Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2025 <br />Dear Chair Igoand Members of the House Housing Finance and Policy Committee: <br />The League of Minnesota Cities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, Minnesota <br />Association of Small Cities,and Municipal Legislative Commission appreciate the opportunity to <br />provide comments on HF 1987 - Igo, HF 2013 - Nash, HF 2140 - Kraft, and HF 2018 - Kozlowski, that <br />are scheduled for hearings this week. <br />While our associations greatly appreciate the work by policymakers to address housing needs across the <br />state, we continue to have significant concerns regarding thesebills. The bills containa sweeping <br />preemption of longstanding city zoning and land use authorities and would broadly restrict cities in <br />managing localcommunity needs and circumstances. The bills represent alack of understanding for <br />how cities utilize localpolicies and ordinances to provide for local public healthand safety, ensure <br />compatibility of land uses, and provide basic public infrastructure and services. We are concerned that <br />these proposed policies and requirements would unnecessarily and unwisely undermine the local work <br />cities are currently doing to address housing, as well as other needs. <br />Cities recognize the deep, ongoing need for adequate and affordable housing and are addressing these <br />needs through local planning, tools and resources, state program funding and local engagement so as to <br />effectively respond to housing needs across the spectrum. Setting land use and zoning policy to manage <br />and balance community needs and land uses is a corelocal function, just as adequateinfrastructure <br />capacity, the protection of natural resources and building integrity and preservation, are core local <br />functions. Addressing housing affordability and availability must be locally driven toaccount forthe <br />wide variety of circumstances, fiscal and physical constraints, and service capacitiesthatare local in <br />nature, and inform localdecision-making toensure decisions are balanced and responsive to the local <br />community. <br />The local implementation of many if not most provisions in thesebills would be difficultto achieve and <br />could have the opposite effect of what we understand the intent of these bills to be. Cities have been <br />making changes to zoning and land use policies that make sense for their communityas well as creating <br />incentives to support needed housing development. Weareconcernedthat these bills would usurpyears <br />of planning, work, and community input that is by nature highly complex, nuanced and local. <br />Below are concerns our associations have with many of the specific provisions in bills. We recognize <br />that there will be amendments to bills, and we will respond as those are considered. We have attempted <br />toavoid restating concerns for provisions in one bill that are similar or identical to provisions in other <br />bills. <br />HF 1987 (Igo) - “Starter Homes” Bill <br />-Section 2 would give broad exemptions forcomprehensive plan amendmentsthat may have <br />inadvertent consequences for the bill’s premise. The language also appears to conflate long term <br />comprehensive planning with local zoning. These changes would also appear to conflict with <br />regional planning for sewer, transportation, parks and other regional infrastructure. <br />-Section 4 would require duplexes andADUs in zoning districts that permit a residential use and <br />allow for townhouses to be permitted in newlyplatted and vacant lotsas a permitted use. This <br />58 <br /> <br />