Neighbors for More Neighbors posted a piece on Streets.MN about why people
should support the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. I submitted a response on
Streets.MN but apparently I have been banned from posting there. So I am
posting the response here. Feel free to go to Streets.MN to see what
Neighbors for More Neighbors had to say.
should support the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. I submitted a response on
Streets.MN but apparently I have been banned from posting there. So I am
posting the response here. Feel free to go to Streets.MN to see what
Neighbors for More Neighbors had to say.
--------------------------------------
Minneapolis released a draft of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan four months ago
for public comment. Public comment is now closed for the first draft. It
was a very spirited public comment period, with thousands of individuals
contributing.
The most contentious thing proposed by this Plan is to up-zone the whole
city. The argument is that restrictive zoning is causing a crisis in
market-rate housing. The proposed solution is to reduce regulations on
developers so they will produce more market rate housing to reduce the
costs of market-rate home ownership and rents. Advocates also argue that
more market-rate housing will trickle down to create more affordable
housing, thereby addressing historic racial disparities and increasing both
the racial and income diversity of neighborhoods.
It is important to understand where we have come from. Minneapolis’s
population peaked around 1950, then declined from 1950 to about 1980. From
1980 to around 2000, it remained flat. In the 2000’s, the City began
growing. In the last 20 years, we added about 40,000 new residents and
about 20,000 new housing units. This growth occurred under existing zoning
laws. We plan to add about 50,000 more people in the next 20 years, very
similar to the last 20 years.
In the last 20 years, Minneapolis concentrated new market-rate housing in
its downtown, creating its largest walkable, transit-supported
neighborhood. We also concentrated new housing around the University of
Minnesota, where one of our largest transit-dependent populations is. We
also constructed smaller scale, mostly four-story housing, throughout the
City, primarily at the nodes of high frequency transit routes. When you
look over the last twenty years, we have successfully met the demand for
market-rate housing.
Advocates of up-zoning say that there is a crisis in market-rate housing
but data does not support this. The median home value is what it was in
2003, before the housing bubble. (Minneapolis City Assessor, adjusted for
inflation using the CPI) Rents went up 3.3% last year. (RentCafe, 2018).
The median home value of $255,000 (Minneapolis City Assessor) is affordable
to the median income family Income of $72,970 (American Community Survey,
2016). (The median home in St Paul, at $189,000, is even more affordable,
which is important as Minneapolis is less than 10% of the region’s housing
market.) The median home value has increased the last five years but it
decreased the previous five. Zillow rates our housing market as “warm.” The
Case-Shiller Index tracks housing cost changes in 20 regions. The growth in
our housing costs are 14th out of 20 regions tracked and substantially
below the national average. Rental occupancy rates are decreasing. (JLL,
Second Quarter, 2018, Q2 Investment Outlook)
We are having a temporary shortage of inventory of new homes for purchase.
But the market is responding. Building permits are up substantially in
2018 compared to 2017. I have attached the Keystone Report most current
data showing this.
It is clear the basic premise, that zoning regulations are driving up
housing costs, is wrong. But where does it come from? It comes from a
national developer and tech-funded movement to reduce regulations on
developers building market rate housing, called “YIMBY.” This started in
Seattle and San Francisco where they really have not built enough housing
to meet the onslaught of people moving there. (Seattle has built 1/8th the
housing they need for their large number of new residents.) But advocates
are now pushing this remedy (up-zoning) for a problem that Minneapolis does
not have. We are not radically short of housing.
Another thing YIMBY advocates do is mix affordable housing arguments to
justify easing regulations on market-rate housing. We absolutely are having
a crisis in affordable housing for low income individuals. But building
more market rate housing will not produce more affordable housing.
Building more market rate housing just produces…more market rate housing.
New construction costs are too high to produce new truly affordable housing
without government intervention.
YIMBY advocates also argue that our current system is racist and classist.
But building more market rate housing will not make neighborhoods more
racially or income diverse. It will simply create more market rate housing.
Minneapolis for Everyone envision a future where all Minneapolis residents
have access to homes that fit their needs that they can afford. The first
key to this is maintaining our existing housing stock. Old housing is
cheaper than new housing and we need to preserve as much of our existing
housing as possible. Because of this, we oppose bulldozing existing
housing, whether it is to replace it with substantially larger
single-family structures or multi-family commercial structures. Because of
this, we need to reject the displacement zoning proposal that is being
brought before the City Council
We also need to preserve existing homes because this is the primary housing
for families with children. 4% of the population of Minneapolis is parents
with kids under the age of 18. (U.S. Census) 80% of our three bedroom and
larger housing is in single family homes. (U.S. Census) Rents for
apartments with 3+ bedrooms average $1,943 (RentCafe) while families with
children earn 10% less than families without children. (U.S. Census) Also,
when we tear down a single-family home that previously held two parents and
two children and replace it with four studio apartments, we have done
nothing to address our growing population. Instead we have taken home
ownership and converted into corporate profits. If that home held a family
with three children, we have gone backwards in our housing needs. Also, we
make housing much more expensive. A lot that held a single family house
that held two parents and two kids and a mortgage of $1,200 per month gets
replaced with a fourplex with units renting at $1000 apiece or $4,000 per
month just creates more expensive housing. If we want a policy to drive
out families with children, this is it.
