Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 25-29    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 5/7/2025
Title: Amending Chapter 193A.08 of the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization.
Sponsors: Anika Bowie, Saura Jost, Rebecca Noecker
Attachments: 1. A1 Amendment - Yang, 2. A2 Amendment – Kim, 3. A2 Amendment - CAO Insufficiency Memo, 4. March 27 public comment, 5. March 31 public comment, 6. April 1 public comment, 7. April 3 public comments, 8. April 7 public comments, 9. April 8 public comments, 10. April 9 public comments, 11. Council presentation 4-9-25, 12. April 10 public comments, 13. April 11 public comments, 14. April 15 public comment, 15. April 18 public comment, 16. April 22 public comment, 17. April 24 public comment, 18. April 28 public comments, 19. April 29 public comment, 20. May 1 public comments, 21. May 2 public comments, 22. May 5 public comments, 23. W2 public comments May 1-6, 24. Ord 25-29 - Karon Schmitt 5-5-25.pdf, 25. Ord 25-29 - Saint Paul Regional Labor Federation 5-2-25.pdf, 26. Ord 25-29 - Union Park 5-2-25.pdf, 27. Ord 25-29 - Shinn 5-5-25.pdf, 28. Ord 25-29 - Dahlager 5-6-25.pdf, 29. Ord 25-29 - Smith 5-5-25.pdf, 30. Ord 25-29 - Valerie Nebel 5-5-25.pdf, 31. Ord 25-29 - Starr 5-7-25.pdf, 32. Ord 25-29 - Saint Paul Building & Construction Trades 5-6-25.pdf, 33. Ord 25-29 - Fowlds 5-6-25.pdf, 34. Ord 25-29 - Rosenthal 5-6-25.pdf, 35. Ord 25-29 - Guettler 5-5-25.pdf, 36. SEIU HCMNIA Letter to St Paul City Council, 5-5-25, 37. Ord 25-29 - Neurer 5-1-25.pdf

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
4/11/2025 2:00 AMDeb Avenido Against We need more deeply affordable housing, and renters need to be ***ured that their rent will not rise so high that they can no longer afford to live in their homes. That's why I voted for rent stabilization in 2021. There is no proof that it caused the current housing construction slowdown. There are many factors affecting it. I'm opposed to big profit-making developers being given breaks. Building more housing doesn't mean more affordable housing will be built. We need to think outside the box: We need zoning reform, and we need to consider the city acting as a developer and building more affordable housing as public infrastructure, like we do with libraries, rec centers, etc. I am against giving new development deferment from rent stabilization indefinitely. I'm concerned that older rental housing, under the rent stabilization ordinance, could be torn down in order to build new buildings not affected by rent stabilization and displace renters in the process. +2 -1
4/10/2025 4:39 PMJohn Slade Against This is a corporate giveaway to Ryan Companies and other huge developers who are using their money power to override our democratic vote. +1 -1
4/9/2025 9:46 PMGrant Abbott Against The reason I oppose this ordinance is that it will not solve the problem of homelessness. Yes, developers should be able to cover their cost and make a profit. But the cost to the city of homelessness must be considered as well. What is the cost to the police? What is the cost to health agencies? What is the cost to public safety? What is the cost to the education of children? Developers must be held accountable for their market failure to provide adequate safe and stable housing for the people. Make a profit, yes. But developers must also pay taxes that cover the cost to the city of insufficient affordable housing. When there are no homeless individuals or families, then no tax. Why must the public be asked to cover the cost of this market failure? +1
4/9/2025 9:38 PM    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I oppose the ordinance as written. Developers are given the benefit of the doubt. It is the way capitalism works. You can't expect them to build apartments, if they can't make a profit. The need of the public for safe and secure housing is of secondary importance. The public should work hard to afford housing. As a result, we have a growing population of unhoused individuals and families. That is a cost to cities that is not considered. How much money do cities have to spend as a result of homeless individuals and families? What is the cost to police? What is the cost to heath agencies? What is the cost to the education of children? Is this factored in? Housing for profit is okay, but not at the expense to public health, public safety, and the future of the children? I say, let the developers make a profit, but let them be taxed to cover the cost of housing the homeless. No free ride.
