2025 Minneapolis Housing Questionnaire — Ward 1

Neighbors for More Neighbors partnered with Inquilinxs Unidxs Por Justicia, Wedge LIVE!, Housing Justice League, Housing in Action and BikeMN to sponsor a housing questionnaire for the 2025 Minneapolis Elections.

We sent this questionnaire to all candidates who filed campaign finance reports as of April 16, 2025. We received responses from Elliott Payne (Incumbent).

You may view the candidate responses to each question by clicking on the “+” icon to the left of the question.

Question 1: One way to create complete, walkable neighborhoods is to legalize local commercial use within those neighborhoods. The existing zoning code prohibits commercial use on approximately 89% of Minneapolis lots.

Will you vote for zoning changes to allow local, low-impact small businesses (e.g. coffee shops, restaurants, corner stores, etc.) to be built in residential neighborhoods throughout our entire city?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 2: Some cities like South Bend, Indiana, have developed a set of pre-approved, residential project plans to help (1) lower the cost of construction by reducing design fees and (2) speed up approval times. These initiatives involve working with architects and engineers to develop a set of plans for one to six-unit homes that are permitted throughout the city.

Will you vote to create an accessible catalog of free or low-cost, pre-approved home plans for the City of Minneapolis?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 3: Given Minneapolis’s history of redlining, exclusionary zoning, freeway construction through historically Black & minority neighborhoods, slum clearance, and urban renewal, what are your goals to address historic & ongoing harms–in an equitable and restorative way–to build a better and more livable Minneapolis for all residents?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    For centuries, racial discrimination was an explicit part of our legal code. But after centuries of discrimination and oppression, explicitly racist laws and policies are no longer necessary to continue to produce racial hierarchy and oppression. Laws and policies that are ostensibly race-neutral continue to produce unjust, discriminatory outcomes. We can see the effects of systemic racism in Minneapolis in all of the well-documented disparities that exist between white folks and BIPOC communities. Whether we are measuring home ownership rates, health outcomes, interactions with police, access to jobs, transit, or high-quality food, on every measure BIPOC folks experience worse outcomes and less access. Reversing these long-running trends requires as much focused policy as the redlining that created them, all under the hostility of a federal government that refuses to acknowledge systemic racism. Three policies that I believe could reverse these trends are targeted investment in historically segregated neighborhoods, Community Land Trusts, and downpayment assistance for first generation home buyers. Focused investment in public transportation such as the Blue Line extension, schools, healthcare facilities, and park facilities like North Commons Park can spark economic development. Community Land Trusts can mitigate displacement while creating home ownership opportunities that are made more accessible via downpayment assistance. For most families, homeownership is the primary means of generating wealth. The city must take action to increase home ownership among BIPOC communities if we are going to make progress toward achieving wealth equity and reverse the historical harm caused by redlining.

Question 4: Minneapolis currently allows property owners to build triplexes on any residential lot. In practice, on an average 5,000 square foot lot in Minneapolis, each triplex unit is constrained to ~800 square feet due to other size and height limitations in the code (these are built-form restrictions & floor-to-area ratios). Most of the triplexes that currently exist were built decades ago and would not be allowed today under current rules.

Will you vote to change city built-form restrictions so that new triplexes could be built if they stayed consistent with existing forms?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 5: The Minneapolis 2040 Plan has been highly successful in allowing more studios and 1 to 2 bedroom homes to be built in the City, primarily in buildings with 20 or more units. However, 3 or more bedroom homes in these same buildings are rare; meaning families with children are competing for a limited supply of single-family homes.

Will you vote to change zoning restrictions to encourage the development of 3-bedroom units–in multi-unit buildings–for growing Minneapolis families?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 6: Across the country, many cities and states are updating their zoning codes to allow more homes near high-quality transit. For example, Washington State legalized six-plexes within a half-mile of major transit stops.

Will you vote for zoning reforms in Minneapolis to support more homes on all land within a half-mile of major transit stops, including LRT, BRT, and ABRT lines?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 7: What specific anti-displacement measures will you support to ensure these zoning changes benefit existing residents and prevent displacement of low-income communities for current and future projects?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Preventing displacement should be a foundational goal of a comprehensive approach to housing policy, whether from a major project or changing market conditions. Some specific policies that support that goal are just cause eviction protections, right to return, deeply affordable zoning overlays, nonprofit land acquisition support, forgivable loans, and residential and commercial rent stabilization.

Question 8: Minneapolis residents, City Council, and the current Mayor are all concerned with rising homelessness rates, which increase the prevalence of local encampments.