There is a misconception that single family homes are all about rich white
people. Much of the existing single-family homes are in North
Minneapolis. Displacement zoning would accelerate gentrification when we
need to preserve affordable housing. I have attached the picture that
shows where single family homes are concentrated so folks can see how much
of this housing is in North Minneapolis.
Also, we have immigrant communities who have large families, families that
simply cannot be accommodated in apartment buildings or condos. They need
single family homes.
We can have it all. We can build more housing to meet the growth that we
need to accommodate. We can also preserve our existing housing stock while
doing it. We need to add about 10% more people in the next 20 years, like
what we will have added in the past 20 years. We can continue to grow
housing in the downtown and around the U, our two largest concentrations of
walkable, transit-supported development. We can continue to build
multi-family housing at our transit nodes throughout the City. We can
encourage condos as well as rental development. We can also spread growth
throughout the City. New housing is a penny that is only spent once – more
units built in Uptown means units not built in North or along East Lake
Street.
We also need to be sensitive to life cycle needs. Young people need rental
property and small housing units. As they create families, many need larger
housing units. Once their kids leave and maintaining a property becomes a
burden, they may need to downsize to a smaller unit or a multi-family
unit. If we bulldoze existing housing, we become a monoculture of studios
and one- and two-bedroom units. That does not keep families in our city.
And kids are vital to our City.
We also must acknowledge that the Metropolitan Council’s regional plan,
“Thrive 2040,” envisions no growth in the base bus system over the next 20
years. The transportation funding we have is what we have. We may be able
to add an LRT or two (which primarily bring suburbanites into downtown) and
may be able to cut some base bus service and convert it into high frequency
service but pretty much what we have is what we can plan to have into the
future. Because of this, we need to make transit usage easy by locating
housing next to transit, not blocks away. We need to also concentrate new
jobs in the downtown core as this is the one location in the Twin Cities
that can be easily accessed by existing transit.
The first draft of the Comp Plan needs radical change. The period for
comments on the first draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are now closed.
Planning staff will now be working to produce a second draft of the
Comprehensive Plan in late September. Citizens can still contact their
Council Members, the final policy decision makers, about their concerns
even during the rewrite. One would hope that it will better reflect the
needs and concerns of the citizens of Minneapolis.
If you want to keep up with the work on organizing to get a better plan,
please sign up at www.neighborsforeveryone.org. We also have several
different lawn signs available for people who are concerned about the
Plan.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
Minneapolis released a draft of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan four months ago
for public comment. Public comment is now closed for the first draft. It
was a very spirited public comment period, with thousands of individuals
contributing.
The most contentious thing proposed by this Plan is to up-zone the whole
city. The argument is that restrictive zoning is causing a crisis in
market-rate housing. The proposed solution is to reduce regulations on
developers so they will produce more market rate housing to reduce the
costs of market-rate home ownership and rents. Advocates also argue that
more market-rate housing will trickle down to create more affordable
housing, thereby addressing historic racial disparities and increasing both
the racial and income diversity of neighborhoods.
It is important to understand where we have come from. Minneapolis’s
population peaked around 1950, then declined from 1950 to about 1980. From
1980 to around 2000, it remained flat. In the 2000’s, the City began
growing. In the last 20 years, we added about 40,000 new residents and
about 20,000 new housing units. This growth occurred under existing zoning
laws. We plan to add about 50,000 more people in the next 20 years, very
similar to the last 20 years.
In the last 20 years, Minneapolis concentrated new market-rate housing in
its downtown, creating its largest walkable, transit-supported
neighborhood. We also concentrated new housing around the University of
Minnesota, where one of our largest transit-dependent populations is. We
also constructed smaller scale, mostly four-story housing, throughout the
City, primarily at the nodes of high frequency transit routes. When you
look over the last twenty years, we have successfully met the demand for
market-rate housing.
Advocates of up-zoning say that there is a crisis in market-rate housing
but data does not support this. The median home value is what it was in
2003, before the housing bubble. (Minneapolis City Assessor, adjusted for
inflation using the CPI) Rents went up 3.3% last year. (RentCafe, 2018).
The median home value of $255,000 (Minneapolis City Assessor) is affordable
to the median income family Income of $72,970 (American Community Survey,
2016). (The median home in St Paul, at $189,000, is even more affordable,
which is important as Minneapolis is less than 10% of the region’s housing
market.) The median home value has increased the last five years but it
decreased the previous five. Zillow rates our housing market as “warm.” The
Case-Shiller Index tracks housing cost changes in 20 regions. The growth in
our housing costs are 14th out of 20 regions tracked and substantially
below the national average. Rental occupancy rates are decreasing. (JLL,
Second Quarter, 2018, Q2 Investment Outlook)
We are having a temporary shortage of inventory of new homes for purchase.