4/9/2025 9:15 PMJess Corner Against Exempting post-2004 buildings from rent stabilization doesn’t encourage smart growth—it rewards large developers and undermines the protections that keep people in their homes and keep smaller-scale developers in our communities. It penalizes the reuse of historic properties and tips the scales toward demolition and luxury builds. Our 1905 house isn’t perfect, but it’s solid, energy efficient, and AFFORDABLE—something new construction often isn’t. The space isn't an issue, it's entirely usage and what we're choosing to incentivize. This is a step backwards, and sets a precedent that shifts power away from communities and toward profit. It won’t create more affordable housing. It will just make it harder to stay. +1 -1
4/9/2025 7:02 PMJordan Brasher Against I am a renter in Ward 1 and I urge the CM in my Ward, CM Bowie, to vote NAY in opposition to this amendment. If this amendment is p***ed, it will create a two-tiered (effectively segregated) system of housing in the city wherein new housing being built is only for the rich or those who can afford to live in non-rent-stabilized housing. At least as troubling as this is the fact that the citizens of St. Paul voted at the ballot box to affirm the 3% annual cap on rent increases. The council has already gutted the initial measure and this amendment stands to gut it further, gutting along with it the will of the majority in the city who voted in favor of rent stabilization. Rent stabilization measures are NOT at the root of St. Paul's housing crisis, and if the council thinks that it is, it must provide concrete evidence to support the claim -- which it has not. CM Bowie, vote against this amendment. -1
4/9/2025 5:06 PMElaine Tarone Against I strongly oppose any exemption for new construction to rent stabilization. Portland Maine p***ed strongest rent stabilization in country in 2020 with no new construction exemption and in 2023 the city saw a 10-year high in housing development. +1 -1
4/9/2025 5:02 PMElaine Tarone Against I strongly oppose any exemption for new construction to rent stabilization. Portland Maine p***ed strongest rent stabilization in country in 2030 with no new construction exemption and in 2023 the city saw a 10-year high in housing development. -1
4/8/2025 6:57 PMAndrea Buiser Against I urge my Councilwoman in Ward 1 to vote NAY to any changes to amend the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization. In 2021, Saint Paul citizens voted YES to a Rent Stabilization Ordinance, myself being one of them. The ordinance kept residential rent increases to NO MORE than 3% in a 12-month period. I believe wholeheartedly that this ordinance, which protects the rights of renters across the city, should be kept in the Legislative Code as it is written. This is what we voted yes to. We voted yes to keep rent affordable in St. Paul. I am a homeowner but I am vehemently opposed to amending any language in the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization. Rent control is tantamount to fair housing in St. Paul and I hope the Council to understand the long-term impacts of acquiescing to developers and real estate lobbyists aiming to soften rent control restrictions. The other ordinance outlining tenant protections is NOT ENOUGH to protect tenants in St. Paul. Please vote NAY +1 -1
4/8/2025 5:19 PMTwin Cities Housing Alliance   Elimination of new housing from rent control may help increase new housing production. And, TCHA believes that only a full repeal of the rent stabilization policy will create a healthy housing ecosystem in St. Paul and the entire region. The impact of rent control is detailed in TCHA's Public Cost of Rent Control resource - https://tchousingalliance.com/news-and-resources/tcha-2023-year-in-review-zatls-htrc6. Please review. +1 -1
4/8/2025 4:28 PMJanet Pope For I am writing to urge support of the proposed Rent Stabilization Amendment. There is a serious shortage of affordable housing in St Paul of approximately 11,000 units. Therefore it is critical to do all we can to house all our neighbors and promote housing development by large and small developers. Limits on rents are a serious impediment to this development of more units so must be alleviated. In addition, further development in our city is critically needed to help alleviate the high property tax burden of St. Paul residents and businesses. I support tenant protections as well, so I also want to commend the City Council for putting teeth into administrative citations so that predatory and unfair landlords can now be fined.
