House housing budget includes incentives for zoning reforms
The Minnesota Capitol. Photo by Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer.
A budget bill passed by the state House housing committee Wednesday would prioritize funding for communities whose rules allow for multifamily housing construction, and don't require certain size, parking or aesthetic requirements for new developments.
The bill (HF2445, as amended) instructs the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to 'prioritize applications for projects located in jurisdictions that have policies conducive to developing residential properties' in its competitive grant and loan programs.
The agency would prioritize cities and counties that:
Allow multifamily housing in at least 75% of the area zoned for commercial use.
Allow duplexes, townhomes or detached apartments in at least 75% of the area zoned for single-family housing, and allowing developers to get permits for those buildings using the same process and standards as single-family homes.
Do not require more than one parking stall per unit of housing.
Do not require lots to be bigger than one-eighth of an acre.
Do not require certain aesthetics, materials or garage sizes.
'This is providing a carrot — not a mandate, but a carrot — to cities to update their own policies in a way that will make it easier to build more homes,' said Rep. Michael Howard, DFL-Richfield, who is co-chair of the House Housing Finance and Policy Committee.
The policies prioritized in the budget bill are similar to those backed by housing leaders in both parties, plus religious groups, labor unions and housing developers. Those policy bills passed in both housing committees, but have not yet received hearings in the state and local government committees, where similar legislation died last year after intense opposition from city leaders.
Big-picture budget negotiations between the DFL-led Senate and tied House are still ongoing, but both chambers indicated they would like to give the state housing agency a small funding boost, while looking for large cuts elsewhere.
The budget bill passed by the housing committee would allocate:
$500,000 in one-time funding for a statewide hotline to educate and advise renters.
$150,000 to establish a new task force on accessible housing.
$20 million in one-time funding — more than double the funding in the current budget — for grants to greater Minnesota cities for the cost of extending sewer, water, streets and other infrastructure.
A $30 million one-time boost for the Family Homeless Prevention and Assistance Program, in addition to the program's $10.7 million in ongoing funding.
Ongoing funding for existing programs that finance the development of workforce housing, affordable rental housing, manufactured home infrastructure and housing rehabilitation; and programs that provide rental assistance, homeowner education and support to homebuyers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Body of Thai hostage recovered from Gaza, Israel says
Israel has retrieved the body of a Thai national taken hostage during the Hamas-led attack in October 2023, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz says. He said the body of Nattapong Pinta was retrieved during a special operation in the Rafah area of southern Gaza on Friday. The 35-year-old was working as an agricultural labourer in southern Israel when he was kidnapped. Mr Nattapong is likely to have been killed during his first months of captivity, an Israeli military official said. Before the operation, it was not known whether he was dead or alive. It comes after the Israeli army recovered the bodies of two Israeli Americans in Gaza earlier this week. Mr Nattapong was the married father of a young son, the military official said. He had been working at Kibbutz Nir Oz to support his family in Thailand when he was captured by a militant group called the Mujahideen Brigades. The Israel Defense Forces said in a statement that the mission to recover his body was launched following information from the interrogation of a "captured terrorist". After reports of his recovery on Saturday, the BBC tried to reach out to Mr Nattapong's wife. She did not answer the call but texted back with a picture of her son crying. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum campaign group said the recovery comes after "20 terrible and agonising months of devastating uncertainty". The group urged the Israeli government to reach an agreement with Hamas to free the remaining captives. Mr Nattapong is believed to be the last remaining Thai national abducted during the 7 October 2023 attack. Five Thai hostages were released during a ceasefire earlier this year - all of them alive. The Israeli army retrieved the bodies of an elderly couple, Judy and Gadi Haggai, in the Gazan city of Khan Younis on Thursday. The couple were killed at the same kibbutz and their bodies were also held by the Mujahideen Brigades, according to the IDF. Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led cross-border attack almost 20 months ago, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage. Some 54 of those captured during the attack remain in captivity, including 31 the Israeli military says are dead. At least 54,677 people have been killed in Gaza during the war, according to the territory's health ministry. Additional reporting by Thanyarat Doksone Israeli military recovers two hostages' bodies in southern Gaza The Thais caught up in the Israel-Gaza war
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
