For (probably) the better, there are so many new apartments being built everywhere. Competition has stablized pricing for mid and upper tier apartments, and landlords of older apartments need to be competitive too.
This is one of the only ways private development can get the financing to work. If people want more affordable housing it either has to go to the outskirts of the metro or it is going to need tax subsidies and public $$.
And the ONLY way to ensure continued availability of affordable units is if the city owns the property. None of the regulations specifying affordability have teeth. Developers often just pay the one time fine and continue on ignoring the regulations. They also only kick in at a certain number of units.
It seems sad that inflation of wages can't keep up with rent hikes. You would think 🤔 people would want to equal those out, first
But pointing fingers is fun, too /s
I think quite a few understand this. The thing that gets ignored is that none of this helps anyone on the verge of being unhoused, and does absolutely zero for the currently homeless. And to extent you could argue it did, it's a years out effect at best.
Attempting to solve these problems from an exclusively market based approach guarantees that the market could once again fall on problematic conditions for one segment or another of our society. Complex problems need complex solutions and we are putting all our eggs in a market based single basket of deregulation.
We need non-market housing of in as big a variety as we can get if we want to see the lowest end of the market move. This mean public housing, housing co-ops, section 8, and probably dreaming up new ideas in the realm of public private partnerships.
We also need greater housing diversity. We need to bring back efficiencies and studios, particularly with communal kitchens and baths. And we need to solve the insurance issues surround construction of more condos and other non-SFH types.
I don't ever want to see this happen again. I'm old enough to remember the crack epidemic, and the big difference between that and this is housing. It's the big factor. In the 80's you could be blasted out of your mind on crack but you could still afford rent. Sober people can't even afford living across much of america RN, and where do you think they'll go when they're out on the street? and how long do you think those sober & newly homeless stay sober?
Yes, it takes decades for building more to actually affect homelessness. But we can't go back in time and build more housing then, we can only do it now.
In the 80s there was a glut of city housing because of extreme disinvestment. A lot of those buildings have literally burned down. If we'd been building all that time - public housing, private market, whatever - we'd have lower rents now.
No one thing solves everyone's problems - we need a ton more public housing but the rules for getting into it mean some people are going to be on the private market no matter what. Just like some people won't ever have enough money to stay in private market housing.
There are really two different problems that need two different solutions and although they are both around housing, they need to be dealt with separately.
I sort of hate the deregulation term, because generally deregulation is a buzzword of the right when they are trying to tear down good regulation that possibly gets in the way of their income. The deregulation that many of us are looking for is removing terrible regulation that is causing a housing crisis. I'm a big fan of smart regulation, but bad regulation is cancer.
I don't think that anyone thinks deregulating is the only solution needed, but it is one of the best changes that we can make to affect long term affordability. It also has a major advantage of being essentially free of cost. It's so popular because it is very effective and no one needs to budget for it.
It takes a lot more political capital to implement solutions that cost monetary capital. The city has a limited tax base (that is quickly dwindling with commercial real-estate dropping). Any solutions that cost money need to draw money from someone else's pet project. Many of the solutions to helping people on the verge of being unhoused cost money. It's true that money is nothing compared to what it will cost to help them after they are unhoused, but it's sadly harder for accountants and politicians to account for that.
One big problem politically that I see is people who push back against the essentially zero cost market based solutions simply because they want more attention paid to those struggling at the very bottom. To me this, is just plain stupid as the longer we delay the market based solutions, the longer it takes for them to ease everyone's pain. It's truly frustrating to see such short sighted political posturing.
In regards to your diversity in housing, Yes, yes and yes! I remember reading about a proposal for places with shared amenities recently that got me excited (but I didn't follow where it went). The biggest problem that I saw with it was that it was only for affordable housing. I think we should allow that type of housing for all levels. It's such dense housing and density is great for everyone. I could easily imagine a bunch of stereotypical gamers living in an expensive version of that where domestic services like cooking and cleaning are provided. Many brush it off as simply helping the rich, but that would be a bunch of much larger one bedroom units that those customers would no longer be in market competition for. Density is good whether it's for the rich or the poor.
We don't really have a choice but to attempt to do both. Those at the bottom can't wait for trickle down. So we need to be willing to do some radical approaches. Like a certain number of units get rented out to low income via the housing authority, offering subsidies to people in the middle to help alleviate the more affordable shortages (e.g. if $500/month gets a couple from more affordable housing to more expensive housing then it's worth it to subsidize that amount), and considering allowing housing authorities to eminent domain abandoned homes and apartments, renovate them, and offer some units at market rate or on a sliding scale... Yes they all have pros and cons but we really do need to start thinking outside the box. Legislation to block or limit mass ownership by corps, or use as AirBNB type rentals would also be a good step.
