From the comments here, many of the folks who have responded here are
responding from the frame that Mr. Edwards put forward. The link to his
piece is here:
https://www.wedgelive.com/2018/07/beyond-apocalyptic-yard-signs.html?m=1
And before I go forward, I would acknowledge that although we have
different approaches to the end, we share the same goals. A love of this
City and concern for its future. Keeping it affordable and keeping it
thriving.
Mr. Edwards wrote:
âItâs a maddening time lately, with political actors denying obvious truths
and using scare tactics to sidestep honest dialogue. In any debate about
change, political winds favor the side with the simple message: NO. It's
easy to fearmonger, deceive, and put words on lawn signs that conjure
impending annihilation.â
I like to think Minneapolis is better than that. In Minneapolis we
recognize real problems and act to solve them. We recognize that housing is
in short supply and unacceptably expensive for too many of our neighbors.
We recognize that climate change is real, and is driven by lifestyles made
necessary by our region's sprawling, auto-oriented development patterns. We
recognize that nobody should have opportunity limited by the fact they
canât afford to live in the right neighborhood.â
To foster an honest conversation about the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive
Plan, letâs focus on this widely recognized fact: Minneapolis doesnât have
enough homes. MPR reports that the fabled âstarter homeâ is disappearing
from the Twin Cities due to a combination of factors: âland, laws, labor,
and lumber.â
I agree with Mr. Edwards in that political actors are denying obvious
truths and using scare tactics. But the scare tactics are not in lawn signs
but in on-line falsehoods. If we do agree to the facts, then the answers
become self-evident. The idea that âMinneapolis doesnât have enough homesâ
is not true â at least it is not true for market-rate housing. Here is the
truth about market-rate housing:
¡ The Minneapolis median home value in 2018 is what it was in 2003,
adjusted for inflation. (Minneapolis City Assessor)
¡ Although the median home value increased each year over the last
five years, it decreased each year over the previous five years.
(Minneapolis City Assessor)
¡ The median home value in Minneapolis in 2018 was $255,000. This
means half of homes were less and half were more. Median family income was
$72,970 in 2016 (American Community Survey). According to NerdWalletâs
housing calculator, the median home is affordable to the median income
family in Minneapolis.
¡ The City of St Paul hasn't even recovered from the Great Recession,
with a median home value of $184,000. (
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/04/11/property-tax-assessment-faq )
Minneapolis
is less than 10% of the overall regional housing market.
¡ Apartment rents went up 3.3% last year (RentCafe).
¡ The stock of unsold housing is in short supply as a natural
business cycle. We had an oversupply five years ago and were in short
supply ten years ago. We are in the middle of one of the longest economic
expansion ever. When the crash comes (and it will), we will have an
oversupply. That is the business cycle.
¡ We have literally thousands of new units in the pipeline.
o Building permits are up 50% over last year.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.batc.org/resource/resmgr/hot_sheets/2017/hot-sheet_september_2017.pdf
o Apartment construction is booming. (
http://www.startribune.com/apartment-construction-has-been-booming-in-the-twin-cities-but-is-about-to-boom-even-more/477181473/
)
¡ As to the concern about starter homes disappearing, the article
talked about suburban single-family starter homes. Not Minneapolis.
I will say it again â we are not having a crisis in market rate housing.
The data simply does not support that argument.
We are absolutely having an affordable housing crisis.
Mr. Edwards continues:
âFor the sake of conversation, here's a few examples of things affecting
the cost housing:
¡ Energy efficiency standards substantially add to the cost of a new
home
¡ Land on which to build new homes is made more expensive because of
growth boundaries
¡ Restrictions in zoning codes all across the Twin Cities prevent
building âtwin homesâ (or fourplexes, or apartments, or anything thatâs not
a single-family home) that share a wall and sell for much less than an
equivalent single-family home
¡ Car parking requirements add to the cost of every unit of housing,
especially when itâs a massive parking structure
If we can agree to the facts (that these things affect the cost of
housing), then -- and only then -- we can move to what should come next: an
actual conversation about what we value.â
We must agree about the things that affect the price of housing. Mr.
Edwards notes some items but they are not the major driver of housing costs.
What are? Here are a few:
One driver of costs is whether a housing unit is old or new. An old house
is cheaper than a new house. When we demolish old houses, and replace them
with new, we create more expensive housing.
Another driver is whether a property is rental or ownership. Home
ownership, whether it is a single-family home or a condo, is the single
best way for the average American to build wealth. When we replace
ownership with rental, we make housing more expensive.
A third driver of cost is how large of housing a family needs. 40% of
Minneapolis residents are kids under the age of 18 and their parents. 80%
of our three plus housing units are in single family homes. Only 10% of
multi-family homes are 3+ bedrooms. (US Census) Rent for a 3-bedroom
apartment is 25% higher than the average and almost double a studio
apartment. (RentCafe, July 2018) As we demolish homes and replace them with
rental, we make housing more expensive for families. And when we replace a
single-family home, a home with parents and couple kids, with a fourplex
with studios with one person each, what have we accomplished?
<This continues in a second email as it is too long to fit in one...>
Carol Becker
Longfellow