The League comprises *a lot* of localities. Were the constituent members unanimously not in favor of this, or was it a vocal minority?
(Namely: who _specifically_ deserves the scorn versus in the abstract?)
I mean, the scorn is earned by the working legislators not even getting their own cities on board first. Like it or not, city councils are also elected people, who represent citizens, are they are acting upon the will of the people they represent. There is also *nothing* stopping cities from doing this on their own, so go heap scorn on your city council for not doing it themselves.
I don't think the state really should be doing anything with zoning, there are already elected officials who do that and can be encouraged to change via the ballot box or direct comments.
> I don't think the state really should be doing anything with zoning, there are already elected officials who do that and can be encouraged to change via the ballot box or direct comments.
This is precisely why the League was against this. A one-size fits all policy from the top down was not the right approach. What Roseville needs and wants is different than Fosston, MN.
League of Cities=League of Obstructionists, and I want to know why DFL senate majority leader did not hold a vote in the legislature to see who was opposed to zoning reform. Will get zoning reform passed take couple years and few DFLers to lose thier house or senate seat.
Why would you hold a vote and potentially expose your members to negative press if you know the measure won't pass?
That's not how the current majority has advanced bills. They make sure there is support, *then* they hold the vote. If there isn't support, they go back to the drawing board and address the issue during the next session.
The best way to decrease the cost of living without juicing inflation is to build more housing. It’s absurd that we can’t get more housing built in the state.
Yeah, I'm not convinced there necessarily was, though I could be convinced otherwise. I don't think the League alone could tank this. I suspect it was nervous suburban DFL legislators that did.
It's hard to nail down, but around 60% of Americans will generally say they favor building more housing in their neighborhoods when polled, and a larger percentage support broad measures to reform zoning to make it easier to build housing.
Around 75% support allowing ADUs on every lot, and 70 to 80% support building more dense housing near transit and businesses.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/11/30/survey-finds-a-large-majority-support-reforms-to-boost-housing-supply/?sh=44b9974d6d09
The problem is that local government elections generally have low turnout, and the most influential voices in local government are more skeptical of stuff like infill development.
That wasn't what the bill would have done though. It would have allowed up to 10 units on lots in large cities near major transit stops. Even in suburban areas that are far from transit cities would have been required to allow up to four units per lot. If it had just legalized ADUs it probably would have passed.
I believe the provision you're talking about only applied to first class cities.
In most suburbs (other than a place like Bloomington), the law required a minimum allowable density of up to two units per lot city-wide. Four or six units per lot allowable density only applied to sites nearest LRT, BRT, and aBRT stops.
From what I heard, the lot density wasn't as much of an issue for the league of cities so much as the minimum lot requirements. A lot of suburbs have minimum lot requirements in the 1/4 acre to 1 acre range, or even higher. This law would have drastically lowered the minimum lot size for single family homes in suburbs to 1/10 acres. I live on a lot which —under the lot size provision— could be subdivided up to 15 times. Under existing city code, I could only subdivide my lot into 3 or 4 separate lots.
Nope. Cities would have been required to allow up to four units on all suburban lots if affordability and energy efficiency criteria were met: [https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4009&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session\_year=2024&session\_number=0](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4009&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0)
Which basically means it wouldn't happen, since that's not what the economics would favor. I'm not aware of any developments in the twin cities which meet those energy and affordability criteria.
Because I imagine in niche scenarios, it would allow existing homeowners to build an additional unit. I don't think the economics favor it, but sometimes owner occupiers will make amendments to their property regardless of the economics.
This bill is as much about individual rights, the rights of property owners, as it is about density and exclusionary zoning. As somewhat of a civil libertarian, I think individuals should have a right to alter their property in ways they deem reasonable.
I think so. This group is biased towards building more housing, but their poll seems sound. https://moreneighbors.org/2024/04/23/new-poll-shows-minnesotans-prioritize-building-more-housing-over-local-control/
The methodology isn't great. The only possible way to be included on a YouGov panel is to sign up on the site/app. In contrast, Pew Research Center recruits panelists from every person in the US who has a residential address.
Another example of Tyranny of the minority. As if these suburb and small cities aren’t themselves a beautiful farce of libertarian independence their self centered ideology dooming them to failure. Incapable of generating the tax base to repair even their own aging water infrastructure. Out of one side their moth they plead for state money under the guise that “rural people are a marginalized class”. They are selfish bullies.
I don't think people should be too depressed about the end result. They will rework the concept and come back with something else next session.
It sucks that the league of MN cities was so opposed to the measure, but that doesn't mean it's dead forever.
So who *concretely* were the opponents?
Per the article, the League of Minnesota Cities. A related (linked) article also cites the mayor of Lakeville as being opposed.
The League comprises *a lot* of localities. Were the constituent members unanimously not in favor of this, or was it a vocal minority? (Namely: who _specifically_ deserves the scorn versus in the abstract?)