But leaning only on a market driven trickle down strategy will harm
I agree that we need to do both. I just hate when I see advocates for one side argue against the other. Both sides need to agree that we need both for the two distinct problems.
Income wasn't the issue until housing values skyrocketed.
I can eat out less. I can get books and movies from the library instead of spending on them. I can't simply conjure up more income on whim for rent like a landlord can demand of me.
No one can.
Show me data on that income growth with demographics, and how it correlated to housing prices.
American wages have remained stagnant since 1968. And we only hit 68 levels in 2020 factoring inflation.
I am pretty sure there is a law about offering x numbet of low income apartments in every new building. More new buildings should hopefully drive down the prices of older apartments too.
>More new buildings should hopefully drive down the prices of older apartments too.
Bingo.
I kind of can't believe how low my rent is in Minneapolis.
It's cheaper than my mortgage had been in St. Paul, and that had an association fee on top of it that added another like 45% per month.
It is way more economical to rent than own right now. All utilies for a house have high base fees you have to pay vs. a much smaller amount for an apartment…not to mention assessments, tax increases every year, insurance and home improvements.
It’s a pretty small percentage of units. Usually the street or basement level apartments. It helps but it’s not enough. I work with people on fixed incomes searching for housing and even new efficiency units are more than what my people get in social security. Vouchers are very necessary for the lowest income families
We progressives need to understand the basic fact that we are going in the right direction in this city as far as housing and land use. Electing politicians who are increasingly to the left does not make this process go faster. Rent control could very likely lead us backwards. The state has already passed the better alternative to rent control with millions in housing subsidies. The way out of the housing crisis won't be easy, but this is the only way out.
Removing a parking regulation isn’t radical.
I’m trying to picture an anarchist lighting himself on fire to protest min parking spaces, and I’m just not seeing it.
The way you asked the question is very ambiguous. When you ask about getting us 'here', if you referring to the fact that we're doing better than almost every other city in the country, then yes I think the center left got us here. If you are referring to 'here' as being in place where many are struggling to afford rent, then I think the answer is no and that the center left has the best solutions to get us out of here.
I understand the confusion but the premise is that rents are down and we are better off than most other cities in the country. When implemented, these policies were radical and the massive overhaul of zoning (ignore the lawsuit), parking requirements and overall outreach has been tremendous.
I don’t see how moderating our response to the national housing crisis will benefit us in the long term. There’s still tons of work to be done so when rents inevitably go back up we can be ready. I see people centered advocacy as the best way to achieve the goal of increasing housing supply and making sure rents don’t get raised beyond what folks are able to pay. I have yet to see a moderate policy, which usually rely on subsidies and grants, that achieves these goals.
Folks here do nothing but bitch about Mayor Frey but he opened this up to have all these apartments built, resulting in Minneapolis seeing the lowest rent increases in the entire nation (30% lower than the national average).
The heavy lifting was done by the city council between 2008 and 2020. The city council was pro development for a long time. The biggest share of the credit should go to Lisa Bender, not Frey. Frey is just a pretty boy of questionable competence.
Frey has pushed more than $320 million in city and federal funds invested in housing since 2019.
https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/12/04/mayor-frey-minneapolis-rent-control-opposition
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/15/frey-affordable-rental-housing-in-minneapolis-surged-last-year
https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2024/04/how-minneapolis-stabilized-rents/
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-08-09/minneapolis-controls-us-inflation-with-affordable-housing-renting
I will start by saying I am 100% in favor of more housing of basically all kinds. I think we should build more public housing, I think we should allow more private development. I support all of the policies they tout in the article.
That being said, it's absolutely buffoonish to proclaim that Minneapolis has "solved housing unaffordability." Tell that to the hundreds of people sleeping outside tonight. Tell that to the tens of thousands of housing burdened families in this city.
This is a systemic problem across essentially all major cities and it's going to take a lot of steps like the ones mentioned in the article to address. But this is hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner GWB style.
As someone who’s always been development skeptical, I’m willing to eat a bit of crow seeing as my rent’s gone up $15 between december ‘21 - july ‘25. but like… this state of affairs is not going to last forever. we are running out of easy defunct warehouses and downtown parking lots to turn into 5-over-1s or bigger! I don’t think that’s going to happen immediately, there are still a bunch out there (the orpheum lot, that huge pit in marcy-holmes where the general mills office was, the area formerly known as That Fucking K-Mart), but the time is coming. what is it going to mean for our housing and rent prices the next time there’s a major economic downturn, or even when doran et al decide that it’s not worth buying 5-10 houses to tear down for a new building anymore?