But the market is responding. Building permits are up substantially in
2018 compared to 2017. I have attached the Keystone Report most current
data showing this.
It is clear the basic premise, that zoning regulations are driving up
housing costs, is wrong. But where does it come from? It comes from a
national developer and tech-funded movement to reduce regulations on
developers building market rate housing, called “YIMBY.” This started in
Seattle and San Francisco where they really have not built enough housing
to meet the onslaught of people moving there. (Seattle has built 1/8th the
housing they need for their large number of new residents.) But advocates
are now pushing this remedy (up-zoning) for a problem that Minneapolis does
not have. We are not radically short of housing.
Another thing YIMBY advocates do is mix affordable housing arguments to
justify easing regulations on market-rate housing. We absolutely are having
a crisis in affordable housing for low income individuals. But building
more market rate housing will not produce more affordable housing.
Building more market rate housing just produces…more market rate housing.
New construction costs are too high to produce new truly affordable housing
without government intervention.
YIMBY advocates also argue that our current system is racist and classist.
But building more market rate housing will not make neighborhoods more
racially or income diverse. It will simply create more market rate housing.
Minneapolis for Everyone envision a future where all Minneapolis residents
have access to homes that fit their needs that they can afford. The first
key to this is maintaining our existing housing stock. Old housing is
cheaper than new housing and we need to preserve as much of our existing
housing as possible. Because of this, we oppose bulldozing existing
housing, whether it is to replace it with substantially larger
single-family structures or multi-family commercial structures. Because of
this, we need to reject the displacement zoning proposal that is being
brought before the City Council
We also need to preserve existing homes because this is the primary housing
for families with children. 4% of the population of Minneapolis is parents
with kids under the age of 18. (U.S. Census) 80% of our three bedroom and
larger housing is in single family homes. (U.S. Census) Rents for
apartments with 3+ bedrooms average $1,943 (RentCafe) while families with
children earn 10% less than families without children. (U.S. Census) Also,
when we tear down a single-family home that previously held two parents and
two children and replace it with four studio apartments, we have done
nothing to address our growing population. Instead we have taken home
ownership and converted into corporate profits. If that home held a family
with three children, we have gone backwards in our housing needs. Also, we
make housing much more expensive. A lot that held a single family house
that held two parents and two kids and a mortgage of $1,200 per month gets
replaced with a fourplex with units renting at $1000 apiece or $4,000 per
month just creates more expensive housing. If we want a policy to drive
out families with children, this is it.
There is a misconception that single family homes are all about rich white
people. Much of the existing single-family homes are in North
Minneapolis. Displacement zoning would accelerate gentrification when we
need to preserve affordable housing. I have attached the picture that
shows where single family homes are concentrated so folks can see how much
of this housing is in North Minneapolis.
Also, we have immigrant communities who have large families, families that
simply cannot be accommodated in apartment buildings or condos. They need
single family homes.
We can have it all. We can build more housing to meet the growth that we
need to accommodate. We can also preserve our existing housing stock while
doing it. We need to add about 10% more people in the next 20 years, like
what we will have added in the past 20 years. We can continue to grow
housing in the downtown and around the U, our two largest concentrations of
walkable, transit-supported development. We can continue to build
multi-family housing at our transit nodes throughout the City. We can
encourage condos as well as rental development. We can also spread growth
throughout the City. New housing is a penny that is only spent once – more
units built in Uptown means units not built in North or along East Lake
Street.
We also need to be sensitive to life cycle needs. Young people need rental
property and small housing units. As they create families, many need larger
housing units. Once their kids leave and maintaining a property becomes a
burden, they may need to downsize to a smaller unit or a multi-family
unit. If we bulldoze existing housing, we become a monoculture of studios
and one- and two-bedroom units. That does not keep families in our city.
And kids are vital to our City.
We also must acknowledge that the Metropolitan Council’s regional plan,
“Thrive 2040,” envisions no growth in the base bus system over the next 20
years. The transportation funding we have is what we have. We may be able
to add an LRT or two (which primarily bring suburbanites into downtown) and
may be able to cut some base bus service and convert it into high frequency
service but pretty much what we have is what we can plan to have into the
future. Because of this, we need to make transit usage easy by locating
housing next to transit, not blocks away. We need to also concentrate new
jobs in the downtown core as this is the one location in the Twin Cities
that can be easily accessed by existing transit.
The first draft of the Comp Plan needs radical change. The period for
comments on the first draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are now closed.
Planning staff will now be working to produce a second draft of the
Comprehensive Plan in late September. Citizens can still contact their
Council Members, the final policy decision makers, about their concerns
even during the rewrite. One would hope that it will better reflect the
needs and concerns of the citizens of Minneapolis.
If you want to keep up with the work on organizing to get a better plan,
please sign up at www.neighborsforeveryone.org. We also have several
different lawn signs available for people who are concerned about the
Plan.
Carol Becker
Longfellow