A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and advocates are entering the third year of a legislative campaign to slash local red tape and open up new areas for development in the hopes of increasing the supply of new homes and apartments — and thus making them more affordable.

And — like last year — the bill authors are optimistic the bipartisan, low-to-no-cost legislation can pass the closely divided Legislature. 

In 2024 and 2025, the optimism of the unlikely “Yes to Homes” coalition — Republican and Democratic housing committee leaders, labor unions, housing developers and religious groups — slammed into a wall of opposition from city government leaders with clout at the Legislature, who view the effort as an attempt to wrest local decision-making from cities. The bills have never reached the floor of the House or the Senate; in 2024, when Democrats alone controlled both chambers, the late House Speaker Melissa Hortman said the ideas required more study.

This year, however, the largest lobbying organization for Minnesota cities has shifted its approach. While the League of Minnesota Cities still opposes the bill, it will refrain from whipping votes against it, said Daniel Lightfoot, a League lobbyist.

“We believe the bill has come a long way with our involvement, and have sort of changed our advocacy posture because of that, as a result of those good faith efforts,” Lightfoot said. 

That change in approach — while not a change in position — from the League of Minnesota Cities is one reason advocates believe this is the year. 

For real this time.

“I think there probably is some recognition — like, we can either do this together, or at some point the Legislature is going to do this on its own,” said Rep. Michael Howard, DFL-Richfield, a co-chair of the House housing committee. “The collaborative path, I think, is the best path for everybody.”

A tipping point in negotiations

Last year’s set of bills died unceremoniously in an afternoon Senate hearing in early May, where tensions between city government officials and lawmakers were on full display. 

Sen. Lindsey Port, DFL-Burnsville, brought forward an amendment containing scraps of what had been a sweeping package that would have remade zoning laws statewide.

City government leaders and their lobbyists, who viewed even the watered-down version as an attempt by the state to supersede the authority of local governments, spoke forcefully in opposition.

“If we focus just on who has the power, rather than how to work together to find solutions, we’ll never address the issue, and Minnesotans will continue to suffer as a result,” a frustrated Port said in the hearing. 

In the end, four Democrats and two Republicans voted down the amendment, effectively killing it for the year. 

“The tensions that were present in that hearing between members and city groups and city officials I think left a bad taste in the mouth of everybody,” Howard said. 

Many people involved in the negotiations marked that moment as a tipping point. Lightfoot shortly afterwards brought lawmakers an olive branch — a reworked draft of the bill that would be much friendlier to cities.

“While that compromise wasn’t accepted by legislators, it sort of became the starting point to continue those conversations,” Lightfoot said.

Housing leaders met dozens of times with Lightfoot, advocates and city leaders after the legislative session, reworking the language and passing ideas back and forth. The result is a bill that is narrower in scope than previous versions, but that advocates believe can get enough cities and lawmakers on board to pass.

Compromise language

This year’s bill (HF3895/SF4123) backs off some of the broad policy changes contained in previous versions. Last year, advocates wanted to require cities to allow multifamily housing development in all commercial zones, like shopping centers, which city leaders opposed for fear it would overwhelm water and sewer infrastructure. 

The 2026 bill instead requires cities to choose one-third of their commercial land to open up for multifamily development, and stipulates that additional housing cannot be forced in areas where the infrastructure wouldn’t support it. 

Advocates and housing committee leaders made related compromises in other sections of the bill, similarly requiring that one-third of residential land — rather than all of it — be upzoned to allow up to four units of housing per lot. 

The bill creates a menu of policy options for cities to choose from that would further boost housing density and supply, like eliminating minimum parking requirements; permitting affordable, workforce and senior housing developments to be larger than generally allowed; subsidizing city fees for homes valued at less than $500,000; or allowing even more multifamily construction in commercial and residential areas. 

Larger cities must adopt more of those policies than smaller cities, and can count the policies they have already adopted.

Other areas of the bill do apply across-the-board — like allowing accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, on every residential lot in the state. ADUs are secondary living spaces on a lot, often called a mother-in-law suite, carriage house or backyard cottage. 

Developers say cities’ rules for multifamily developments are opaque, and builders are often shuttled into extensive, expensive negotiations with city planning departments and elected officials over the specifications of a given project. The bill aims to save developers — and ultimately renters and buyers — money by requiring cities to create an administrative review process for multifamily and mixed-use development, helping developers bypass elected boards and councils. 

“Getting the administrative approvals is one of the key areas that I think will make a huge difference in time and money to get housing done,” said Anne Mavity, executive director of Minnesota Housing Partnership, part of the “Yes to Homes” coalition.

The bill would also bar cities from requiring certain finishes, garage sizes, decks, shutters or other aesthetic features in new buildings with fewer than four housing units. 

The long path ahead 

While the League of Minnesota Cities has adopted a quieter opposition strategy, other local government leaders and lobbyists are not backing down. 

Bradley Peterson, a lobbyist who represents the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, said the bill has options for cities, but still places a host of new requirements on local governments. 

“We also are fairly skeptical that these types of changes are really going to result in the type of increase in housing that the authors and advocates hope for,” Peterson said. 

Outside of the metro, factors aside from zoning rules — a shortage of developers and workers, high material costs worsened by tariffs, labor costs and a lack of infrastructure — are bigger factors when it comes to high housing prices, Peterson said. 

Complicating matters: Mayors and city council members are intertwined in the same local political scene as their state senators and representatives, giving them sway among state lawmakers who often view local elected officials as potential opponents.

In the metro suburbs, mayors and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are some of the strongest opponents to the land use changes. (Suburbs have historically used land use and zoning rules to shut out apartments and starter homes, and by proxy, low-income families who are more likely to be Black or Latino.) 

The bill’s authors know there is still work to do — tweaks to the bill language, meetings with reticent colleagues, communications to city governments — to get the legislation across the finish line. 

And, Gov. Tim Walz, who apparently joined the YIMBY movement during his brief stint as a vice presidential candidate, has said he will sign a zoning reform bill if it passes the Legislature.

For Rep. Spencer Igo, R-Wabana Township, the 29-year-old co-chair of the housing committee, this effort  addresses an issue he hears about constantly from neighbors in his Iron Range district. 

“It’s the random phone call or text message, or a Facebook message from someone I haven’t talked to in years, saying, ‘What are you doing at the Capitol so I can find a home for me and my fiancé?’” Igo said. 

“If we want to make sure that the next generation has opportunity, we’ve got to clear some of this red tape and mandates so that the homes that they want and can afford become available in Minnesota.”

About the author

Madison McVan is a reporter covering the impact of the Trump administration on Minnesotans, including issues like immigration, agriculture, Medicaid, food, housing and other safety net cuts. She’s also covering the 2026 Minnesota U.S. Senate race.