HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-11 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
VIRTUAL MEETING
MARCH 11, 2021
Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021.
Public may access the Webex meeting:
Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110
Meeting Number (Access Code): 133 591 9673
1.Call to Order: 6:30 PM
2.Approval of Agenda
Motion to Approve Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 11, 2021
3.Approval of Minutes
Motion to Approve the February 11, 2021 Regular and Work Session Meeting Minutes
4.Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold
public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters.
5.Planning Items
a.None.
6.Discussion Items
a.None.
7.Adjournment
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
VIRTUAL MEETING
MARCH 11, 2021
Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021.
Public may access the Webex meeting:
Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110
Meeting Number (Access Code): 177 868 5198
Joint Planning and Housing Commission Work Session
Following Adjournment of Regular Planning Commission Meeting
1. Brooklyn Center Housing Presentation and Discussion – cont.
a. Speakers: Meg Beekman (City of Brooklyn Center Community Development Director),
Jason Aarsvold (Ehlers Public Finance)
2. Adjournment
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 11, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Omari at 6:42 p.m. The meeting
was conducted via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL OF THE YEAR 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair Peter Omari, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones.
Commissioner Alfreda Daniels was absent and excused. Commissioner Kellie Hmong was absent
and unexcused. Commissioner Jack MacMillan was absent (resigned).
City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, Community Development Director Meg
Beekman and Associate Planner Olivia Boerschinger were also present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 11, 2021
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the
agenda for the February 11, 2021 meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 12, 2020
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the
minutes of the November 12, 2020 Regular meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0.
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve the
minutes of the November 12, 2020 Work Session meeting as presented. The motion passed 4-0.
5. OFFICIAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the
2020 Planning Commission. The motion passed 4-0.
6. ROLL CALL OF THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioners Peter Omari, Alexander Koenig, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones were present.
7. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON FOR YEAR 2021
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -2- DRAFT
There were self-nominations for Commissioners Omari, Koenig, and Jones. Commissioner Goyah
noted an inability to second a motion and in order to proceed in the election of the 2021
Chairperson, Omari rescinded his self-nomination and seconded Koenig.
There was a motion by Commissioner Omari, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to rescind his
self-nomination and elect Commissioner Koenig as 2021 Planning Commissioner Chairperson.
The motion passed 3-1 (Commissioner Goyah abstained).
8. APPOINTMENT OF 2021 VICE-CHAIR BY CHAIRPERSON
Chair Koenig inquired as to whether there was any interest in a Commissioner serving as the 2021
Vice-Chair. Commissioner Jones indicated an interest. Following a call for any other interest,
Commissioner Jones was appointed as 2021 Vice-Chair by Chair Koenig.
9. CHAIRPERSON’S EXPLANATION
Chair Koenig explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
10. PLANNING ITEMS
-None.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
-None.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
12a) RESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER JOHN (JACK)
MACMILLAN
City Planner and Zoning Administrator McIntosh informed the Commission that
Commissioner Jack MacMillan tendered his resignation from the Planning Commission in
an email on January 31, 2021 after serving for five years. City Planner McIntosh thanked
Commissioner MacMillan for his volunteered time with the City and for working with her
since her own onboarding back in 2017. Chair Koenig followed in noting their time served
together and Commissioner MacMillan’s affinity for the environment when reviewing
cases over the years.
12b) INTRODUCTION OF OLIVIA BOERSCHINGER (CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENER ASSOCIATE PLANNER) AND HARRY DAVIS (BOLTON &
MENK PLANNING CONSULTANT)
City Planner McIntosh noted that she would be going maternity leave in the near immediate
future and due to this, wanted to introduce the Commission to the City’s new Associate
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -3- DRAFT
Planner, Olivia Boerschinger, who previously worked for the City of North St. Paul, and
Harry Davis, who is a Planning Consultant with Bolton & Menk. Bolton & Menk is the
primary consultant on the Becoming Brooklyn Center project, which includes a major
update to the City’s Zoning Code.
City Planner McIntosh also introduced the group to the City’s new Economic Development
Coordinator, Vong Thao, who previously worked for the City of St. Paul.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Goyah, seconded by Commissioner Omari, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:10
p.m.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH HOUSING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 11, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. The meeting was conducted
via Zoom.
ROLL CALL
Planning Commission: Chair Alexander Koenig, Commissioners Peter Omari, Sizi Goyah, and
Stephanie Jones. Commissioners Alfreda Daniels and Kellie Hmong were absent.
