More Smart Land Use Reform in Saint Paul

In the last couple months, planning staff at St. Paul have continued to advance smart and effective reforms to our city’s planning and land use system. Their most recent push, which is slated to be discussed by the City Council this month, will remove an undemocratic and ineffective barrier to small-scale development.

City staff wrote an impressively thorough study on the topic, complete with a snippy title: “Zoning Study of Consent Petition Requirements for Certain Zoning Applications.” Essentially, certain types of developments require the applicant to attain signatures in support of the project from at least two-thirds of property owners within 100 feet of the property. City staff is proposing eliminating this petition requirement for nonconforming use permits — when proposed buildings don’t fit within the land’s existing zoning code — and conditional use permits — in this case, for “carriage house dwelling and reuse of large structures.”

Here’s how the petition requirement works: when developers want to build things that don’t fit the land use regulations of their plot, they need the St. Paul Planning Commission to approve their development. For certain types of developments, such as those described in the paragraph above, that developer must get signatures on a petition from nearby landowners. For example, a developer that wanted to build a duplex in a single-family neighborhood would need to get more than two thirds of the landowners within 150 feet of her unit — homeowners, landlords, condominium owners, business owners — to sign her petition agreeing to the development before she could even take the next step of going to the planning committee.

As the city’s study helps demonstrate, the policy is deeply flawed. Eliminating it would clear another barrier from our clogged planning pipeline.

The property is effectively a neighbor’s right to veto these specific types of development. However, this right to veto is kept out of the hands of renters. I’d guess this comes from the all-too-commonplace sentiment that property owners have a larger stake in their neighborhoods than renters. Already, this is a strong reason to amend the requirement.

But even if the policy didn’t have the anti-renter exclusion, it’s a deeply inequitable policy. As I’ve written about before, housing development suffers from a dynamic in which concentrated groups (e.g. nearby homeowners) that are more heavily impacted by a development will push hard to block development, preventing new housing’s widespread benefits from coming into existence. This policy cranks that dynamic to its most extreme — a group that consists only of property owners within 150 feet can block certain developments before they ever get seen by district councils, news media, or members of the city council. From the city’s report: petition requirements “give disproportionate power to a limited number of property owners who are not elected.”

So, the policy is inequitable in how it privileges a small group of homeowners. It’s inefficient in that people living within 150 feet of a development can’t properly weigh a project’s costs and benefits. It’s undemocratic in that these homeowners have no accountability to the perspectives of other people who might benefit from these developments. 

A couple of particularly striking examples from the study highlight the flaws of the petition requirement. 

In one instance, an immigrant was trying to open a corner grocery store, a use that required a petition. Across the street, there was another small grocery store, and the incumbent store owner refused to sign the petition because it would be competition to their business. The would-be grocer did not get enough signatures and was unable to bring their proposal to the planning commission. As a result of this petition requirement, an immigrant was denied a business opportunity and a neighborhood was denied a grocery store.

In another one, a Black immigrant purchased an old triplex in a neighborhood that was later zoned for single-family. The triplex had been condemned, and in the process lost its inherited status as within the zoning code — if the owner wanted to fix up the property, they would need a conditional use permit to build a duplex or triplex again. 

Over at least three years, they made attempts to gather the required signatures from neighbors. The owner testified as such: “I was treated badly by several of these residents, and I am fearful to approach the others for my safety.” Furthermore, the owner believed that this opposition was race-based, as both the owner and their tenants were Black. The owner was never able to get enough signatures to make the property back into a duplex or triplex.

In both instances, the petition requirement proved inequitable, inefficient, and undemocratic.

The petition requirement has actually been waived since a temporary executive order was passed in March 2020, providing a useful case study of a world with less development petitions. Since then, a host of beneficial uses have been approved: duplexes, a theater teaching studio, an expanded restaurant dining room. 

It’s also useful to note what didn’t happen when this requirement was waived. We didn’t see a sudden wave of people abusing the waiver to destroy neighborhoods with their new developments. Developers still have to come to the planning commission for final approval of their nonconforming use, meaning that there are still guardrails against bad developments. There’s just no right to veto for an extremely concentrated group of people.

It’s a small change — with this quantity of duplexes and business expansions, we’re not talking about reshaping the housing market or the small business landscape — but it’s a good change that clearly benefits people. Given the existing housing shortages in St. Paul and other cities, we should be racing to grab these types of low-hanging fruits in the planning process.

The study has now progressed through the bureaucratic-political process — presentations to district councils, a planning commission meeting — and the City Council is going to hold a public hearing on the issue on July 27. It’s time now to continue our momentum and keep making positive changes for the city. People should be sending letters to their city council members to get this change made.

We should also commend the planners that made this change possible. Planner Katy Dadlez has led this project, and it’s important to recognize the value of the work that planners like Dadlez have been doing. In the past two years, St. Paul planning staff have moved the city forward on eliminating parking requirements, Summit Avenue redesign, and zoning for more city-wide, small-scale density. They’ve coolly taken vitriol from public commentators, produced excellent research, and often been strong voices for improvements in our city.

We can keep on supporting their work across St. Paul’s system of governance. Show up to public meetings, write letters to the planning commission and your district council. Then you can get your friends to do the same. Supporting these technical planning reforms is an essential piece of achieving housing abundance in our cities.

Photo at top courtesy of Zillow

About Zak Yudhishthu

Zak is a student at Macalester College studying economics and music. He's interested in all kinds of urban politics and policy, and is the student representative for the Macalester-Groveland Neighborhood Council.

4 thoughts on “More Smart Land Use Reform in Saint Paul

  1. Stephen Ellsworth

    The immediate neighbors should be notified that the proposed change is before the planning commision so they can express their support or opposition, but without veto power. Otherwise the commission may not have all the relevant information.

