2023-24 Minnesota Legislature

[Tom H.]

Virtually no project of any kind gets done in most of greater Minnesota without the city providing financial assistance through grants, waiver of fees, tax increment financing, or tax abatement.

This quote astonishes me. I don't even know how true it is, but the statement at its face is an admission that "most of greater Minnesota" has an utterly, fundamentally, foundationally broken market. But the regulatory status quo under which this brokenness arises must be maintained? What a bit of cognitive dissonance this is.

[Anondson]

I kind of wish there was an admission that the greater Minnesota cities are highly dependent on large percentages of local government aid for basic operation of what those local governments already allowed to be built.

To be charitable, it seems like there is an objection that infrastructure has currently been built to such precision that adding a couple duplexes could conceivably overwhelm capacity of sewers or supply of water on a street, or vehicle congestion would become crippling.

I don’t trust such a claim that infrastructure is so narrowly designed that local expertise of neighbors should be given veto power.

[Tom H.]

Absolutely right - it's all predicated on the assumption that infrastructure has been built *just so* and no further, and any changes (even the small, incremental changes which the bill would have encouraged) will cause it all to hit a tipping point. Never mind that most of the municipalities in greater Minnesota have stagnated or shrunk in recent decades, or that the incremental development would add property tax revenues as well.

I think the thing that bothers me most about what I quoted above is the implicit assumption that housing is just *fundamentally uneconomical* in greater Minnesota, not due to regulation, but just by the laws of supply and demand. Somehow, in the 21st century, costs just exceed what people can afford to pay. "Sorry folks, nothing we can do about it, there just isn't enough wealth in greater Minnesota for market-rate housing to work!" There are only two logical reactions if you take this implication at face value: (1) write off greater Minnesota as an insolvent money pit, tell the cities to fend for themselves and allow it all to slowly evaporate into tumbleweeds; or (2) provide a perpetual and growing LGA subsidy to provide socialized housing which the market just isn't able to produce.

Once again, the housing issue reveals itself as the great political inverter, where "fiscal conservatives" believe the free market can't be trusted and only heavy regulation and eternal subsidy can provide what people need.

[Mdcastle]

The problem I see with the bill was the potential impacts were too broad. I don't think most people would really mind a couple of duplexes here and there- there's a few in my neighborhood already. And of course the bill doesn't obligate any development. But potentially 6 unit apartment buildings on all sides of your property is another story, and I can see how a street lined with them would overwhelm the existing sewer and water systems.

[Tom H.]

I know, imagine the horror of having 6-unit apartment buildings intermixed with single-family homes.

[Mdcastle]

Exactly. I'd sure hate to have to live right next to that.

[thespeedmccool]

The utilities/municipal systems argument was the best one against the Missing Middle bill/s, and even that one was weak. Here's some thoughts that would make the bill much more palatable:

1. Make it (or the strongest measures) apply only to 'metropolitan' cities. In this case, take metropolitan to mean any city A. larger than 10,000 people B. any city in the Twin Cities MSA C. any city which overlaps with a Census urbanized area or D. any city under any MPO. That would solve 98% of the housing crisis but exclude hundreds of 100~ people "cities" from the requirements.
2. Give cities a pathway to exempt themselves for utility reasons from certain provisions. For example, maybe Woodbury should be exempted from allowing more than fourplexes because of the ongoing PFA problems there. Allow them to apply in advance of development proposals for exemptions, requiring they submit a plan to solve the utility problems which require those exemptions, and let them delay development as needed.
3. Allow cities to set aesthetic requirements.
4. Allow sparsely developed cities to take up a special 'rural community' status or something similar in exchange for reduced LGA. Don't want development? Okay, you're exempted from missing middle housing, but then you don't need aid for urban infrastructure. Looking at you: Afton, Sunfish Lake, North Oaks, etc.

I think with these, you'd basically eliminate all the marginally reasonable complaints with the bill and all opponents would be left with are "we hate apartments" and "we need more public engagement."

[thespeedmccool]

Legislature may give cities the option to establish land-value taxes: pages 12 and 13 of the Property Tax Division report.

[Tom H.]

[Anondson]

https://finance-commerce.com/2024/04/ef ... ota-house/

Dueling lobbyists at the end of it. The lobbyist against the bill clarifying that city plans do not need a deep environmental review claims there are not enough votes in the house to pass.

[thespeedmccool]

https://finance-commerce.com/2024/04/ef ... ota-house/

Dueling lobbyists at the end of it. The lobbyist against the bill clarifying that city plans do not need a deep environmental review claims there are not enough votes in the house to pass.

If Minneapolis 2040 doesn't get exempted (which is, as far as I'm concerned, the bare minimum,) that would be a total, unacceptable failure of the housing agenda at the legislature.

Time for advocates to step up the pressure on suburban DFLers. So bold on everything else, they seem to wilt at the mere mention of LMC.

[Wezle]

https://assets.senate.mn/committees/202 ... ummary.pdf

Currently the state senate transportation bill includes language that will strip the met council of any authority in designing and constructing LRT and BRT projects as well as prohibiting the expenditure of the metro area transit sales tax on light rail projects. Authority to construct light rail or BRT will instead fall to MNDOT against their wishes due to staffing concerns. I personally don't have high hopes for this change seeing as MNDOT seems reluctant to take on these extra responsibilities.

Disappointed to see Senator Dibbles leveraging his chairmanship of the transportation committee to hamstring any further Metro Transit projects this session. Feels reactionary over the SWLRT issues in his district and ignores the other successful planning and construction that the Met Council has overseen in the existing Blue/Green lines and aBRT projects. I hope it doesn't pass as currently written.

[thespeedmccool]

Dibble's just looking for a way to stick it to the Met Council after they went behind his back and killed his insane "reform" proposal.

Hornstein is the only person who could kill this (or maybe Walz, if MNDOT lobbies hard enough,) and I don't think he'll step in the way.

[Tom H.]

What effect would this have on the Blue Line extension? I can't recall how that project is currently proposed to be funded, but this feels like a significant mid-stream change in both the planning and funding of the line.