Housing Commission: Chair Mark Goodell, Commissioners Kathie Amdahl, Paul Oman and
Lindsay Cremona.
City Staff: City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, Community Development
Director Meg Beekman, Deputy City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards, Deputy Community
Development Director Jesse Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator Vong Thao, and
Associate Planner Olivia Boerschinger.
City Council Liaison Kris Lawrence-Anderson was also present.
BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated Covid-19 has had a significant impact on
jobs and housing. The moratorium on evictions will end, and there is grave concern about what
will happen to residents who have been negatively financially impacted. Other communities are
responding with policies and practices related to housing, including new legally binding units;
preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH); and tenant protections. A multi-
faceted approach addresses all of these categories at the same time.
Ms. Beekman stated some cities are reducing parking requirements and standards, as parking is a
high-cost element of construction. Some actions that address parking requirements are permit
costs and impact fees to lower construction costs; subsidies and financing for multi-family
housing; tenant protections including rent stabilization, legal services, and just cause evictions;
and tax increment financing.
Ms. Beekman stated the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted a Fair Housing Policy with two
categories: housing choice, including current housing stock, current demand and market; and
affordable housing policies to prevent displacement. The City Council adopted a tenant
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -2- DRAFT
protections Ordinance a year ago, which requires revision and expansion. An engagement process
on that effort will begin after City Staff have completed their review.
Jeff Matson, representing the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), provided a review
of the Brooklyn Center Housing Study. Mr. Matson stated CURA is a research center that works
across the University system statewide, with a mission of facilitating and supporting community
engagement. He added he supports data-based projects and community organizer training. He
noted CURA employs non-traditional, shared expertise research models that are community-
centered, using a racial equity framework to create equitable outcomes.
Mr. Matson stated CURA is dedicated to increasing awareness in Brooklyn Center of how future
development can proceed, in terms of affordability, the home ownership gap, and mitigation of
neighborhood gentrification. This is an opportunity to help local stakeholders weigh factors
including housing stability, land development and economic growth.
Mr. Matson stated the partnership between CURA and Brooklyn Center has two phases – a
qualitative analysis phase, including stakeholder interviews and a written report and
recommendations; and a quantitative analysis phase, which will produce a Housing Report. Part
1 of the housing study was completed in fall of 2020 with an analysis of rental housing stock; age
of housing stock; and rental affordability, among other issues. Part 2 of the housing study will
include an analysis in spring 2021 to determine affordability of existing housing stock over the
next decade. The focus will be how to balance the creation of new market-rate rentals with
preserving naturally occurring affordable housing. The analysis will also include an evictions
analysis including trends and evictions by landlord and a review of code violations from absentee
and corporate landlords.
Ms. Beekman reviewed background information in the staff report related to Brooklyn Center’s
rental housing stock, 37% of which is rental, and nearly all of it is considered naturally occurring
affordable housing. All multi-family properties were constructed in the 1960s and are
homogeneous; 3.7% are legally binding affordable, which will increase to 6% when Sonder House
is completed. There has been an increase in Section 8 voucher holders in 2020, which is not
consistent with other communities. A 2016 CURA study showed that communities like Brooklyn
Center are vulnerable to gentrification, which tends to occur where higher income, less diverse
populations move into communities with cheaper housing, and leads to displacement of the
existing population. Gentrification can be a loaded term, but it is important to keep track of new
housing that could lead to displacement of existing residents.
Mr. Matson stated it is unclear what the effects of Covid-19 will be on rents, home prices and
vacancies, but evictions and foreclosures could spike in 2021, particularly among lower income
people of color.
Ms. Beekman stated the City Council reviewed this information and discussed issues around
affordable housing, as well as examining other issues the City is facing, including economic
resiliency, attracting investment, while delivering new development and encouraging naturally
occurring affordable housing.
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -3- DRAFT
Ms. Beekman stated City Staff would like to have another meeting in March to review financing
issues and tax base. She requested feedback and comments from the Commissioners and meeting
attendees.
Chair Koenig thanked Ms. Beekman and Mr. Matson for their presentation, which contained a lot
of complex information but was succinct and painted a very realistic picture of Brooklyn Center’s
current situation. He added he appreciates the clarity of the presentation itself.
Commissioner Omari stated he has previously discussed with Ms. Beekman how the Planning
Commission and its new members can get up to speed quickly, as decisions need to be made that
will be of consequence for many years to come. He stressed the importance of this type of
presentation on homeownership, renters, housing stock and gentrification. He added the Planning
Commission needs to meet again to prove even further. He noted he too appreciated the
presentation.
