Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 22-37    Version:
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 9/21/2022
Title: Amending Chapter 193A of the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization.
Sponsors: Chris Tolbert, Amy Brendmoen
Attachments: 1. Rent Stabilization Presentation, 2. 8-4-22 public comment, 3. 8-5-22 public comment, 4. 8-8-22 public comments, 5. 8-10-22 public comment, 6. 8-11-22 public comment, 7. 8-16-22 public comments, 8. 8-22-22 public comments, 9. 8-23-22 public comments, 10. 8-24-22 public comments, 11. 8-25-22 public comments, 12. 8-29-22 public comment, 13. 9-6-22 public comments, 14. 9-7-22 public comments, 15. 9-12-22 public comments, 16. 9-13-22 public comments, 17. 9-20-22 public comments, 18. 9-21-22 public comments, 19. Jalali Amendment #4 -Stike AH Exemption, 20. Noecker Amendmenta #1-CPI, 21. Noecker Amendment #2-Exception Tenant Notice, 22. Jalali Amendment #1 - 15 Year NCE after 1.1.pdf, 23. Jalali Amendment #2 - Just Cause Relocation Assistance, 24. Jalali Amendment #3 - Tenant Application Notification, 25. Prince Amendment-Full Vacancy Decontrol, 26. Brendmoen Amendment - Prevailing Wage with Threshold, 27. Jalali Amendment #5 - StrikeAHExemption v2 Compromise Non Profit, 28. September 7 results with Amendments highlighted, 29. Brendmoen Tolbert Amendment CPI Cap on FVD 9.14.pdf
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
9/23/20223 Mayor's Office Signed  Action details Meeting details Not available
9/21/20222 City Council AdoptedPass Action details Meeting details Video Video
9/14/20221 City Council Amended and Laid Over for Second ReadingPass Action details Meeting details Video Video
9/7/20221 City Council Amended and Laid Over for Final Adoption  Action details Meeting details Video Video
8/24/20221 City Council Laid Over to Second ReadingPass Action details Meeting details Video Video
8/10/20221 City Council Laid Over to Second ReadingPass Action details Meeting details Not available
8/3/20221 City Council Laid Over to Second ReadingPass Action details Meeting details Not available
Amending Chapter 193A of the Legislative Code pertaining to rent stabilization.


WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, a majority of voters in the City of Saint Paul voted in favor of adopting the residential rent stabilization ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure affordability of rental housing in Saint Paul; address detrimental health, safety and welfare impacts resulting from a shortage of residential rental units; address the hardship tenants face when being forced to move from their homes; and stabilize rents in Saint Paul where rents outpace incomes; and

WHEREAS, according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there have been only two hundred (200) residential building permits in Saint Paul through April of 2022, compared to 1,391 at the same point in 2021; and

WHEREAS, according to census and forecast data published by the Metropolitan Council, the population in Saint Paul is since the year 2000 is outpacing the increase in new housing; and

WHEREAS, according to the Metropolitan Council Affordable Housing Production Survey, only 370 out of 2,073 new housing units in 2020 are affordable housing units; and

WHEREAS, according to American Community Survey data from 2015-2019, 36.8% of Saint Paul residents live below 185% of the federal poverty level; and

