Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />single family homes. This is from a single family housing stock of just under 2,100 single family <br />homes. <br />Single Family Rental Policies. In the general marketplace, there has been a trend in some areas <br />in which larger companies buy up (or develop) larger numbers of single family homes and hold <br />them for rentals. The concerns raised by this trend relate to an erosion of home ownership. <br />Home ownership has long been a goal for many communities, as it has an extensive history of <br />improving neighborhood stability, and a series of other benefits that lead to stronger <br />citizenship and community strength. <br />As a result, some communities have adopted regulations that limit the number of rental units in <br />the community. In many of these examples, the regulations limit the number of rental units by <br />geographic area. The idea behind these limitations is to avoid an over-concentration of rental <br />housing in a particular area, with the goal being to ensure that ownership remains the <br />dominant form of occupancy in any particular neighborhood. <br />This approach to rental housing has been subject to legal challenges in a number of Minnesota <br />communities. Most significantly, the City of Winona adopted an ordinance limiting the number <br />of single family rental units that could occupy any block to a maximum of 30%. The City noted <br />that the overconcentration of rental units had been observed to have a negative impact on <br />housing maintenance, and other observable conditions in areas dominated by rental <br />occupancy. <br />Winona withstood a legal challenge, despite some sympathetic challengers. The case went to <br />the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which ruled that because the City could identify specific <br />benefits to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, the regulation was justifiable. Because <br />this is the general standard of review for land use cases, the Court’s determination is likely to <br />be applicable to other similar regulations. <br />In the past, the generally applicable rule in land use was that a city could not discriminate <br />between rental- and owner-occupied housing. The essential element was the land use and its <br />density, not the identity of the residents. The Winona cases have turned this over in some <br />ways. Because the State Supreme Court dismissed a subsequent appeal due to the original <br />affected complainants no longer being in ownership by the time the case got to that Court, it is <br />unclear if there is any further legal challenge to Winona’s approach. <br />Thus, if St. Anthony wished to adopt limiting regulations as to the number of single family <br />rentals, there is a path to creating those regulations. Because “owner-occupied” housing can <br />take many forms, there are not likely to be other ways to distinguish between occupants. <br />Corporate ownership occurs occasionally to allow owner-occupants to include their housing in <br />estate planning options. This is same as trust-ownership or family-member ownership (both of <br />which can qualify as “homestead” properties under Minnesota’s real estate tax policy.