Housing Commission Chair Mark Goodell stated he appreciates the time and effort that has gone
into the study, and he looks forward to hearing more results and analysis that will result from this
process. He added he is interested in research that has been done in other communities that are in
similar situations, in terms of housing, educational opportunities, systemic racism, incentives and
requirements, and other issues that have impacted housing over the years.
Ms. Beekman agreed these are interesting questions, and the City Council has grappled with them
as well, including what policy and regulatory options can be employed to address displacement
that is a result of gentrification. Community groups like Acer have done extensive research and
engagement to understand these issues and their root causes and have provided recommendations
for how they can be addressed.
Ms. Beekman stated all these issues are driven by the market and are relatively new in the broad
scheme of housing. The intention of the housing study is to create awareness and understanding
that Brooklyn Center is at risk of unintended consequences of development and look at trends from
other communities to create a path forward. This would include encouraging new development in
the community and creating a housing policy that addresses and mitigates unintended
consequences of development.
Jeff Matson stated the housing study plan includes a “literature review”, which studies policies
and practices in communities with similar challenges. He added the communities of Richfield,
Hopkins and Brooklyn Park have been identified, as well as other communities around the country.
This research is being completed by law school students as part of the housing study and will be
included in the final report.
Chair Koenig requested clarification regarding 80% employment. Ms. Beekman stated that is the
percentage of residents who leave the community to work elsewhere.
Chair Koenig asked whether that data is comparable to other communities. Ms. Beekman stated
Brooklyn Center residents have a longer commute than residents in other communities. She added
she is not sure where Brooklyn Center ranks among other communities, as it depends upon the
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -4- DRAFT
number of jobs and specific types of jobs within the community, and whether residents have to
leave the community to find work.
Chair Koenig requested clarification regarding the cost burden of 30%. Mr. Matson stated 24%
of Brooklyn Center renters spend 30% of their household income or more on rent; and over 30%
spend 50% of their household income on rent.
Chair Goodell asked whether impacts of national or state policy on Brooklyn Center incomes and
housing has been considered. Mr. Matson stated that is something to consider as it falls under the
idea of tax burden.
Chair Omari asked whether there are other studies to help prepare the Commissioners for this
study.
Ms. Beekman stated Dr. Lewis has completed many studies in this area. She added the purpose
of the study is to understand the City’s existing housing stock and existing gaps; guide land use
decisions moving forward; and look at policies that recognize gentrification as a market force. She
noted gentrification is an act of investment that occurs in places that have experienced
disinvestment. She noted the study will help guide and develop a policy plan to address the
negative impacts of development.
Commissioner Omari stressed the importance of recognizing and mitigating the negative effects
of gentrification, to ensure that the City’s residents can stay in the community.
Chair Koenig asked whether school and student data plays a role in whether residents choose to
leave the community.
Mr. Matson stated that is a factor in housing decisions, and whether people move into a
community. He added that particular issue is not being considered in this study.
Commissioner Jones asked which community has the highest home ownership gap. She added
Brooklyn Center was noted as the second highest community.
Commissioner Jones asked whether there is data available related to residents who purchase a
home in a city where they have been renting.
Mr. Matson stated he is unsure which community has the highest home ownership gap. He added
Brooklyn Center has the 2nd lowest median income for renter households, and the only City that
has a lower median income is Robbinsdale.
Mr. Matson stated he is not aware of any research that has looked at people purchasing homes in
the community where they have been renting. He added that would fall in the qualitative portion
of the study, during which residents will be asked those types of questions.
Chair Goodell asked whether there is criteria or methodology to determine who will be
interviewed. Mr. Matson stated the researchers have assembled an advisory panel made up of
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -5- DRAFT
current tenants, property owners, landlords, some city staff. He added the group just had their first
meeting, and they plan to provide parameters for who to study and how many people to study. He
noted he is not aware of what the targets are.
Ms. Beekman stated the advisory council met yesterday for the first time. She added the advisory
council is a very diverse group of residents, homeowners, renters and City Staff, as well as
representation from local community groups like Acer and the Lao Association. She added the
group’s next meeting is in two weeks.
Commissioner Oman stated a study of 40 residents, as noted in the materials, does not seem like
it will provide much of a cross-section.
Commissioner Oman asked whether the information would need to be updated when 2020 Census
data becomes available.
Commissioner Oman stated a land trust could be considered as a pool for affordability.
