One argument from anti-Minneapolis 2040 Plan that I find strange is the argument that multi-family housing doesn’t improve affordability.
As I see it, the choice we’re facing in neighborhoods where single-family home prices have appreciated significantly is a choice between watching smaller homes and homes in disrepair be torn down and replaced with large single-family homes or similarly sized multi-family properties. The affordability difference between those choices is the cost to live in a unit of a duplex, triplex, or fourplex, vs a 2000+ square foot single-family home.
If affordability was truly a concern for the anti-Minneapolis 2040 plan, there are other things they could do to help keep our existing housing stock somewhat affordable. Here’s a quick list:
1. Ban additions.
2. Ban adding new bathrooms.
3. Ban converting from 1-car to 2-car garages.
4. Ban new appliances.
5. Ban solar panels.
6. Ban upgrading landscaping.
7. Ban adding anything stainless steel.
8. Ban adding anything granite.
9. Ban adding decks.
10. Ban adding patios.
11. Ban adding planter boxes.
12. Ban converting large bedrooms to two bedrooms.
13. Ban finishing basements.
14. Ban finishing attics.
15. Ban upgrading old windows.
16. Ban upgrading leaky toilets.
17. Ban upgrading leaky doors.
18. Ban upgrading old garage doors.
19. Ban upgrading old siding.
20. Ban new kitchen cabinets.
This list probably seems pretty ridiculous. Who would oppose changes like that? The point is that single-family homeowners who’re opposed to the Minneapolis 2040 Plan have no problem with people maintaining and upgrading their homes in ways that will increase their home’s value and decrease the home’s affordability.
However, if a property owner increases their property’s value by converting or rebuilding it to accommodate more than one household (another way to increase a property’s value within the same square feet), there is a risk that their entire neighborhood may collapse into the nearest lake or river.