Let’s not apply a statewide solution to a mostly metro problem

Rare is there a city council meeting that has more than a few attendees; however, one issue brings constituents out like concert goers to see Taylor Swift: zoning and land use issues. These are among the most controversial and personal issues council members encounter as they serve the public. Decisions are made on a micro level down to one property adjoining the very next.  This is done with scalpel precision in each community across the state. Zoning issues impact what are often individuals’ largest investments of their lives as they literally mortgage their future on a new home or business. Decisions on these delicate issues should not be made by legislators in St. Paul, but rather stay with local communities across Minnesota.

A cadre of legislators have advanced legislation (SF3964 or SF3980) that would vastly undermine local decisions and instead provide a statewide solution for what is largely a metro problem. In Greater Minnesota, a lack of development for decades provides more than enough justification to reject these proposals because there is already a vested interest to keep regulations to a bare minimum so as to promote construction. The one-size-fits-all approach being advanced threatens to undermine the very housing gains some of us have seen in rural parts of Minnesota.  

For example, since the 1970s the City of Austin has allowed duplexes in single-family zoning areas (R1). We’ve found the duplexes blend nicely, but having St. Paul dictate that eight-plexes are allowed in R1 zones threatens homebuilders’ confidence to make an investment because they might suddenly have a multifamily unit next door that could significantly impact their property value. Cohesive and thoughtful planning has been the hallmark of communities for time immemorial. This is an obvious unintended consequence that could actually stymie production — the reverse of legislators’ goal.  

Likewise, setting minimum lot sizes and dictating minimum square footage requirements from St. Paul continues the malignment of the good work done by municipalities. Requiring communities to accept a carte blanche tiny home approach forgets the other issues that can result when people have no place for their possessions and start accumulating them in their yard to more significant problems of dealing with infrastructure challenges caused by adding backyard small homes for density. Current water, sewer, electric or other infrastructure realities can’t suddenly accommodate a demand that hasn’t been planned for in the utility design. Determining long-term necessities, which are done in the local planning process, requires staff with intimate knowledge and elected officials at the local level to sort out these complex challenges.

Cities’ positions aren’t the municipal equivalent of Not in My Backyard (NIMBY). Local leaders are best equipped to handle these decisions and promote progress while balancing compromise and accommodating real concerns. We don’t need any of Taylor Swift’s “bad blood” that would come from an encroachment on local control. Instead, we encourage more assistance from the state to help cities accomplish our goal of encouraging more housing construction. Cities need a partnership, not a takeover.  

Craig Clark is the city administrator for Austin.

The post Let’s not apply a statewide solution to a mostly metro problem appeared first on MinnPost.