Mr. Matson stated a land trust is a fantastic idea. He added they exist in Minneapolis and St. Paul,
and they do great work. He noted, with regard to the Census, the data released at the City level
will not be available until the study has ended. He noted census data is taken from the American
Communities Survey, which was last updated in December 2020.
Mr. Matson administrative data provided by the City and Hennepin County provides data related
to housing costs, rents, non-census data items, and administrative records that are regularly
updated.
Commissioner Oman requested clarification regarding the survey of 40 people, that indicates 20
people will be surveyed in each of two different time frames. Mr. Matson stated he is unsure but
he would get additional information from Dr. Lewis regarding survey plans.
Ms. Beekman stated she does not believe the number of people to be surveyed has been
determined. She added Dr. Lewis uses a methodology that focuses on specific communities, and
she is very intentional about who is selected and the purpose and reasons for the selections. She
noted it will not be a statistically valid community survey, but probably conversations regarding
research questions focusing on a couple different areas, and that information will be shared back
to the Commissions.
Commissioner Omari asked whether the next work session can be scheduled at tonight’s meeting.
Ms. Beekman stated the Planning Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2021.
Ms. McIntosh stated there are no planning cases coming in and that would be a good date for
another joint meeting. Ms. Beekman agreed, adding a consultant would need to be engaged to
come in and help with the work of the Commissions at a workshop, and she would need to confirm
availability.
PC Minutes
02-11-21 -6- DRAFT
Commissioner Goyah stated he will be very busy over the next few weeks preparing for students
to come back to school. He added the only time he can do is 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Beekman stated confirmed the next joint workshop will be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 11,
2021.
Commissioner Omari thanked the new Planning Commission Chair, Chair Koenig. He added he
brings a lot of experience. He noted he looks forward to meeting the other commissioners.
Chair Koenig asked whether there will be additional joint Work Sessions with the Planning and
Housing Commissions.
Ms. Beekman confirmed City Staff are developing an engagement strategy for moving forward
with the Opportunity Site development and other development issues. She added it might be
convenient to meet as a collective to go over these topics.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Housing Commission Chair Goodell, seconded by Planning Commissioner
Omari, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The
meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Alexander Koenig, Chair
________________
PC 03/11/2021
Page 1
Planning Commission and Housing Commission Joint Work Session Memo
Meeting Date: March 11, 2021
TO: Planning Commission and Housing Commission
FROM: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Housing Presentation and Discussion
Background:
At their February 11 meeting, the Housing Commission and Planning Commission met jointly to discuss
the topic of housing. The agenda included:
• National/Regional Housing Trends Affecting Brooklyn Center
• Responses/Strategies being Employed
• Brooklyn Center Housing and Demographic Data
• Brooklyn Center’s Housing Policy Work Plan
• Housing Study Overview
• Discussion
The memo and presentation from that meeting are attached.
Housing Discussion:
The purpose for the discussion this evening is to follow-up on last month’s discussion with a presentation
from Jason Aarsvold, with Ehlers Public Finance. Jason serves as the City’s financial consultant and reviews
and analyzes development projects on behalf of municipalities all over the region. Jason will cover the
basics of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as well as provide information on how multi-family housing, both
market-rate and affordable, are financed.
The topic of housing is complex and will require ongoing dialogue as we explore this work with the Housing
Study Advisory Taskforce. Staff will bring back updates to the Commissions as the process proceeds over
the next year.
Discussion Questions:
During the presentation, think about the following questions:
• Is there additional information that would be useful to understand this topic area better?
• Are there additional topics related to housing that we didn’t talk about, but that you think would
be helpful for you to feel better prepared to make decisions and recommendations?
• Are there outside subject matter experts that might be able to provide more information or a
different perspective that you feel would be beneficial for the group?
Attachments:
• February 11, 2021, Staff Report
• February 11, 2021, Presentation
________________
PC 02/11/2021
Page 1
Planning Commission and Housing Commission Joint Work Session Memo
Meeting Date: February 11, 2021
TO: Planning Commission and Housing Commission
FROM: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Housing Presentation and Discussion
Background:
In April 2018, the City Council discussed several possible policies to address affordable housing issues.
Based on that discussion, Council directed staff to move forward with a Tenant Protection Ordinance,
and in December 2018, it was adopted. In March 2020, The City Council discussed housing policy as it
centers around two distinct topic areas:
1) Housing choice - What is the composition and condition of the current housing stock? What are
the current market demands for housing? How does the city's housing stock relate to the
market, and does the city have enough and the right type to meet current and future need?
2) Affordable housing policies - What can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to
quality affordable housing for residents? What best practices exist to support an effective
approach to addressing the need for affordable housing in the community? What policies are
most effective to prevent displacement?