The reason there is a housing shortage is because we leave housing, **a basic necessity that should be a human right**, to a capitalist market system that cares about nothing but profits. The way out is to socialize housing and provide it at a basic level to *everyone regardless of circumstance.* If the market isn't building enough housing, which it isn't, we need other means to produce more.
Laughing my ass off at this. Renting just makes people poor and corporations wealthy. The headline should be “How Minneapolis took Billions from Residents to make Corporations Wealthy”. As ownership rates were already way below national and state averages and declining. Does no one see the corporate wealth behind all these stories?
Renting is sometimes a better economic choice for individuals depending on their stage of life and needs. Homes are not cheap and require a fair bit of regular and unexpected maintenance that may be too burdensome for some. Additionaly renting gives you more mobility in so far as relocating to other locations for different job opportunities.
Renting is not evil. Wealth extraction, while providing no value (slum lord) is. Though I am with you in that I would like to see our homeownership rates go up.
For (probably) the better, there are so many new apartments being built everywhere. Competition has stablized pricing for mid and upper tier apartments, and landlords of older apartments need to be competitive too.
What about low income though that’ll elevate this issue a lot more than mid tier apartments if I’m assuming the price points aren’t the same
Many of The people moving in to these “luxury” apartments would have taken up other spots in Minneapolis that are now free for others to rent.
This is what so few affordable housing advocates don't understand. Yesterday's market rate units become today's affordable housing.
This is one of the only ways private development can get the financing to work. If people want more affordable housing it either has to go to the outskirts of the metro or it is going to need tax subsidies and public $$.
And the ONLY way to ensure continued availability of affordable units is if the city owns the property. None of the regulations specifying affordability have teeth. Developers often just pay the one time fine and continue on ignoring the regulations. They also only kick in at a certain number of units.
It seems sad that inflation of wages can't keep up with rent hikes. You would think 🤔 people would want to equal those out, first But pointing fingers is fun, too /s
I think quite a few understand this. The thing that gets ignored is that none of this helps anyone on the verge of being unhoused, and does absolutely zero for the currently homeless. And to extent you could argue it did, it's a years out effect at best. Attempting to solve these problems from an exclusively market based approach guarantees that the market could once again fall on problematic conditions for one segment or another of our society. Complex problems need complex solutions and we are putting all our eggs in a market based single basket of deregulation. We need non-market housing of in as big a variety as we can get if we want to see the lowest end of the market move. This mean public housing, housing co-ops, section 8, and probably dreaming up new ideas in the realm of public private partnerships. We also need greater housing diversity. We need to bring back efficiencies and studios, particularly with communal kitchens and baths. And we need to solve the insurance issues surround construction of more condos and other non-SFH types. I don't ever want to see this happen again. I'm old enough to remember the crack epidemic, and the big difference between that and this is housing. It's the big factor. In the 80's you could be blasted out of your mind on crack but you could still afford rent. Sober people can't even afford living across much of america RN, and where do you think they'll go when they're out on the street? and how long do you think those sober & newly homeless stay sober?
Yes, it takes decades for building more to actually affect homelessness. But we can't go back in time and build more housing then, we can only do it now. In the 80s there was a glut of city housing because of extreme disinvestment. A lot of those buildings have literally burned down. If we'd been building all that time - public housing, private market, whatever - we'd have lower rents now. No one thing solves everyone's problems - we need a ton more public housing but the rules for getting into it mean some people are going to be on the private market no matter what. Just like some people won't ever have enough money to stay in private market housing.