4/8/2025 3:43 PMSherry Pofahl Johnson For I am thrilled to see Councilmembers take necessary steps to p*** TWO important, interrelated bills that will strengthen our City's financial future, enable new housing, and secure the rights of tenants. I supported the rent stabilization ordinance because tenants' rights matter, but now we know it's hurting developers' ability to build. Plus, we're facing a market with difficult financing and tariffed materials. We must release constraints on new development. But what if new builds threaten naturally occurring affordable housing? That's where tenant protections can slow things down, with the Affordable Housing Notice-of-Sale requirements. Please release narratives about "Big Developers." Whatever our City does to limit them will have an outsized impact small and medium-sized developers. Our 1-4-Unit Housing work, 2040 Plan and beyond will sufficiently limit the impact of "Big Developers" if we let the market respond to the desperate need for more housing. +1
4/8/2025 3:05 PMDave Hage For I've been a renter myself, struggling to pay the rent, but even so I support this amendment. The best solution to the housing shortage is to build more housing - so let's not discourage that. Mayor Carter is right: St. Paul is a growing city, and that's GREAT, but a growing city needs to make housing for its people. Density is good and long overdue.
4/8/2025 2:49 PMElizabeth Wefel For Cities across Minnesota, and across the country, are facing a housing crisis. There are many factors that contribute to it and only so much that a city council can do to combat. St. Paul has done an excellent job of taking important steps such as revising its zoning code to allow for more density. But we can't address this issue with both arms tied behind our backs. The biggest thing holding development back in our cityis our current rent control ordinance. We should have concern for the impact of increased rents on the residents of St. Paul but the current ordinance makes things worse for current and future residents by suppressing new Housing development in our city. We desperately need more housing construction in our city to house people and to help our tax base, which helps control property taxes. Although I would prefer the ordinance be repealed in its entirety, this proposed change is an important first step and I urge that the City Council adopt this change!
4/8/2025 2:47 PMRichard Gehrman   I support amending the rent stabilization code. Overall I don't support rent stabilization at all. I live in an apartment more than 20 years old and the landlord is having difficulty maintaining the building. However exempting new construction and construction since 2004 at least will help encourage new construction.
4/8/2025 2:25 PMDeanna Sande For The proposed amendment will make it much easier for developers, including small and local developers, to secure financing to build homes. It does this by creating simplicity and predictability for investors. Those who build housing in the metro area have a choice, and if Saint Paul makes it too difficult to secure financing they will build in other areas. This limited amendment
4/8/2025 2:25 PMEverett Dalton For City Councilmembers, Thank you for considering this amendment. As a student and recent entrant into the Saint Paul rental market, I’ve experienced firsthand the difficulty of finding adequate, affordable housing. Rent stabilization meant to protect vulnerable renters. But in reality, it’s created barriers to building new rentals at a time our residents desperately need it. Construction has slowed; options are fewer. It’s low-income residents and renters who are negatively impacted by this policy, not homeowners or the wealthy. While many factors impact affordable construction, this is a lever we can pull to reduce friction, building more units, which, as Minneapolis has shown, actually reduces rent. This option will help students like me, renters, and working families access housing we can afford. As a constituent, renter, and student, I believe this amendment would stabilize rentals in St. Paul. I urge you to support it to move toward real housing justice in St. Paul! Thank you. +2
4/8/2025 1:23 PMLily Against This amendment will mean that no building built after 2004 will ever enter rent control. Meaning there is incentive to build and 0 incentive to maintain existing buildings. There should be a limit to how long a building is out of rent control! The amendment is short sighted and will ultimately only benefit the builders, not the renters this legislation was originally meant to protect. +3
4/8/2025 11:20 AMJenn P For I support this legislation because this limited amendment will encourage growth while still preserving the benefits of the original ordinance. When it p***es, more than 90% of the city will remain under stabilization. Renters will continue to be protected from displacement, while our improved growth alleviates the crisis of affordability in housing. The city has limited control over the cost of building materials and the state of the economy which is the true deterrent to building more housing, but it's important to try implementing things that are within our control to try an make small improvements to the problem of housing shortage.
4/8/2025 3:01 AMAaron Keniski For I’m writing in support of the rent stabilization amendment. We need to amend the rent stabilization ordinance to enable Saint Paul to build more housing and grow our tax base.
4/8/2025 2:50 AMTom Reimann For For the sake of renters (including future renters), expanding the tax base, and sustainable development as a city, we need abundant housing, which means building new units. This amendment, in concert with the tenant protection proposal, seems like the right move.
