| These were passed by the Minneapolis City Council back in December 2018 as part of its lengthy Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan, which had the express purpose of boosting housing supply in order to bring housing prices down.
That potential for additional housing construction was a bug, not a feature, for a number of the city’s environmentalist organizations. Shortly before the approval of the Minneapolis 2040 plan, they sued the city on the grounds it had failed to study the environmental impacts of more people and more homes as required by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Plaintiffs include Smart Growth Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds.
That case has been winding through the courts ever since. Klein had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs back in June 2022, rejecting an argument from the city that comprehensive plan updates like Minneapolis 2040 were exempt from state environmental review requirements.
The city was allowed to keep approving projects under the more permissive Minneapolis 2040 rules while it appealed that decision. In December 2022, a state appeals court also agreed with plaintiffs that Minneapolis’ zoning changes triggered MEPA.
They sent the case back to Klein to decide whether a freeze on implementing the plan’s housing changes was necessary. His Tuesday decision approved that freeze.
While the lawsuit has been ongoing, Minneapolis has seen a small boom in new home construction. Developers have taken advantage of the new, more liberal zoning rules to build newly legal apartment buildings with less parking than was previously required. (The city’s legalization of triplexes and duplexes has had a more modest impact.)
Bloomberg reported recently that the city has managed to tame rising housing costs, while rents and home prices continue to rise in neighboring St. Paul and other cities across the Midwest.
Klein’s Tuesday decision notes that “that since the Minneapolis 2040 Plan took effect on January 1, 2020, there has been a significant increase in total approved building height, linear feet, gross area footprint, and impermeable surface coverage.”
But the success of the plan at increasing housing production and density is also its legal undoing. All this new floor space is likely to increase traffic (including pedestrian traffic), decrease air quality, increase light and glare from buildings, and increase shadows from new buildings.
Those are all environmental impacts that need to be studied under MEPA, reasoned Klein. Until that’s done, new home construction under the Minneapolis 2040 rules must now stop.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported in May that the city had preemptively started work on an environmental review of its comprehensive plan while the lawsuit was still pending.
“We think the Court’s ruling is wrong and we will be appealing,” said the Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office in a statement to Reason.
Klein’s ruling, while quite plausibly right on the merits of MEPA’s requirements, is certainly a setback for Minneapolis landowners who now have fewer options for developing their properties. It could at least be a productive teaching moment.
Minneapolis’s 2040 plan legalized more housing production on paper, which then led to more homes in fact, and lower housing costs as a result. That’s a vindication of the general YIMBY mantra that housing affordability comes through increased housing supply.
If the Minneapolis 2040 plan’s reversal sees home construction fall and prices rise, that’ll just be more proof of concept of that narrative. |