City Council Housing Questionnaire
I am not a candidate for Minneapolis City Council.
They partnered with three other organizations, Inquilinxs Unidxs por Justicia (IX), Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), and Wedge LIVE! and created a powerful questionnaire that asks about tenant rights, zoning policy, and equity, to better understand where each candidate stands on issues that are important to us all.
While I am not a candidate, I do want to engage in the exercise to share where I stand on the seven questions. This exercise will help me — and maybe you — choose who to vote for in your local City Council contest. This is not an endorsement of any candidate.
Your Vision: Given our history of redlining, exclusionary zoning, freeways, slum clearance, and urban renewal, what is your vision for an equitable and restorative way of building a better Minneapolis for all?
My vision for Minneapolis includes sewing up the wounds cut into our communities by urban highways, so-called “urban renewal”, and segregated housing policies. At the same time, there is a desperate need for new-build, safe, affordable, and climate-friendly housing and other development that provides a better standard of living and is climate-resilient. As I write this on Tuesday, August 22, 2023, we are forecast in Minneapolis to have a heat index of 115ºF today, breaking records this week. And intersectional with housing and development policy is transportation policy and the policy choices we make that are moral choices about who we prioritize. I support having complete neighborhoods with many grocery options, pharmacy, restaurants, entertainment, and more. The more commercial options we have in our neighborhoods, the less often we need to drive or take longer trips with transit. This intersectional, comprehensive policy action approach is at the core of how I lead.
Encampments: Encampments of unhoused people have become common on public land in Minneapolis in recent years. Will you oppose clearing of encampments? (What will you do (if anything) to protect the people who see encampments as their best housing option, to connect them to a safe and stable permanent home?)
I oppose clearing encampments and continuing cycles of evictions that do not house anybody or treat underlying causes like mental illness and addiction. Encampments are not a desired or ideal solution. They are the housing of last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. We need to center the humanity of Minneapolis residents who are homeless and need safe, dignified, often secular housing. I am a strong advocate for a Housing First policy approach. I support the work of Hennepin County to leverage every public resource available from state to federal funding to house as many people as possible with supportive services on-site. I myself am a graduate of transitional housing, where I lived for three months in a Intensive Residential Treatment home for people transitioning out of the hospital for mental illness. I know in my case, it helped me get back on my feet after a rough time, and I have been living on my own for eight years now.
Commercial Uses: Currently, 89% of all parcels (58% by area) in the city do not allow commercial uses on them due to our zoning code. Historically, cities did not segregate commercial land-use from residential land-use so heavily. One way to create complete, walkable neighborhoods is to legalize local commercial uses within our neighborhoods. Would you support allowing low-impact small businesses (coffee shop, restaurant, corner store, yarn store) throughout more of our city?
Part of creating a complete neighborhood with more uses in more spaces is allowing low-impact commercial development in more areas of our city. My ideal policy solution would be to allow all commercial, non-industrial uses in all residential neighborhoods, and then regulate higher-impact commercial uses like a corner bar through our existing (and then updated) regulatory services licensing framework. If a small business plays by the rules and is a good neighbor, they should be able to expand locations to other neighborhoods and create more complete and sidewalk-scale neighborhoods.
Transit-Oriented Development: Across the country, we are seeing more progressive zoning code reform as metropolitan areas seek to accommodate their growing populations in the urban core rather than the sprawling suburbs. One such policy exists in Washington (state), which recently legalized six-plexes near major transit stops (within a half-mile). Do you support increasing the allowed density near (i.e. 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile radius) major transit (LRT, BRT, and aBRT) stops in Minneapolis?
I disagree with the false premise that density should only happen along transit corridors. The false premise sounds like a dog whistle that transit-dependent residents should be all stacked up near transit and not in tree-lined, more secluded, single-family neighborhoods. My ideal policy solution is to legalize higher density all across Minneapolis, especially larger multi-family communities that are the majority of new homes built in our city. I don’t see any evidence that developments with two to ten units are ever going to be economically viable to provide the kind of housing supply we need. That being said, I am always a pragmatist and I will support a good policy if it can get the votes instead of tying myself to the mast of a sinking less-popular policy.
Rent Stabilization: On June 28, 2023, the Minneapolis City Council voted 5-4 (1 abstaining, 3 absent) to block a rent stabilization policy from continuing to committee for further discussion, making it unlikely that residents will see any form of rent stabilization on the ballot in 2023. Do you support a rent stabilization policy?
I support a rent stabilization policy that is designed to prevent price-gouging that is beyond the market and often used to displace tenets at the whim of a landlord. My ideal policy would be rent increases capped at Minneapolis-area Consumer Price Index inflation plus a buffer of 5-10%. If a landlord makes an improvement on the property of more than 10% of the assessed property value, then they would have a one-year window to reset at a new rent floor. I will not support the Framework 5 rent control policy that doesn’t incorporate inflation or improvements to properties, thereby reducing the incentive to build new apartments and also reducing the incentive to improve properties.
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase: On February 15th, 2022, the BIHZ committee directed staff to draft a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) policy. These policies gives renters the opportunity to buy their building if the building owner decides to sell, requiring that renters of a building have the ‘first right of refusal’ on the building they live in. Do you support a TOPA policy in Minneapolis?
I support Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA). I don’t think it is a strong policy solution because the very people who can least afford displacement are also the people who can least afford to buy their apartment building. This is why I am a strong supporter of a public housing levy and dedicated funding in the City’s budget for expansion of the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority’s portfolio and upkeep and maintenance on existing properties.
Affordable Housing Funding: It is estimated that, of the 80,000+ renter households in Minneapolis, more than 45% are housing cost-burdened or paying more than 30% of their income towards their housing. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) is a critical program that helps finance the production, preservation, and stabilization of deeply affordable rental housing in Minneapolis. Do you support increasing the funding for this program?
I do support the work of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). But subsidies are not a complete solution when zoning prevents market-rate housing from being built in the first place. I am a strong advocate for building on the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan and expanding housing options across our city. When the cost of new-build housing is reduced by opening up new options, then the dollars of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund can be more targeted at helping the residents in most need and do more good.