  2. Pablo Luis Gonzales

    The opinion above expresses a distorted idea of democracy.

    And it’s simplest, democracy is “government by the people.” You seem to be championing all decisions being made by planning commissioners (small group of appointed —not elected —officials) and city staff.

    The last paragraph is especially revealing —what you call “public vitriol” I would call public speech of disagreement. It would seem it’s “vitriolic” if the free speech by St Paul residents if you disagree…?

    I don’t disagree with getting rid of the consent petition for carriage houses, as the whole section on carriage house is predates Zoning code rules for ADUs, which do not require a consent petition.

    Your critique of leaving out renters is an interesting discussion, one that warrants nuance. In theory, the property owner should represent the interests of the residents, and when they’re not, it’s probably more likely that a property owner will support a development the tenants oppose, who fear displacement. It has an advent advantage however, of decreasing the bureaucratic burden. I think that is it’s original purpose: to simplify the process. Example: getting signatures from dozens or hundreds of people in a single building, which will likely have a secure door, would be a steep hurdle. in fact, this has been a complaint cited by petitioners when it comes to condominiums as well. (Allowing the homeowner association board to sign on behalf of all the owners would make these more parallel.)

    Eliminating all consent petitions is actually a huge disservice to “little d” democracy and will serve to place more power in the hands of large developers, despite the two hand-picked examples you’ve found. Other than the carriage house petition requirement, which should be eliminated, consent petitions are required only when upzoning from residential to commercial (or industrial) land uses.

    Invite you to evaluate long and hard your rhetoric, and when you think Saint Paulites should be able to have a voice and when you think they don’t. If you only think people who agree with you should have a voice, that’s an invitation to tyranny.

    1. Zak Yudhishthu Moderator   Post author

      Hello Pablo, thanks for the comment.

      You’ve made a few points, so I’ll address them individually. You write that “It would seem it’s ‘vitriolic’ if the free speech by St Paul residents if you disagree…” Well, I actually mean something much simpler — I think that some of the people who have showed up to public meetings have been mean-spirited and said truly unkind things to public employees. Of course, I have no problem with people voicing their opinion in public forums; I do that all the time alongside others who disagree with me. I’m just talking about the the meanness that I’ve seen come from my fellow citizens.

      You also mention that other than the carriage house petition requirement, “consent petitions are required only when upzoning from residential to commercial (or industrial) land uses,” and express concern about eliminating all consent petitions. My read of the city’s study is that this is not what’s happening. Specifically, what’s happening is that St. Paul has a specific and strict subset of consent petitions required for various kinds of nonconforming uses, which includes duplexes in single-family areas (not just residential -> commercial or residential -> industrial). The petition requirement for residential to commercial/industrial uses is a state-wide law, and as far as I can tell, no one is interested in removing that — just the more specific set of problematic St. Paul policies.

      Lastly, there’s the bigger point you make about democracy. This is probably the most contentious and complex piece of the policy change (lest we navel-gaze too much, let’s remind ourselves that this is a minuscule change that will probably increase the amount of developments in St. Paul by less than 20 per year). You are right that total decision-making power from appointed planning commissioners and bureaucrats has drawbacks. They are not democratically accountable and also not imperfect; they can make mistakes.

      But still, I don’t find your critique that this change is undemocratic to be fair. First of all: a thousand times over, I do not “only think people who agree with [me] should have a voice.” This policy STILL gives people a voice. People can write to/testify at the Planning Commission, and I promise that can affect their decisions. And, like I said in the article, the very concentrated veto power is undemocratic in other ways. In particular, the veto power of the consent petition allows a few landowners to block a potential development before tons of other potential beneficiaries would ever have a chance to provide input. That’s undemocratic!! I didn’t just make up this thought, real political scholars have voiced the same thing (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420980600897826 https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001/acprof-9780198297550-chapter-7).

      So yes, bureaucrats having a larger relative say in planning isn’t perfect. But it’s much better than this existing consent petition process, and it’s untrue to say that this change would weaken small “d” democracy.

  3. Pablo Luis Gonzales

    Thanks for your reply, as well. I’m glad to hear that you want all voices to be heard. Maybe where we depart is on “tone policing.” I don’t expect regular citizens to conform to professional standards of decorum. To general civility for sure, but that doesn’t mean that people have to disguise their emotions. They just need to use polite words.

    I am still not in agreement that removing the consent petition requirement for non-confirming uses is a good idea.

    I’m really not convinced that the PC is representative of the broader population, and I’ve heard some rather alarming sentiments at some of those meetings.

    You also refer to the petition as “veto power”— “In particular, the veto power of the consent petition allows a few landowners to block a potential development before tons of other potential beneficiaries would ever have a chance to provide input.” This is a bit exaggerated. The consent petition is to make sure that voices of those everyday people* who will be directly experience the negatives from the land use that is NOT ALLOWED by zoning are given precedence. That seems good policy.

    I say “everyday people” instead of landowners, because we’re talking about residential neighborhoods. So these are residents, in the homes where they live.

    I do agree that it’s not going to have a huge upswell in development. My concern is that it is part of a larger shift toward eroding civic participation.

    Examples: city council change the public hearing process in ways that make it harder for regular citizens to engage. The hearing time was switched from 5:30 to 3:30. It was reliably on other third Wednesday each month (predictability is helpful), now it rotates so it’s really hard to know when the public hearing on one particular item will be. This was done to speed up the process, which is an advantage for applicants, but it disservice to citizen participation. And contentious issues, people are limited to short testimony and in recent hearings have not been allowed to cede time, in order to allow a group to make a longer more coherent case for their position. For small “d” democracy, we should make it easier for the “everyday people” citizens to participate.

    So, in short, my concerns are deeper then this relatively small change. Thanks for reading.

Comments are closed.