After strong objections from the vast majority of community leaders in the south metro, the Minnesota legislature will be pumping the brakes for now on what was known as the ‘missing middle housing’ bills.
“As one unified bill, yes I don’t think there is a path forward this year,” state Sen. Nicole Mitchell DFL – Woodbury said during a phone interview.
House File 4009 and Senate File 1370, together colloquially known as the “Missing Middle Housing” bills, were designed to increase the minimum housing density by allowing multi-family housing in single-family zoned areas as well as reducing minimum mandatory parking that usually goes along with multi-family housing.
The bills received bipartisan support and the fanfare from a broad coalition of nonprofits, developers, and housing rights advocates. Despite that support, cities across the southwest metro and beyond strongly opposed the bills, claiming they stripped cities and towns of their ability to plan and create their own zoning plans.
“We appreciate that our state legislators heard the many concerns with the “Missing Middle” bill brought forward by cities, counties, school districts and realtors,” Prior Lake Mayor Kirt Briggs wrote in a prepared statement.
The state missing middle bills were designed to address the roughly 100,000 unit affordable housing shortage across the state in a novel way by mandating minimum housing densities and making it easier to create new middle housing. While many balked at the state mandate as overreach, a shift in the norm was the point. “We can’t continue with the status quo. It’s not working,” Mitchell said.
In a letter opposing the bill, Carver County commissioners and mayors of the county, including Chanhassen and Chaska, wrote, “As representatives of the residents of Carver County, we are concerned with provisions of the bill that preempt city zoning and land use authorities, remove public input in the residential development process, ignore long-range comprehensive plans and lack consideration for how cities utilize zoning and land use authorities to ensure investments in utilities and infrastructure are sized and scaled appropriately to support new housing density.”
State Sen. Eric Pratt, R – Prior Lake also opposes the bills. “House Files 4009 and 4010 are written to override city zoning laws that would allow multifamily housing in residential neighborhoods and in areas that have been zoned specifically for commercial properties. These bills allow the state to override local decisions made by locally elected officials that you vote for…and that simply should not be happening,” Pratt said. “There are many reasons to oppose these bills – it will make housing less affordable making it harder for young families to buy a home and realize their American dream. They override local zoning putting multi-family homes in areas where the infrastructure is designed for single-family use or hurts the economic development of the city, both of which will cause property taxes to increase. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that treats every city the same, and it completely fails to recognize the fact that every community has different needs when it comes to housing. Scott County cities know their needs far better than the state and have comprehensive plans that have housing and commercial growth plans approved by the Met Council. This legislation will treat every city and their needs the same, and override the work done in planning that meets our growth needs without losing our identities in this process.”
Not over yet
While many community leaders are celebrating the derailment of the proposed legislation, at least one community acknowledges the fight may not be over.
“We think this issue will come back next session,” Jordan City Administrator Tom Nikunen wrote in an email to Southwest News Media. “They will bring it back. We need to prepare for that and work on housing options that make more sense, that we can support.”
Meanwhile, Chaska spokesperson Kevin Wright said the city “is committed to growth and affordable development and stands ready to work with the stakeholders involved to develop comprehensive statewide policy and resources that incentivizes change at the local level and provides for community-specific solutions to housing challenges.”
Requests for comments from Savage and Shakopee officials went unreturned at the time of publication.
Briggs’ concern is the possibility of some of the pieces of the legislation being part of a housing omnibus bill.
“While the threat the bill poses for cities may be reduced this legislative session, the drafting of the housing omnibus bill lies ahead,” he said.
Some parts might pass
While HF4009 and SF1370 will most likely not make it through the legislature this year, parts of the bills are still being considered.
“There’s an appetite for change here in Minnesota,” Mitchell said.
According to Mitchell, two of those ideas are accessory dwelling units and mixed residential and commercial zoning.
Accessory dwelling units are secondary housing units on single family residential lots. Often they are standalone buildings but can also be residences built above garages or sharing walls with the original house on the lot.
“On a bipartisan level, this is very popular,” Mitchell said.
Mixed use commercial and residential zoning is already used heavily in the twin cities as well as in some cities in the southwest metro like Chaska. The idea is to be able to put residential units above commercial buildings like those in a strip mall.
“Solving our state’s housing crisis has been a top priority for this legislature, and we are exploring zoning as an important component of expanding access to housing. Proposals introduced this year have started a new conversation about the best way to move forward and I am confident that, with time, my Senate colleagues will find a path forward in our work to expand housing opportunities,” Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy DFL— St. Paul said.
Meanwhile, Briggs said, “We will continue to share our thoughts and reach out to those who sponsored the bill to create an opportunity to work together on a proposal that would actually result in the creation of more owner-occupied homes.”
While those conversations continue throughout this session and beyond, it is clear “no one is giving up on this,” Mitchell said.