Letter to the Editor: More Proof the Minneapolis 2040 Plan Was Never About Improving the Economy of The City, The Wellbeing of City Residents, or Reducing the City’s Carbon Footprint

Dennis Paulaha, PhD - Great River Coaltion

The question that will not go away whenever the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is discussed is: Was the 2040 Plan intended to help the residents and the economy of the city, and to decrease the city’s impact on global warming, or was it nothing more than a plan to support the less than successful Metro Transit System by letting developers and investors tear down single family homes and replace them with rental units?

Given that neither the Minneapolis City Council nor the City Planning Department was able to show residents how eliminating single-family zoning would improve the health, incomes, and wealth of homeowners, how eliminating single-family zoning would reduce the affordable housing problem for either potential homeowners or renters, or how eliminating single-family zoning to intentionally increase the population and population density of the city while destroying green space would not increase the city’s carbon footprint, the recent push to use language in the 2040 Plan to relax the requirements governing the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or “granny flats,” adds more weight to the argument that the 2040 Plan is all about busses.

Over the years, accessory dwelling units have at times been allowed and at other times prohibited. Currently, they are allowed, but with restrictions. 

One of the current zoning-code restrictions is that backyard dwelling units, whether they are used for granny or rented out as a source of income, can be constructed only on owner-occupied one- and two-family properties. 

Other restrictions are related to building code requirements covering fire and sound separation between units, the rise and run (steepness) of stairways, headroom requirements, access to utilities, and the percentage of a single-family property that can be covered with buildings.

Such safety restrictions have limited the number of accessory dwelling units in the city, partly because they add to the cost of constructing ADUs, partly because of limited green space, which is why most accessory dwelling units are built on top of renovated garages, or, in some instances, have replaced garages.

 A proposed amendment to the city’s zoning code will eliminate virtually all zoning-code restrictions on ADUs, allowing accessory dwelling units to be added to non-owner occupied properties and not be limited to properties with one- or two-living units. 

The idea is to expand the accessory dwelling units idea into a world of “tiny homes.”

And by altering the zoning code so builders of the tiny houses that will cover up even more green space in the city do not have to pay fees for sewer access ($2,485) and park dedication ($1,659), the construction of the tiny houses or newly defined accessory dwelling units will be more profitable for the builders and investors who, once again, end up being the primary beneficiaries of the 2040 Plan.

There are more details in the amendment, all of which make it easier and more profitable for developers and investors to buy and tear down single-family homes and replace them with multi-unit rental buildings.

The bottom line is simple: By being able to add one more rental unit to a property with a multi-unit rental building, the income stream from rents increases.

Which means developers and investors will be able to pay more for single-family homes they will tear down, which means more single-family homes will be demolished, which means the hope of owning a single family house in Minneapolis will increasingly be there only there for the very wealthy.

And so, the question is: What does the accessory dwelling units amendment have to do with supporting the Metropolitan Transit bus system?

A lot.

As everyone should know by now, replacing owner occupied single-family homes with rental units replaces city residents who do not normally use city busses with renters who are more likely to do so. 

By making it profitable to tear down even more expensive single-family homes, there will be even more potential bus riders.

An allowing a massive expansion of tiny homes also brings more renters into the city, meaning it also increases the population of likely bus users.

How does a plan that will knowingly lead families who can afford to buy single family homes to leave the city help the city’s economy? It won’t.

How does a plan that increases the city’s population and population density while decreasing its green space reduce the city’s carbon footprint? It won’t.

How will young people who are happy being renters today be able to become homeowners in the future? They won’t, unless they move out of the city.

The sad truth is, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is not a plan for the future. It is a plan to accommodate today’s young singles with little or no regard for their future. And, as should have been expected, the huge building boom for apartments is not lowering rents; it is increasing rents.

Is there an alternative for those who are worried about affordable housing, where affordable housing is defined as renting, not owning?

There is, and it is already in place.

The Southwest Light Rail Transit Line, even though completion is years away, has already led to plans to build large rental complexes, and some condo buildings, within walking distance of the new stations. Will that lower rents inside the City of Minneapolis? Not likely. 

Is it a solution to the affordable housing problem in Minneapolis? It is if city politicians and planners accept the fact that it is impossible to drive down rents by gutting the city without changing the city in ways most will regret and that are irreversible, and, equally important, if they accept the fact that a plan that puts people first will make use of the interaction between the city and its suburbs, which is, at least on paper, the function of the light rail system.

In the end, the accessory dwelling units amendment is one more step down a path that, instead of solving problems, leads Minneapolis away from doing what can be done to make one of the world’s great cities even better.