Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 25-29    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Second Reading
In control: City Council
Final action:
Title: Amending Chapter 193A.08 of the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization.
Sponsors: Anika Bowie, Saura Jost, Rebecca Noecker
Attachments: 1. March 27 public comment, 2. March 31 public comment, 3. April 1 public comment, 4. April 3 public comments

Title

Amending Chapter 193A.08 of the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization.

Body

SECTION 1

WHEREAS, the population in Saint Paul since the year 2000 is outpacing the increase in new housing; and

WHEREAS, rent stabilization ordinances in other jurisdictions exempt new construction from a date certain to address challenges like those faced by the City of Saint Paul, specifically housing shortages and accessibility to affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, new construction exemptions are contained within rent stabilization ordinances across the country to prevent a loss of capital investment, relocation of builders to more predictable locations and asset types, negative impacts on housing supply, and long term increases to housing costs; and

WHEREAS, the development of new affordable housing in the City depends, in part, on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) produced by the development of new market rate housing in general; and

WHEREAS, a decrease in development of new housing will decrease the availability of TIF and thus decrease the development of new affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, the need for affordable housing in the City of Saint Paul continues to outpace the construction of new housing and the City Council desires to ensure that the RSO does not dissuade the construction of new housing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council may amend ordinances pursuant to the Saint Paul charter; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby ordain:

SECTION 2

Chapter 193A.08 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended as follows:

Sec. 193A.08. - Exceptions.

(a)  The limitation on rent increases shall not apply to:

(1)  The amount that a housing service provider can be reimbursed by a government entity under the Housing Support Act, Minn. Stats. chapter 256I.

(2)  Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined by state or federal law, or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in state and federal law.

(3)  Residential rental property that is newly constructed or had a change in occupancy classification.

a.  The limitation on rent increases shall not apply to newly constructed residential rental properties that were issued their first building certificate of occupancy less than twenty (20) years from the date of notice of a rent increase after December 31, 2004.

b.  The limitation on rent increases shall not apply to formerly non-residential properties or portions of non-residential properties that were issued a new or renewed building certificate of occupancy because of a change in occupancy classification to residential rental property. Such properties or portions of properties that have changed occupancy classification from non-residential to residential rental property that were issued their first building certificate of occupancy after December 31, 2004, are exempted from the limitation on rent increases. for twenty (20) years from the date of the first building certificate of occupancy issued after the change.

SECTION 3.

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval and publication.

 

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
4/3/2025 8:36 PMHenry Parker For I am writing to express my strong support for the rent stabilization amendment. Much of the slow down in multi-family production and the fall in the values of apartment buildings is the result of the rent stabilization ordinance, which has led to greater property tax burden on the rest of the city. We have also missed out on the opportunity to add more homes and more residents to our city as a result. Henry Parker 2001 Selby Ave St Paul, MN 55104 +2
4/2/2025 6:56 PMLevi I. Against This new attempt at gutting rent control is pro-developer and not pro-renter. There's no evidence to suggest rent control has stifled development. I moved to Saint Paul because of the initial rent control being p***ed. +2 -1
4/2/2025 6:02 PMSteve Tuckner Against Rent stabilization was originally p***ed to give renters security so that their rent would not increase an inordinate amount year after year. It was meant to stabilize rents not profits for developers. This ordinance is just one more step to help developers profits. The theory of build, build, build is that eventually rents will stabilize (maybe), but that developers will certainly make great profits. We are trading a possible outcome, of stabilizing rents, with the certainty of profits for developers. How about instead we guarantee stable rents for renters and we find other ways to build the housing we need. In particular, the city could act as a housing developer using its bonding and borrowing capacity to hire the union construction firms to build the housing infrastructure that we need, for the people that need it, where the city needs it. +3 -1
4/2/2025 5:52 PMJamie Marshall Against I am against further exemptions of rent stabilization. I stand by what I, and a majority of voters, approved as a ballot measure. Rent stabilization is not the cause for any slowing of new housing construction, but it is being used as a justification so that developers can continue expanding their profits paid for by ballooning rents. To move ahead on this important and contentious item without an elected council member in my Ward 4 is undemocratic. +2 -1
4/2/2025 5:47 PMLily Eggers Against I believe that altering an initiative that succeeded at the ballot box, due to concerns which are not yet sufficiently backed up by data, would significantly jeopardize both tenant rights and the Council’s credibility. +2 -1
4/2/2025 5:43 PMBrandon Conrady Against I am against further cuts to rent control in this city. The current data before us fails to properly establish a causal relationship between rent control and the lack of construction in the city. For reference, Minneapolis used to have significantly more permits approved for new construction than us, but they too experienced a dip in new construction like we did. In fact, their drop in new permits was even greater than ours. Blaming rent control may please developers and landlords but won't actually help us. Please vote against this ordinance. +4 -1
4/2/2025 5:37 PMJeffrey Grizzell Against I am against the city further attending rent stabilization. The city has already made exemptions that go against the democratic will of the majority who voted to p*** the original ballot measure. +3 -1
4/2/2025 5:28 PMCole Hanson Against As a resident of Ward 4, I’m deeply concerned that the City is moving forward with significant changes to rent stabilization without meaningful data on core issues like vacancy rates or rental property ownership / management. These are essential to understanding the policy’s impact—and in many respects, we’re flying blind. I’m also troubled that this decision is being made while Ward 4 remains without an elected representative. Our ward has one of the highest renter populations in the city, with four universities and dense multi-unit housing along University Avenue. Our voice matters. I respectfully urge the City Council to table this ordinance until Ward 4 voters have the opportunity to elect their representative and that person can weigh in on this critical issue. +4 -2
4/2/2025 5:24 PMEthan Besser Fredrick Against I am opposed to creating larger exemptions for rent stabilization. The city government has betrayed voters for years by watering down what was p***ed by a ballot measure. If landlords are permitted to drastically raise rent, we will see a spike in homelessness and all its ensuing social problems. It’s really that simple. At the same time, it is not at all clear that rent stabilization played a role in construction slow downs as interest rates and construction costs are a much more significant factor. Don’t raise our rents just to appease developers. +4 -1
4/2/2025 5:12 PMKaren Allen Against Rent stabilization has had a negative impact on the production of new housing in the city. Given the shortage of housing, the expensive construction market, the property tax burden on existing residents and the future of the city's budget, this amendment is needed to reduce barriers to housing production. I believe this should be p***ed in tandem with renter protections - renters are a huge portion our city population and should be protected from predatory or unfair housing practices by unethical landlords. +3 -2 2
4/2/2025 5:03 PMMatt O'Toole For The current rent stabilization regime has had a disastrous effect on rental availability and affordability. It's chased away new development, created a 3% floor on rent increases, disincentivized investment in existing properties, and damaged city finances because every new development requires some sort of public subsidy. It has benefitted no one. +2 -3 1
4/2/2025 2:23 AMNoah Schneider For +4 -1
4/1/2025 9:57 PMKatherine DuGArm For Tenants need protections. I support this ordinance at the same time as 25-31. Tenants also need housing and rent stabilization is currently stifling our ability to meet our housing supply needs and unlock the growth we need for a more sustainable Saint Paul. I still believe deeply in the need to protect renters and fight for long-term affordability. +4 -2 1
4/1/2025 8:38 PMJ. Mark Gilbert For Rent stabilization was a mistake, and demonstrates why governing by referendum is a bad idea. This amendment will help undo the damage, and, most importantly, get us building the homes we need. +5 -4 1