The following is a response to a recent column by Reformer editor J. Patrick Coolican regarding the land use reform debate in Congress.
My bingo card didn't list housing and zoning policy, one of the hottest issues in this Congress, but here it is nonetheless. Without question, housing solutions are needed across the state. There's little debate about it. Given this, why was a drastic zoning change effort undertaken with the support of the Housing Reform Coalition? [that] “Bipartisan and broad-based, including labor unions, the influential progressive ecumenical group ISAIAH, and the Chamber of Commerce” – J. Patrick Coolican Comments from April 4th – Failure?
This issue was presented by Coolican as a local government lobbyist (of which I am one) who simply “advocates for local control” and as a member of Congress who is terrified that his next enemy will be an unjust mayor or city council member. It's certainly more complicated than that.
First of all, the phrase “local control” is an unfortunate abbreviation used across the board for local decision-making of any kind. As used in the context of this year's housing debate, the term “local control” refers to “deserved” development in neighborhoods where infrastructure is not planned or scaled accordingly. It overshadows the very legitimate concerns raised by city leaders across the state about the impact. More dense development. Water, wastewater, electricity, streets, public safety, health and wellness issues are all real and will not simply pass. It's not a “control” issue, but rather an “execution” issue.
If introduced, this bill would largely remove city governments, the only entity responsible for the intersection of complex development issues and community interests. Does the state Legislature really have the right to set minimum heights, setbacks, lot sizes, and other building standards for communities across the state? Considering diversity, this idea is ridiculous.
This leads to the law's most fatal flaw. This plan was drafted and introduced without the cooperation of local governments who are working every day to make housing construction a reality. Furthermore, the narrative presented by legislators and advocates (and editors of online news sources) portrayed local governments as the bad guys.
As the story unfolds, it turns out that it is the local government's outdated and backward actions that are stifling housing development. Both large cities in Minnesota that I work with have been frustrated and dissatisfied with the lack of understanding of housing issues in their cities.
Undoubtedly, development codes are being used to racially segregate neighborhoods, and as Coolican pointed out, some cities have engaged in questionable practices. But for all of the current examples of bad actors on the part of the city, the city is doing everything in its power to work with developers to build housing on sites that make sense and are supported within the community. I can give more than a dozen examples. Adequate infrastructure. Broad enforcement of this bill ignores the efforts cities are already making with developers to build projects and enable density increases.
The main barrier to completing a home is cost. In most of Minnesota, virtually no project of any kind gets done unless cities provide financial assistance through grants, fee waivers, tax increment financing, or tax abatements. In most of these communities, zoning is not a barrier to housing construction. Even if a community can find someone to build new housing, the barrier is a combination of rapidly rising materials, infrastructure, and labor costs. These, not local zoning, are what is stifling efforts to build more housing across Minnesota.
As Coolican points out, the proponents of these bills will “come back next year, the year after, however long it takes.” Introspection is required now and in the past. Housing advocates will need to reflect on whether this year's approach of treating local governments as problems rather than partners has been productive.
Lawmakers will need to reframe the bill and reconsider whether a broad policy that imposes strict, uniform requirements on cities is the best path forward. If the housing debate plays out on the same terms next year as it did during this session, it will be just as counterproductive and frustrating for all involved.
In order to have productive discussions going forward, it is time to take a step back, reflect on this session, and use those lessons to reset and reshape the state's debate on housing.
Mr. Coolican's response: While the point about large cities in Minnesota is well taken, my argument is primarily that suburban and suburban cities, not rural areas, use zoning and restrictive land use policies to prevent housing construction. It was about using. Regarding construction costs: Complying with onerous regulations increases time and costs, and many of the proposals sought to reduce this.
