Minneapolis 2040 plan can once again go forward, appeals court rules
Construction workers build a residential high rise. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.
The city of Minneapolis can once again proceed with its 2040 housing plan after the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed an injunction against the plan issued last year by a lower court.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court erred in granting the injunction and abused its discretion by imposing unnecessary hardship on the city.
It’s the latest twist in a legal saga that’s been ongoing since 2018, when the city first adopted its plan, which sought to increase density in some neighborhoods and make it easier to build, addressing an emerging housing shortage. The judicial decision comes as lawmakers in the state House and Senate are considering legislation to end the wrangling altogether.
Under state law, cities are required to update comprehensive plans for development every 10 years. Minneapolis’ 2040 plan included a provision effectively ending single-family zoning in the city, a move cheered by affordable housing advocates, as well as some environmentalists seeking to increase urban density and reduce carbon-intensive suburban sprawl.
But a coalition of environmental groups sued, arguing that the plan should be subject to environmental review under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Courts initially sided with the city, holding that only specific building projects — and not plans governing hypothetical future development — are subject to review.
But in a decision characterized as “bizarre” by urban planning experts, the state Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that comprehensive plans are subject to environmental review and sent the case back to be sorted out by the lower courts. That resulted in a series of decisions and appeals culminating in the full injunction issued against the plan last fall.
That injunction was issued in error, the Court of Appeals ruled this week. While the lower court found that the burden of proof was on the city of Minneapolis to demonstrate that an injunction was not necessary, it should have been on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that an injunction was necessary to prevent environmental degradation.
The lower court also erroneously assumed that reverting to the previous 2030 plan was necessary to protect the environment, when in fact there was no evidence supporting that notion, the Appeals Court ruled.
And finally, halting the plan and effectively throwing out years of prior planning work imposes unnecessary hardship on the city, according to the ruling.
Last week the Minnesota House passed legislation exempting metro area comprehensive plans from environmental review, but the fate of the bill in the Senate is unknown.
The post Minneapolis 2040 plan can once again go forward, appeals court rules appeared first on Minnesota Reformer.
