Democrats sabotage their own housing affordability plans
Washington Examiner
Video Embed
Like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, the Democratic Party periodically stumbles into a correct public policy.
But whenever it does so, the party’s twin obsessions, race and climate change, undo what little good has been done.
DEMOCRAT DEFICITS COULD DOOM ECONOMY
Affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers young couples face when starting a new family. Higher housing costs means fewer marriages, which causes more out-of-wedlock births, weaker communities, more crime, and higher levels of income inequality. Communities everywhere have a vested interest in making sure young people can buy a home, get married, and start a family.
In 2018, Minneapolis passed “Thrive MSP 2040,” a land use policy that abolished single-family zoning, eliminated parking minimums, allowed three-unit triplexes to be built almost anywhere, and made it easier to build large apartment buildings along select transit corridors. The goal was to decrease the regulatory cost of new home construction, thus leading to more supply, which would then decrease costs for everyone.
And it worked!
Home construction boomed. Minneapolis quickly became the leading Midwestern city in per capita new housing construction, led mostly by the three-unit triplexes that were illegal under the old regulatory regime. Citywide rents declined in nominal terms, and this year Minneapolis had inflation below most other cities because of lower housing costs.
But then the lawsuits started. In 2019 both Smart Growth Minneapolis and Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds claimed the city had violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. This is Minnesota’s version of the federal government’s National Environmental Policy Act, which also empowers aggrieved parties to stop new infrastructure in court if the government fails to jump through various environmental planning hoops.
Just as NEPA has been used to stop hundreds of infrastructure projects nationwide that would have made the lives of millions of people better, a Minnesota state court found that the environmental goals of MERA outweighed all other benefits from new home construction.
“Plaintiffs have outlined numerous environmental impairments that are likely to result by virtue of the full implementation of the 2040 Plan,” the judge wrote. “The court finds that such damage to the environment would be an irreparable harm to the environment, the protection of which is viewed by this state as being of paramount concern.”
When MERA was written in 1971, Minnesotan legislators probably didn’t consider it to be a piece of civil rights legislation, but the ease with which anyone can sue using the law has opened the door for social justice warriors to stop infrastructure projects they claim are racist.
“Residents of color already face significant barriers to home ownership, which would have been exacerbated under the plan as a result of reduced access to and availability of single family properties,” activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, said after the judge’s order was made public. “The city now has an opportunity to create a more inclusive plan that factors in the unique needs of communities of color and environmental impacts to Minneapolis residents.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
That new “inclusive” plan will include more building restrictions and a lengthy permitting process that will drive up housing costs.
So it is one step forward, then one step back for young Minnesotans who want to buy their first home. Maybe they should consider moving to a red state such as Texas where it has always been a lot easier to build new homes.