WHEREAS, prior to adoption, city partners expressed that passage of rent stabilization could increase the future financial risk on loans for executed redevelopment agreements which, in turn, could lead to developers pulling out of existing executed redevelopment agreements; 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, ci...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
9/14/2022 9:19 PMTony Aarts Against Council members: People across St. Paul came together across race, income, and neighborhood to vote overwhelmingly for rent stabilization because we believe everyone in our city should have a home they can count on. That is why I'm asking you all to vote NO on ordinance 22-37. The language within the current ordinance would further displace and marginalize our vulnerable community members. If we are to craft a future that includes all of us, we need strong rent stabilization; that means we need vacancy control, protections for low wealth and BIPOC renters, and no new construction exemption. Ordinance 22-37 is pulling the heart out of the policy. There are already reports of property owners looking to tear down and build new to raise prices, as well as continued displacement/evictions that will escalate if this ordinance is p***ed. The people of this city are what make St. Paul what it is. We are the workers, teachers, nurses, elders, students, families. Please vote NO. +1 -1
9/13/2022 11:20 PMSalina Amey For Dear Council Members, The Rent Control Initiative was a mistake. Despite the fact that those with a particular agenda succeeded in getting enough voters to approve it, it was and is a counter-productive solution to this market-driven problem. I urge you to repeal it, and if not take any and all necessary measures to protect the City of St Paul and her citizens from the ramifications of this ill-thought-out scheme. The unintended consequences of rent control include but are not limited to the following: 1. Rent control is proven to hurt low-income renters, reduce renter choice, mobility and accessibility, especially low-income renters 2. Rent control will continue to exacerbate the Saint Paul housing shortage 3. Rent control discourages investment in existing buildings causing ***ets to fall into disrepair,which further negatively impacts low-income renters who don’t have the ability to move. HUD data shows that since the p***age of Rent Control new building permits are down. +3 -1
8/24/2022 11:44 PMAdrian Perryman  Against We literally already voted on this. +2 -3
8/24/2022 2:52 PMSidney Stuart Against I am a community member of Saint Paul, a former renter and now homeowner, and someone who advocated for the p***ing of Rent Stabilization last November. Ordinance 22-37 is incomplete. While it does well in clarifying the relationship between utilities and rent as well as preserving important aspects of rent stabilization such as the 3% cap, Ordinance 22-37 still falls short in many crucial areas when it comes to establishing a city where renters can feel secure in their homes. The enactment of exemptions to affordable housing is a discriminatory practice that unduly targets the most vulnerable members of our community. This along with a twenty-year blanket exemption for new construction and vacancy decontrol effectively robs the renters of St. Paul of any future where affordable housing is stable, plentiful, and accessible. Additionally, the exemption for new construction is unneeded, and has the potential to limit affordable much needed ADA compliant housing for our disabled community +7 -2
8/24/2022 12:16 AMBrian Young Against As someone who works with families to stabilize their housing, I see daily how valuable it is to have a safe, affordable, and stable home. I was thus delighted when our community voted for rent stabilization and stand in opposition to the ordinance that is currently written. I am certainly glad to see that the 3% annual increase cap has been kept, along with the protections against retaliation and covert efforts to increase rent by charging tenants for additional utilities. I am glad to see both the tenant notification and just cause components in the ordinance, but believe that they could be strengthened to better support St. Paul renters. I am firmly opposed to several parts of the legislation, though, including the affordable housing exemption, the 20-year exemption for new housing, and the inclusion of partial vacancy decontrol. This ordinance must support renters as much as possible; it's about so much more than money or buildings -- this is about equity, belonging, and home. +4 -3
8/23/2022 6:26 PMMaria For In a city like Saint Paul with an aging housing stock (many homes being 100+ years old), I worry that rent control is going to de-incentivize landlords from making necessary updates and fixes to their properties. If landlords aren't able to increase rent even to meet inflation, they aren't going to spend additional money making their properties more habitable for tenants or investing in fixing issues properly. In addition, many landlords may opt to sell their properties in Saint Paul because renting it out doesn't make financial sense for them with rent control. This will reduce the number of rentals available, forcing tenants in the city to compete over limited options. Priority will be given to those with the best rental history, credit, and financial stability - leaving those who are least able to handle rent changes without any options. +6 -3
8/23/2022 6:08 PMAlex For Unfortunately rent control has many unintended consequences. Without landlords willing to invest in our community homes and rental units will be sold to homeowners as homes or condos. In the short term I see rent control helping those struggling but in the long term this will decrease rental stock and cause larger pools of renters competing for housing with those tenants that are most likely to perform being selected for units leaving those who may be low income and need protections the most without options. Developers will look to other markets where they will see a better return on investment further decreasing the stock of rental units. Supply and demand teaches us that with decreased supply creates increased demand. We should be focusing on how to stimulate growth in our city so we can allow those who want to continue moving here to be able to. Increasing the supply of rentals will be the way to keeping costs lower. +5 -4
8/19/2022 5:51 PMCharles “Dell” Paulsen Against As a Saint Paul resident who is concerned with holding accountable people in leadership, recognizes the need to take responsibility collectively for the well-being of ourselves and our neighbors, and is a lifelong renter who has never seen the possibility for homeownership I am absolutely opposed to any attempt by the Saint Paul city council to ignore the collective will of voters in our city, especially as it relates to the only options that our poor neighbors have as a low/fixed income populace towards protections for their and our ability to continue to afford to live where they/we already reside. I can understand the concern for losing contracts to build out more housing for people in the city, however I do not think that centering the profit driven interests of any independent developer instead of the physical needs of constituents in your districts makes sense unless we ignore the destruction of communities that traditional housing development causes. Power to the people! +7 -2
8/1/2022 8:20 PMDaniel   I think vacancy control should be removed entirely, however if the approach will only p*** if tied to just-cause reasons, it would be important to add to these allowed reasons for a tenant to voluntarily give notice to vacate. The language only addresses situations of non-renewal that require a landlord to give notice to a tenant. Why couldn't deferred raises be implemented if a tenant voluntarily terminates their lease and moves out? That is the most typical case under which a vacancy is created, and the language needs to be amended to include these cases as well. +1 -2