ST. PAUL — A bipartisan group of Minnesota lawmakers working on housing reform remains motivated and hopeful despite hitting another roadblock this session.

One of the major bills in the overall housing reform effort, the “Starter Home Act,” stalled in committee on March 23, just before a key March 27 deadline that says committees must advance bills in their house of origin. The bill,

HF3895/SF4123

, hits on several reforms, including limiting the zoning authority of local governments, incentivizing more multifamily housing, and streamlining administrative reviews.

Although the bill didn’t meet that deadline, there is a chance a version or pieces of the bill will show up later in the session. Last session, smaller pieces of the housing reform, such as limiting aesthetic mandates, traveled solo and further than the bigger zoning reform bills.

Proponents of the reforms, including authors of the Starter Home Act in the Senate and House Rep. Spencer Igo, R-Wabana Township, and Sen. Jordan Rasmusson, R-Fergus Falls, remained hopeful that something could be done this session.

“I am still highly confident,” Igo said in an interview Wednesday, April 1. “Anything worth doing is never easy, and change is really hard, but the fact that we all know … whether you support land use and zoning reform or you’re against it … everything we’ve done in Minnesota in the past 10, 15 years hasn’t moved the needle yet, and it’s on us as legislators and as a state to start making changes that could make a difference, because we can’t afford to wait any longer.”

Rasmusson said that regardless of outcomes this session, “this issue isn’t going away.”

“A lot of Minnesotans, especially younger Minnesotans, are concerned about their ability to afford a home, and that’s why we’re working to make starter homes legal again here in Minnesota by reducing government overreach that’s preventing these types of homes from being built,” he said.

It’s the

third push at the Legislature

for the housing reform; its first official appearance was at the end of the 2024 session. Igo said there have been roughly 30 different versions of the bill as a result of weekly meetings with stakeholders and opponents.

Daniel Lightfoot, senior intergovernmental relations representative at League of Minnesota Cities, said that while cities are always opposed to local preemption, the League of Minnesota Cities has taken a more neutral stance this session as a result of some changes made in the interim to accommodate flexibility for cities.

“Previous iterations of this bill were much more sweeping, and they applied statewide, forced density everywhere, without accounting for infrastructure and things like that, and because cities stayed engaged, the current bill certainly is more targeted … and ultimately, better reflects how cities actually operate,” he said.

One of those changes is a “menu-based option,” Igo said, where, based on population, cities can pick changes that work for them to meet the new land use and zoning requirements.

The Starter Home Act is a policy bill, meaning it comes without state funding — the Legislature also isn’t in a budget-building session — but cities note that the reforms could cost them instead.

Igo said it’s “probably true” that the reforms could cost cities, but pointed to potential long-term returns, such as community growth or a larger tax base, should affordable housing become available.

“I think it’s really easy to look short-sighted and freak out about why that would hurt in the early phases, but think about what’s going to happen in the long run,” he said.

Lightfoot argues that it remains to be seen whether these reforms would actually result in more affordable housing. During the hearing on March 23, Rep. Patty Acomb, DFL-Minnetonka, said she’s concerned the Starter Home Act would not address affordable housing, but only housing supply.

“There is nothing in here that is going to ensure affordable units are built,” she said. “I encourage that we allow our communities who have elected officials who represent and are accountable to our constituents be allowed to continue to do the good work cities are doing.”

Opponents have also argued that the bill is another overreach on local government. But lawmakers in support are pushing back on that. Rasmusson said there are several occasions where it might be better for the state to step in, and pointed to how local units of government used to have their own building codes before the state stepped in.

“It created a lot of confusion for builders and for the marketplace. We don’t allow local units of government to have their own gun laws, right? They’re preempted on that,” he said.

Rep. Nathan Coulter, DFL-Bloomington, said during the March 23 hearing for the bill that “government overreach is very much a thing on the local level.”

“It is absolutely possible for local governments to overreach, and I have seen it happen time and time again,” he said. “And the result is, when it comes to housing, that not only are we punishing the communities that want to do the right thing, but we are punishing the people.”