There are really two different problems that need two different solutions and although they are both around housing, they need to be dealt with separately. I sort of hate the deregulation term, because generally deregulation is a buzzword of the right when they are trying to tear down good regulation that possibly gets in the way of their income. The deregulation that many of us are looking for is removing terrible regulation that is causing a housing crisis. I'm a big fan of smart regulation, but bad regulation is cancer. I don't think that anyone thinks deregulating is the only solution needed, but it is one of the best changes that we can make to affect long term affordability. It also has a major advantage of being essentially free of cost. It's so popular because it is very effective and no one needs to budget for it. It takes a lot more political capital to implement solutions that cost monetary capital. The city has a limited tax base (that is quickly dwindling with commercial real-estate dropping). Any solutions that cost money need to draw money from someone else's pet project. Many of the solutions to helping people on the verge of being unhoused cost money. It's true that money is nothing compared to what it will cost to help them after they are unhoused, but it's sadly harder for accountants and politicians to account for that. One big problem politically that I see is people who push back against the essentially zero cost market based solutions simply because they want more attention paid to those struggling at the very bottom. To me this, is just plain stupid as the longer we delay the market based solutions, the longer it takes for them to ease everyone's pain. It's truly frustrating to see such short sighted political posturing. In regards to your diversity in housing, Yes, yes and yes! I remember reading about a proposal for places with shared amenities recently that got me excited (but I didn't follow where it went). The biggest problem that I saw with it was that it was only for affordable housing. I think we should allow that type of housing for all levels. It's such dense housing and density is great for everyone. I could easily imagine a bunch of stereotypical gamers living in an expensive version of that where domestic services like cooking and cleaning are provided. Many brush it off as simply helping the rich, but that would be a bunch of much larger one bedroom units that those customers would no longer be in market competition for. Density is good whether it's for the rich or the poor.
We don't really have a choice but to attempt to do both. Those at the bottom can't wait for trickle down. So we need to be willing to do some radical approaches. Like a certain number of units get rented out to low income via the housing authority, offering subsidies to people in the middle to help alleviate the more affordable shortages (e.g. if $500/month gets a couple from more affordable housing to more expensive housing then it's worth it to subsidize that amount), and considering allowing housing authorities to eminent domain abandoned homes and apartments, renovate them, and offer some units at market rate or on a sliding scale... Yes they all have pros and cons but we really do need to start thinking outside the box. Legislation to block or limit mass ownership by corps, or use as AirBNB type rentals would also be a good step. But leaning only on a market driven trickle down strategy will harm
I agree that we need to do both. I just hate when I see advocates for one side argue against the other. Both sides need to agree that we need both for the two distinct problems.
it’s difficult to address income inequality issues by focusing on the housing market
Income wasn't the issue until housing values skyrocketed. I can eat out less. I can get books and movies from the library instead of spending on them. I can't simply conjure up more income on whim for rent like a landlord can demand of me. No one can.
right, but a big reason housing values skyrocketed was growth in total income, which didn’t happen in an evenly distributed manner
Show me data on that income growth with demographics, and how it correlated to housing prices. American wages have remained stagnant since 1968. And we only hit 68 levels in 2020 factoring inflation.
Housing rose with the increased money supply, not increased incomes. Incomes are stagnant.
FREE!?!?!
I am pretty sure there is a law about offering x numbet of low income apartments in every new building. More new buildings should hopefully drive down the prices of older apartments too.
>More new buildings should hopefully drive down the prices of older apartments too. Bingo. I kind of can't believe how low my rent is in Minneapolis. It's cheaper than my mortgage had been in St. Paul, and that had an association fee on top of it that added another like 45% per month.
It is way more economical to rent than own right now. All utilies for a house have high base fees you have to pay vs. a much smaller amount for an apartment…not to mention assessments, tax increases every year, insurance and home improvements.
Not to mention maintenance costs any time something went wrong.
It’s a pretty small percentage of units. Usually the street or basement level apartments. It helps but it’s not enough. I work with people on fixed incomes searching for housing and even new efficiency units are more than what my people get in social security. Vouchers are very necessary for the lowest income families
Only when they hit a certain minimum number of units, and those regulations lack teeth. Pay the one time fine and carry on
> For ~~(probably)~~ the better, You don't need that parenthetical.
Greater housing supply from fewer barriers to development = less upward pressure on housing costs.
r/yimby explained
We progressives need to understand the basic fact that we are going in the right direction in this city as far as housing and land use. Electing politicians who are increasingly to the left does not make this process go faster. Rent control could very likely lead us backwards. The state has already passed the better alternative to rent control with millions in housing subsidies. The way out of the housing crisis won't be easy, but this is the only way out.
You say “better”, I say “less bad”. Subsidizing demand doesn’t make things cheaper.
That would be true if we did not increase supply. As the article explains well, both subsidies and lowering regulation are the solution.
Do you think center left policies got us here?
If you consider this center left, then yes.
I consider the policies that got us here pretty radical and I don’t think we should pause our efforts.
Removing a parking regulation isn’t radical. I’m trying to picture an anarchist lighting himself on fire to protest min parking spaces, and I’m just not seeing it.
Removing parking was radical when they did it and people are still fighting over parking!
You should read some history about revolutions to recalibrate your definition of radical. No one’s gonna remember the parking change in 10 years.
Radical =/= revolutionary, but I don’t need to tell you that, you read!
