This week, the Senate State and Local Government Committee will hear a new version of the so-called “Yes to Homes” bill (S.F. 2229) that was introduced earlier in the session. This new version yet again substitutes the judgment of legislators and unaccountable developers for that of city officials and local residents regarding the future development of our cities.  

Although the proponents claim that this amendment is a stripped-down version of the bill, it still contains many of the same problematic provisions. The bigger problem is that if the bill passes out of this committee, the author will likely add it to the Housing Omnibus bill. The bill could change significantly again, reinstating some of the earlier problematic provisions. Here are some of the specific provisions we are concerned about:

  • Cities would have to establish and follow an administrative review and approval for all residential developments. Two “community meetings” would be allowed, but those meetings would have no teeth because all approvals would be at the staff level. Public hearings, such as at the city council, would not be allowed unless they are in a historical district. (Sec. 7, at lines 4.17 – 5.12) 
    • We are particularly concerned that language at lines 4.29 – 4.30 would prohibit cities from requiring dedications or fees for new developments, such as utilities fees for sewer and water connection, infrastructure fees such as street improvement or stormwater fees, and park and recreation dedication or fees, including tree preservation. 
  • Cities would be prohibited from imposing residential design standards on any residential development, whether single- or multi-family housing, as long as they are located outside of statutory historical districts under Minn. Stat. 138.73 and 471.193. There is a laundry list of what cities would not be allowed to require, including items you may not think of as a design standard. The prohibited list includes the orientation and dimensions of the structure, types of siding, minimum number/placement of windows, building articulation, roof pitch, and multiple other items (Sec. 6, at lines 3.26 – 4.16). We are concerned that these are so broad that developers could build homes with no windows on the backside, plunk McMansions amid smaller homes, or construct a hulking apartment block in a downtown area that is not officially historic. 
  • Homeowners Associations (Sec. 5, at lines 3.10)
    • Cities would be prohibited from requiring the creation of a homeowner’s association and could not require any terms in an association document if not required by state law. We are concerned that cities could no longer require maintenance or insurance of private common areas. 
  • Parking Minimums (Sec. 4, at lines 3.1 – 3.4)
    • Cities would not be allowed to impose minimum parking mandates greater than one stall per unit, regardless of how many people live in the unit or local parking constraints.   

Even if some of these changes do not directly impact your city now, this bill opens the door for legislators in St. Paul to make decisions about community development in your city.

We need your help to stop this legislation!

ACT NOW:

Contact your state senator and urge them to reach out to their colleagues on the State and Local Government Committee to oppose this new DE amendment to the “Yes to Homes” bill (S.F. 2229) and focus on solutions that work for Greater Minnesota.

Tell them:

  • This new version of the so-called “Yes to Homes” bill still does nothing to address the housing crisis in Greater Minnesota. Greater Minnesota is not facing a housing crisis because our cities are unwilling to allow new residential construction or reevaluate local policies. Our cities are facing a housing crisis because the cost of constructing housing is more than what our economies can support in rent or mortgages.
  • This legislation ignores all the efforts cities make and insists upon a one-size-fits-all centralized approach from St. Paul that (among other provisions): 
    • Takes away community voices from the housing development process by getting rid of public hearings and placing decision-making with staff only.
    • May increase the costs of development for current residents through language that would not allow cities to require dedications or fees for new development, such as utility connection fees, stormwater fees, or park dedication. 
    • Prohibits cities from imposing design standards that could result in the development of hulking Soviet-style apartment blocks, homes with no windows on the backside, or McMansions being built in the midst of smaller homes.
    • Prohibits cities from tailoring parking requirements to the unique needs of their neighborhoods.
  • City officials in Greater Minnesota want to work with legislators to increase housing availability, but we need to work together on solutions that target the actual barriers we face. This legislation does not do that.
  • Tell your story! If you have updated or will be updating your ordinances to make the permitting process easier, to increase density, to adjust or remove parking restrictions, matched your zoning in response to a housing study, or taken other steps aimed at increasing housing in your city, please mention that.
  • Tell them these bills are being heard this week, and they need to reach out to their colleagues to stop them from moving forward.

Contact info:

Questions?
If you have any questions about housing legislation or this Action Alert, please contact CGMC Lobbyist Elizabeth Wefel at eawefel@flaherty-hood.com or 651-259-1924.