Local government deserves a say in land use policy

The following is a response to a recent column by Reformer editor J. Patrick Coolican on the debate over land use reforms at the Legislature. 

I did not have housing and zoning policy on my bingo card for one of the most hot-button issues of this legislative session, but nonetheless, here we are. Unquestionably, there is a need for housing solutions across the state. On that, there is little debate. Given this, why did the effort at sweeping zoning changes supported by a “housing reform coalition [that] is bipartisan and broad, including labor unions, the influential progressive ecumenical group ISAIAH, and the Chamber of Commerce” — as characterized by J. Patrick Coolican in his April 4 commentary — fail?

It is certainly more complicated than presented by Coolican as merely local government lobbyists (myself among them) who simply “spout local control,” and legislators who quake in fear of their next opponent being an aggrieved mayor or city council member.

For starters, the phrase “local control” is an unfortunate shorthand used across the board for all manner of local decision-making. As used in the context of this year’s housing discussion, “local control” has obscured the very legitimate concerns that city leaders across the state have raised about the impact of development “by right” on neighborhoods whose infrastructure has not been planned or scaled to accommodate more dense development. Issues of water, wastewater, electricity, streets, public safety, and health and wellness are all real — and not easily whistled past. It’s not so much an issue of “control” but rather one of “implementation.”

The legislation, as introduced, would have taken the one entity charged with sitting at the intersection of complicated development issues and community interests — the city government — largely out of the picture. Is the Legislature really qualified to determine building standards, such as height minimums, setbacks, lot sizes, etc., for communities across the entire state? Given the richness and diversity of Minnesota’s cities — big and small, rural, urban and suburban — the idea is absurd.

This leads to the most fatal flaw of this legislation. It was drafted and introduced without the partnership of the local governments, who deal with the practical realities of creating more housing every day. Moreover, in the narrative presented by legislators and advocates (and editors of online news sources), local governments were painted as the villains of the story. 

As the narrative developed, it was the antiquated and backwards actions of local governments that stifled housing development. The greater Minnesota cities I work with were both gob-smacked and offended by the lack of understanding of housing issues in their cities. 

Without a doubt, development codes have been used to racially segregate neighborhoods, and — as Coolican noted — there are cities that engage in questionable behavior. However, for every current example of a bad actor on the city side, I can give you a dozen examples of cities doing everything they can to work with their developers to get housing built in their communities on sites that make sense and that are supported by the appropriate infrastructure. The broad sweep of this legislation ignores the efforts cities are already making with developers to build projects and allow for increased density. 

The primary barrier to getting housing done is the cost. 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. Zoning is not the barrier to building housing in most of these communities. The barrier is a combination of the rapidly increasing cost materials, infrastructure, and labor — if a community can even find people to construct new housing. These are the things stifling efforts to build more housing in greater Minnesota, not local zoning.

As Coolican notes, the advocates for these bills will “be back next year and the year after and however long it takes.” Between now and then, introspection is called for. Housing advocates will need to think hard about whether this year’s approach of treating local governments as the problem instead of as partners was productive.

Lawmakers will need to rethink the legislation’s framework and whether a broad brush that imposes rigid, one-size-fits-all requirements on cities is the best path forward. If the housing discussion plays out on the same terms next year as it did during this session, then the conversation will be just as unproductive and frustrating for all involved. 

To have a productive discussion going forward, it’s time to step back, reflect on this session, and use those lessons to reset and reframe the state’s conversation on housing.   

Coolican’s response: The point about greater Minnesota is well taken, but my argument was mostly about suburban and exurban cities’ use of zoning and restrictive land use policies to prevent housing construction, not rural areas. With respect to the cost of building: Complying with onerous regulations adds time and cost, which many of the proposals sought to reduce.