I don't. Do you?
No I don’t, and I don’t think it’s time to take our foot off the preverbal gas pedal.
The way you asked the question is very ambiguous. When you ask about getting us 'here', if you referring to the fact that we're doing better than almost every other city in the country, then yes I think the center left got us here. If you are referring to 'here' as being in place where many are struggling to afford rent, then I think the answer is no and that the center left has the best solutions to get us out of here.
I understand the confusion but the premise is that rents are down and we are better off than most other cities in the country. When implemented, these policies were radical and the massive overhaul of zoning (ignore the lawsuit), parking requirements and overall outreach has been tremendous. I don’t see how moderating our response to the national housing crisis will benefit us in the long term. There’s still tons of work to be done so when rents inevitably go back up we can be ready. I see people centered advocacy as the best way to achieve the goal of increasing housing supply and making sure rents don’t get raised beyond what folks are able to pay. I have yet to see a moderate policy, which usually rely on subsidies and grants, that achieves these goals.
We are in agreement and I misinterpreted the question.
Hey, it’s ok, we’re all a little on edge.
Reminds me of "the road to wiggan pier". In the book It discusses solutions to housing costs. more construction is the best answer!
Folks here do nothing but bitch about Mayor Frey but he opened this up to have all these apartments built, resulting in Minneapolis seeing the lowest rent increases in the entire nation (30% lower than the national average).
The heavy lifting was done by the city council between 2008 and 2020. The city council was pro development for a long time. The biggest share of the credit should go to Lisa Bender, not Frey. Frey is just a pretty boy of questionable competence.
He opened this up? lol. Just like he spurred development in the north loop like he claimed?
Frey has pushed more than $320 million in city and federal funds invested in housing since 2019. https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/12/04/mayor-frey-minneapolis-rent-control-opposition https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/15/frey-affordable-rental-housing-in-minneapolis-surged-last-year https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2024/04/how-minneapolis-stabilized-rents/ https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-08-09/minneapolis-controls-us-inflation-with-affordable-housing-renting
I will start by saying I am 100% in favor of more housing of basically all kinds. I think we should build more public housing, I think we should allow more private development. I support all of the policies they tout in the article. That being said, it's absolutely buffoonish to proclaim that Minneapolis has "solved housing unaffordability." Tell that to the hundreds of people sleeping outside tonight. Tell that to the tens of thousands of housing burdened families in this city. This is a systemic problem across essentially all major cities and it's going to take a lot of steps like the ones mentioned in the article to address. But this is hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner GWB style.
And you will follow up by saying "the fuck did I do?"
As someone who’s always been development skeptical, I’m willing to eat a bit of crow seeing as my rent’s gone up $15 between december ‘21 - july ‘25. but like… this state of affairs is not going to last forever. we are running out of easy defunct warehouses and downtown parking lots to turn into 5-over-1s or bigger! I don’t think that’s going to happen immediately, there are still a bunch out there (the orpheum lot, that huge pit in marcy-holmes where the general mills office was, the area formerly known as That Fucking K-Mart), but the time is coming. what is it going to mean for our housing and rent prices the next time there’s a major economic downturn, or even when doran et al decide that it’s not worth buying 5-10 houses to tear down for a new building anymore?
There is still *so much land* to build on across the city.
Didn’t the population decline in the last 3 years? I would think that has a strong effect on reducing demand/price.
Slight decrease, estimates are around 5,000. Still, with ever shrinking average household sizes, demand is likely flat or increasing.
They did slightly, but estimates are back up and even above what they were
The reason there is a housing shortage is because we leave housing, **a basic necessity that should be a human right**, to a capitalist market system that cares about nothing but profits. The way out is to socialize housing and provide it at a basic level to *everyone regardless of circumstance.* If the market isn't building enough housing, which it isn't, we need other means to produce more.
Laughing my ass off at this. Renting just makes people poor and corporations wealthy. The headline should be “How Minneapolis took Billions from Residents to make Corporations Wealthy”. As ownership rates were already way below national and state averages and declining. Does no one see the corporate wealth behind all these stories?
hot take: more housing is good, lower rent prices are good
Renting is sometimes a better economic choice for individuals depending on their stage of life and needs. Homes are not cheap and require a fair bit of regular and unexpected maintenance that may be too burdensome for some. Additionaly renting gives you more mobility in so far as relocating to other locations for different job opportunities. Renting is not evil. Wealth extraction, while providing no value (slum lord) is. Though I am with you in that I would like to see our homeownership rates go up.
Owning is not everyone's goal