4/8/2025 2:41 AMNoah Rooze For I am in favor of this amendment to cut red tape and encourage new developing the city. This is a rare slam dunk that benefits existing and new residents, tenants and developers, and increases the city's tax base. -1 5
4/8/2025 2:39 AMJessa Anderson-Reitz For Renters need affordable options, making housing growth essential. The status quo would lock in our current housing shortage for decades, leaving renters without the autonomy they need to leave poor living situations, even forcing them to stay in unsafe or unstable housing due to scarcity. I urge the council to p*** this amendment.
4/8/2025 2:29 AMTom Reimann For For the sake of renters (including future renters), expanding the tax base, and sustainable development as a city, we need abundant housing, which means building new units. This amendment, in concert with the tenant protection proposal, seems like the right move. +2 -1
4/8/2025 1:57 AMLisa Gallatin For I appreciate this issue being revisited and believe the council should vote to support this amendment.
4/8/2025 1:55 AMSuzanne S Rhees For I'm a resident in the Como Park neighborhood, and am keenly aware of the lack of new housing and the commercial development that more housing would support. Since moving to St. Paul in 2016, I've been shocked by the sharp rise in property taxes. One reason is the heavy tax burden that the lack of new development puts on existing homeowners. Many large tracts of land sit vacant, foreclosing options for affordable rental housing, condos, and other medium-density options. While rent stabilization seemed protective of existing tenants, it has become an obstacle to development of all sorts, as evidenced by the slow build-out of Highland Bridge. Therefore I strongly urge p***age of the proposed amendment. Thank you.
4/8/2025 1:27 AMTherese Sexe For I’m writing in support of the rent stabilization amendment. We need to amend the rent stabilization ordinance to enable Saint Paul and local developers to grow.
4/7/2025 10:27 PM    My wife and I moved to Lowertown in Aug 2018. We intend to stay in our condo long term and care deeply that Downtown achieve a population of 20 to 30 thousand residents so that our neighborhood can sustain grocery stores, pharmacies, and all the services needed to support a diverse, walkable community. We need new housing to achieve this goal: Small, medium and large sized units. Affordable, mid-level, and luxury units. Rental and owner occupied units. The investments needed to build these units will not come to Saint Paul without the p***age of this amendment, so I urge the City Council to do so immediately. The current residents of Downtown know we need PEOPLE. We will welcome diverse people and diverse housing, so there is real opportunity here to create a special community, if you p*** this amendment, build housing and plan for vital and healthy expansion of Downtown. Lastly, I also believe that p***ing this amendment is the right thing for ALL of St Paul not just Downtown
4/7/2025 9:53 PMJeanne Kaplan  For Please p*** this amendment. I'm a renter who wants more tenant protection . +2 1
4/7/2025 9:22 PMRobert Wales For I am a meh for. This should be a part of and should have been a part of the compromise previously. That said we should and can’t ignore that developers have been using this as a convenient excuse and we shouldn’t further allow it to be an excuse for bad faith and diminish any efforts to bolster tenant protections. Nor should we allow a trickle down effect to take place. +1
4/7/2025 8:56 PMDaniel Waddell For We need to amend the rent stabilization ordinance to enable Saint Paul and local developers to grow. Our tax base in hemorrhaging and anything we can do to restore developer confidence and encourage housing is a new good for the city. Rent control has not brought any meaningful benefits elsewhere and this is a step in the right direction to simplify our building process. More work needs to be done to enhance the permitting process but let’s not hold ourselves to a policy that is not working and restore some confidence. +2
4/7/2025 8:41 PMSusan Woehrle   Please preserve rent stabilization in its current form! +1 -3
4/7/2025 8:37 PMMcCullough Mischke    St. Paul needs to be doing everything it can to encourage new development and developers. Rent control policies have the exact opposite effect. We should repeal all rent control policies, but this amendment is a start. +3 -1 1
4/7/2025 8:33 PMAlana Hawley For Housing is the most basic need that a successful society meets. Rent stabilization works to KEEP PEOPLE HOUSED, and I support it! +1
4/7/2025 3:50 PMChris Blake For Renters need affordable options while encouraging housing growth. Our current situation would lock in our housing shortage for decades, possibly leaving renters struggling due to scarcity. It would also prevent us from improving the city's tax base while maintaining affordability. These changes need to be made. Thank you. +4
