seemingly draconian and certainly controversial economic interventions. Hmm ... the U.S. has one of the best post-COVID economies in the world according to the preponderance of experts, and we are putting that at risk for how much incremental potential gain? Not worth the risk in my mind.

Kevin Gustafson, Chanhassen

•••

During the Biden administration, U.S. Reps. Brad Finstad, Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber and Derrick Van Orden maintained that the investor class was paying too much in capital gains taxes. (The Dow Jones returned 48.6% between 2020 and 2024, resulting in paying taxes on those gains). Their solution: Put our economy in the hands of a businessman who has taken six of his enterprises into bankruptcy and swindled hundreds of other small businesses who provided him goods and services.

After only 11 weeks, success! This year those poor investors who have lost billions of dollars in the recent stock market crash won’t be saddled with those burdensome capital gains taxes, and as a bonus, they will be able to carry over their losses to avoid paying taxes in the future. Brilliant!

Tom Shea, Owatonna, Minn.