State legislation relaxing zoning is a housing solution with consequences

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

This article was submitted by several Twin Cities-area mayors. Their names are below.

In the last few years, the suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen tremendous growth fueled by low interest rates and cities working with developers to build single-family homes, townhouses and multifamily units. Many cities like ours have worked with builders to grant exemptions from current zoning to encourage smaller lots to provide greater access to attainable homeownership. However, the prices of these homes on smaller lots continued to climb. The promise of lower price points from builders has yet to come to fruition.

We know that one key component to promoting homeownership is to curate and protect naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). One of the ways to promote NOAH is to create opportunities for people older than 55 to downsize.

Currently, more than 1,000 seniors are waiting to get into county-owned affordable housing in Dakota County alone. When seniors downsize, their homes become important housing stock for the next generation of homeowners. The new metrowide sales tax to support housing will be crucial in increasing opportunities for seniors. However, those projects could be at risk because of new legislative initiatives.

As mayors, we are invested in ensuring that our communities retain the ability to shape our future and maintain local control. Evan Ramstad’s recent column in the Star Tribune (“Relaxed zoning could be on its way,” March 3) advocates for legislation that would significantly alter the landscape of housing development in Minnesota, and while the intention to address the pressing need for more housing is commendable, the approach proposed raises critical concerns.

The proposed legislation, HF 4009 and SF 3964, seeks to eliminate single-family zoning in cities with populations exceeding 10,000 and strip municipalities’ authority to regulate aspects of housing such as parking, aesthetics and lot subdivisions. While the bill aims to increase housing affordability, it does so at the expense of communities, which must tailor development to their unique needs. It also does nothing to guarantee that these new units are owner-occupied, which we know is most households’ main wealth-building generator.

Moreover, the proposed legislation overlooks the potential consequences of its sweeping changes. While proponents argue that liberalizing zoning will increase housing availability and affordability, the reality may be more nuanced. There is a risk that hastily implemented measures could result in unintended consequences, including overdevelopment and strain on infrastructure that was carefully planned and expensive to fix if overburdened.

Furthermore, the bill needs to adequately consider the input of local communities and residents whom these changes directly impact. Decisions about housing development should be made through a collaborative process that incorporates the perspectives and concerns of all stakeholders through the public hearing process in planning commissions and city councils rather than imposed through top-down mandates from the Legislature.

As we contemplate solutions to Minnesota’s housing challenges, we must prioritize strategies that balance promoting development and preserving the unique character of our communities. This requires a nuanced approach that empowers local governments to make informed decisions tailored to their specific circumstances rather than imposing one-size-fits-all mandates from the state level.

As mayors, we remain committed to advocating for policies that empower our cities to chart our path forward while addressing the pressing needs of our residents. We must work together to find solutions that promote sustainable development, economic growth and vibrant communities across Minnesota.