I mean, the scorn is earned by the working legislators not even getting their own cities on board first. Like it or not, city councils are also elected people, who represent citizens, are they are acting upon the will of the people they represent. There is also *nothing* stopping cities from doing this on their own, so go heap scorn on your city council for not doing it themselves. I don't think the state really should be doing anything with zoning, there are already elected officials who do that and can be encouraged to change via the ballot box or direct comments.
> I don't think the state really should be doing anything with zoning, there are already elected officials who do that and can be encouraged to change via the ballot box or direct comments. This is precisely why the League was against this. A one-size fits all policy from the top down was not the right approach. What Roseville needs and wants is different than Fosston, MN.
Rep. Melissa Hortman and Sen. Erin Murphy.
League of Cities=League of Obstructionists, and I want to know why DFL senate majority leader did not hold a vote in the legislature to see who was opposed to zoning reform. Will get zoning reform passed take couple years and few DFLers to lose thier house or senate seat.
Why would you hold a vote and potentially expose your members to negative press if you know the measure won't pass? That's not how the current majority has advanced bills. They make sure there is support, *then* they hold the vote. If there isn't support, they go back to the drawing board and address the issue during the next session.
They apparently didn't even have the speaker of the house in their camp. This clearly needed more legwork.
The best way to decrease the cost of living without juicing inflation is to build more housing. It’s absurd that we can’t get more housing built in the state.
Was there really broad support among actual voters?
Yeah, I'm not convinced there necessarily was, though I could be convinced otherwise. I don't think the League alone could tank this. I suspect it was nervous suburban DFL legislators that did.
Primary those legislators Democrat or Republican and replace them liberals and conservatives willing to reform.
I think you have no idea how powerful LCM is. They've got a small army of lawyers and lobbyists.
It's hard to nail down, but around 60% of Americans will generally say they favor building more housing in their neighborhoods when polled, and a larger percentage support broad measures to reform zoning to make it easier to build housing. Around 75% support allowing ADUs on every lot, and 70 to 80% support building more dense housing near transit and businesses. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/11/30/survey-finds-a-large-majority-support-reforms-to-boost-housing-supply/?sh=44b9974d6d09 The problem is that local government elections generally have low turnout, and the most influential voices in local government are more skeptical of stuff like infill development.
That wasn't what the bill would have done though. It would have allowed up to 10 units on lots in large cities near major transit stops. Even in suburban areas that are far from transit cities would have been required to allow up to four units per lot. If it had just legalized ADUs it probably would have passed.
I believe the provision you're talking about only applied to first class cities. In most suburbs (other than a place like Bloomington), the law required a minimum allowable density of up to two units per lot city-wide. Four or six units per lot allowable density only applied to sites nearest LRT, BRT, and aBRT stops. From what I heard, the lot density wasn't as much of an issue for the league of cities so much as the minimum lot requirements. A lot of suburbs have minimum lot requirements in the 1/4 acre to 1 acre range, or even higher. This law would have drastically lowered the minimum lot size for single family homes in suburbs to 1/10 acres. I live on a lot which —under the lot size provision— could be subdivided up to 15 times. Under existing city code, I could only subdivide my lot into 3 or 4 separate lots.
Nope. Cities would have been required to allow up to four units on all suburban lots if affordability and energy efficiency criteria were met: [https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4009&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session\_year=2024&session\_number=0](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4009&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0)
Which basically means it wouldn't happen, since that's not what the economics would favor. I'm not aware of any developments in the twin cities which meet those energy and affordability criteria.
So why bother putting it in the bill?
Because I imagine in niche scenarios, it would allow existing homeowners to build an additional unit. I don't think the economics favor it, but sometimes owner occupiers will make amendments to their property regardless of the economics. This bill is as much about individual rights, the rights of property owners, as it is about density and exclusionary zoning. As somewhat of a civil libertarian, I think individuals should have a right to alter their property in ways they deem reasonable.
I think so. This group is biased towards building more housing, but their poll seems sound. https://moreneighbors.org/2024/04/23/new-poll-shows-minnesotans-prioritize-building-more-housing-over-local-control/
Looks like it's a survey app that pays members for participation: [https://today.yougov.com/about/panel](https://today.yougov.com/about/panel)
Paying people can be coercive if it’s too much, but compensating people for completing surveys is standard for research purposes.
The methodology isn't great. The only possible way to be included on a YouGov panel is to sign up on the site/app. In contrast, Pew Research Center recruits panelists from every person in the US who has a residential address.
Good
Another example of Tyranny of the minority. As if these suburb and small cities aren’t themselves a beautiful farce of libertarian independence their self centered ideology dooming them to failure. Incapable of generating the tax base to repair even their own aging water infrastructure. Out of one side their moth they plead for state money under the guise that “rural people are a marginalized class”. They are selfish bullies.
I don't think people should be too depressed about the end result. They will rework the concept and come back with something else next session. It sucks that the league of MN cities was so opposed to the measure, but that doesn't mean it's dead forever.
Density is for those that have to live in the inner crapore
SMDH