4/7/2025 2:11 PMKathleen Fischer For I urge you to p*** the proposed exemption for new construction because the best way that Saint Paul can alleviate the growing burden that property tax increases are causing for low-income renters and homeowners is to build more housing. Many low-income households in Saint Paul have struggled to afford the steep increases over the past few years. I know you know this: it’s why you fought hard this past December for a city budget that would keep property tax increases to five percent. Unfortunately, Saint Paul’s budgeting challenges are likely to get even harder in the coming years. We are not repairing our streets, sewers, bridges, parks, and other city-owned infrastructure at the pace they are falling apart. We are not funding city services to meet the level of need. Our low-income residents cannot afford the pace of property tax increases, but they also depend on the city to maintain the infrastructure and services they use every day. Kathleen Fischer, 1017 Ashland Avenue +6
4/7/2025 11:39 AMCody Fischer For I urge you to support the proposal to permanently exempt new residential buildings from rent control. Opponents argue it’s too early to make a change, but the evidence is clear: Saint Paul’s policies are uniquely inhibiting housing growth. While other factors, like interest rates and material costs, also impact production, the one factor we can change is city policy. Affordable housing is essential for renters, and the current situation locks in the housing shortage for decades. Without more housing, renters will remain in poor, unstable conditions, and the city will struggle to grow its tax base. With federal cuts and a looming state deficit, housing growth is crucial for Saint Paul’s fiscal health. We must act now to avoid a future of unaffordable housing. +8
4/6/2025 12:35 AMMelissa Wenzel For Dear City Council members, We all know that Saint Paul has a housing shortage. Rental prices come down when supply of stock increases. We see this happening across the river in Minneapolis, and in major cities around the nation. Thus, I am writing to support the Rent Stabilization Amendment before you. I am pleased that this agenda item is occuring at the same time as a proposal to strengthen tenant protections. When these two agenda items p*** with your support, it will result in unlocking new housing construction while gaining even stronger tenant protections. Both are essential to solving this crisis. Sincerely, Melissa Wenzel Ward 2 +11
4/5/2025 5:35 PMRachel Molzahn For We need to increase housing in St Paul in order to attract more business, and ensure property taxes don’t become burdensome for current residents. Please consider common sense approaches while continuing to protect renter’s rights. +5
4/5/2025 4:48 PMGalen Benshoof For Without substantial new housing production, Saint Paul's current shortage will soon become a crisis. Without changes to rent stabilization policy, it is obvious that we will not get the additional housing we need. I support these common-sense changes to protect affordability in our city. +9 -1 2
4/4/2025 6:30 PMJacob Hooper For I am a renter who supported the original rent stabilization ordinance. I support amending it. I am really concerned about the lack of development and new housing being built in Saint Paul. I still support rent control to protect renters, but we have to make sure it is implemented in a way that doesn't do serious damage to the city. When I supported it on the ballot, it was under the hope that my elected officials would implement it in an intentional manner as one "tool in the toolbox." Tweaking policy to make it work is good. Adapting to changing cir***stances is good. We need more housing. +6
4/4/2025 10:08 AMDavid A Against We are making a dangerous and near-sighted mistake by treating private investment as more desirable than stability for our neighbors. The Highland Development already is getting $100 million in taxpayer dollars to support private profit. Letting developers hold us hostage is a terrible mistake. The global housing crisis is b/c of the financialization of housing. Housing as an ***et, with a right to unlimited profit, is incompatible with housing as a human right, or stable, secure housing for our city. 3% is quite reasonable and more than allowed in Germany or Canada. Canada has province-wide rent stabilization that is set each year to match the financial situation of renters. Other countries still have private development. We can and must leverage community land trusts, cooperative conversions, create rotating loan funds, and renovate old buildings for community ownership. Public investment should create permanently affordable community ownership, not private profit. +2 -2
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 +6 -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. +4 -4
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. +4 -3
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. +3 -2
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. +3 -2
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. +5 -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. +4 -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. +5 -4
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. +5 -2
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. +6 -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. +6 -5 1
4/2/2025 2:23 AMNoah Schneider For +5 -2
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. +7 -3 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. +10 -6 2