Do you support the current mayoral administration’s policy of encampment clearing?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    No

Question 9: What will you do to protect people who see encampments as their only option, while increasing and expanding access to stable, permanent and deeply affordable housing for all people in Minneapolis?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    We have to begin by acknowledging the way that policy failures have created this problem and at the same time resist the narrative that folks in the encampments are “refusing services” because they are uncooperative or irrational. Policy failures across every level of government have made encampments the best option some folks have, which means it’s incumbent upon us to create better options for our neighbors.

    Most importantly, I believe the city council needs to work in active partnership with the county and state governments to coordinate the services and resources it takes to help people who are currently living in the encampments into permanent housing — in a way that addresses all of their underlying needs. I believe that coordinating function is a crucial function of municipal government. Beyond that, getting folks into appropriate and dignified housing and keeping them safe from violence is going to require the city prioritizing the development of SROs, social housing, and other low cost housing options. It’s going to take changes at the county level and in the rules at local shelters, in addition to significant investments in public housing. Finally, addressing this issue is going to take ongoing organizing efforts by folks who care deeply about our neighbors currently living in encampments, even after the election.

Question 10: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) gives current tenants the first right to purchase the property that they live in should their landlord want to sell. A policy such as TOPA advances opportunities for community ownership as well as a transfer of wealth back to renters. If you are elected, will you vote to advance TOPA?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes

Question 11: Will you support using city resources to establish locally-owned housing–sometimes referred to as social housing–that is permanently affordable, protected from private market forces, publicly owned, and under democratic governance by the tenants?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes
    I authored the budget amendment that advances social housing.

Question 12: Today, city property taxes are set primarily on the “improvements” or value of the buildings on land. As a result, “low value” land with parking lots or vacant lots pay very little in taxes while making surrounding neighborhoods less livable. This incentivizes low-value land owners to engage in land speculation for years or even decades until they get a big payout. A Land Value Tax (LVT) doesn’t change their taxes to the city; it shifts how taxes are set to be primarily based on the value of the land to discourage land speculation.

If the state passes legislation to allow it–pending special session outcomes–will you vote to pilot a LVT to encourage development of under-used land in Minneapolis?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Yes
    I authored the amendment for the City’s policy agenda to include LVT as part of the City’s formal lobbying efforts at the state legislature.

Question 13: Rent stabilization continues to be considered in Minneapolis. Supporters hope to discourage unfair rent gouging and displacement. Opponents worry it could stifle the development of new homes.

How would you evaluate rent stabilization policy? What components could you vote for and which would you not be able to vote for?

Examples of policy components include, but are not limited to: a specific percentage cap on rent increases, a new construction exemption, vacancy decontrol, just cause eviction, etc.

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    My goal as a council member is simple – every single person who wants to make a home in Minneapolis should be able to do so and every policy solution that gets us toward that goal is on the table. I support an “all of the above” approach to housing policy and will highlight rent stabilization, the creation of a municipal bank, and building social housing as specific policies to pursue. Most people who live in our city are renters, that’s why voters overwhelmingly supported the ballot amendment that allows city council to pass a rent stabilization policy. I support a policy that is crafted to meet the specific needs and context of our housing crisis, including policy elements such as a new construction exemption, just cause eviction, and rent banking. Opponents of rent stabilization frequently claim that lenders will not invest in Minneapolis if we pass a rent stabilization policy—that’s why we need to create our own municipal bank. We can’t be taken hostage by capital that is hostile to the needs of working people. Finally, we should be a direct provider of housing with local ownership and control. Social housing, compared to public housing, isn’t subject to federal funding limits, leverages funding streams that are available to the private market, and would allow the city to build housing directly.

Question 14: Evictions in Minneapolis have skyrocketed since the eviction moratorium was lifted and far too many renters are one paycheck away from losing their home.

What ideas do you have to reduce evictions in our communities?

  • Elliott Payne (Incumbent)
    Since my time in office, I have worked to strengthen renter protections with the explicit goal of reducing evictions and displacement—from the creation of our comprehensive Renter Protections, Eviction Prevention, and Anti-displacement report to authoring the extension of our pre-eviction notification to 30 days. This council majority, under my leadership, has consistently advanced renter-first policies including expanded pre-eviction notification referenced above, renters rights mandatory disclosure, and regulating the use of algorithms in rental rates and has made significant investments in programs and services such as Stable Homes, Stable Schools, housing vouchers, and free legal support for renters as part of our comprehensive approach. One mistake both advocates and opponents of rent stabilization make is the assumption that it is a strictly a policy solution for affordability. Rent stabilization is a powerful anti-displacement policy, reducing the risk of eviction due to exorbitant rent increases.