At the work session the Council considered a work plan that would take a comprehensive review of the
City’s housing policy approach related to these two distinct topic areas and provided direction to staff.
The work plan included the following action items:
- Adopt a Fair Housing Policy (Complete)
- Conduct a comprehensive housing study (in process)
- Explore a NOAH Preservation program (in process)
- Explore a mixed-income/inclusionary housing policy (in process)
- Review rental licensing thought the lens of tenant protections (in process)
- Single family housing stabilization
Introduction:
Housing and the policy issues related to housing have become some of the most pressing and important
matters facing communities today. For most suburban communities, housing comprises a significant
majority of a cities land use and tax base. Maintaining and preserving a safe, quality, and desirable
housing stock is critical to a community's long-term economic health and resiliency. Further, a diverse
housing stock, which offers a wide range of housing choices and price points, ensures that a community
can be resilient through economic ups and downs as well as provide housing options for a diverse
population throughout their lives.
In addition to maintaining a quality and diverse supply of housing, communities are more and more
becoming focused on concerns regarding livability and accessibility of housing. Over the last several
________________
PC 02/11/2021
Page 2
years, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been experiencing record low vacancy rates. According to
Marquette Advisors’ midyear report from August 2019, the average vacancy rate across the seven-
county metro area was 2.3 percent. The pandemic has driven vacancy rates higher, and by the end of
September 2020, rates in the Twin Cities had risen to 3.6 percent. Still, experts agree that a balanced
rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent.
The effect of low vacancy rates over time is increasing rents, a growing interest from outside investors,
and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out throughout the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, with the average rent increasing nearly 8 percent year over year to a
current unprecedented $1,254 per month. In addition, the Metropolitan Council continues to see a
reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8 vouchers. According to the Metropolitan
Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for their units from non-voucher holders as the
primary reason for the change.
Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors
purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents, making
cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. According to
the
Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent
between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come with a change in policy related to
criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or minimum income requirements, resulting in
existing tenants being displaced from the property.
Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing:
The result of the regional trends described above are being felt in Brooklyn Center. Vacancy rates in the
community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 percent. This is common in
communities with more affordable rental units.
Thirty-seven percent of Brooklyn Center's housing stock is comprised of rental units. Of the City’s single-
family housing, about 8 percent are rental. Nearly 100 percent of the multi-family housing in Brooklyn
Center are one and two bedroom units built between 1961 and 1971, and nearly all of it is naturally
occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Average rents in Brooklyn Center are naturally occurring
affordable because the market rents, based on the age and condition of the units make them affordable
at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. Rents in Brooklyn Center are lower than the regional
average.
According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what are considered affordable
rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area:
Housing is considered affordable when a person making 80 percent area median income (AMI) or less
spends no more than 30 percent of their income on rent or a mortgage. Currently, the AMI for a family
________________
PC 02/11/2021
Page 3
for a family of four in the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Metropolitan Statistical Area is:
AMI 2020
Area Median Income $103,400
80% of Area Median Income $78,500*
60% of Area Median Income $62,040
50% of Area Median Income $51,700
30% of Area Median Income $31,000
*The 80% of Area Median Income limit is capped at the U.S. national median family income
Approximately 90 percent of all of the housing units in Brooklyn Center are NOAH. While NOAH
properties are affordable, they can be at risk of being lost as market demand increases and rents
continue to go up. They can also experience disinvestment over time, causing deterioration, loss of
value, and most importantly poor quality or unsafe living situations if they are not properly inspected
and maintained.
At present 4.1 percent of all units, and 10.9 percent of rental units, are legally binding, or subsidized
affordable units. Subsidized affordable units are housing units that are required to maintain an
affordable rent regardless of shifts in market demand. Due to their financing structure, they also must
be maintained to a certain minimum standard. One of the goals of affordable housing advocates is to
preserve existing
NOAH properties by converting them to legally binding affordable units through NOAH preservation
programs.
With the construction of Sonder Housing, Real Estate Equities will be adding 270 units of legally binding
new affordable housing units to the city. These will be the first new construction multi-family housing
units built in Brooklyn Center since 1979, and will increase the percentage of legally binding affordable
units to 6.6 percent of all units and 17.1 percent of rental units.
The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals 2040 Housing &
Neighborhood Goals:
• Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all
of Brooklyn Center’s residents.
• Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing
demographics.
• Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more
responsive to current and future residents.
• Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper
ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement.
• Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that
promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods.
In addition to these goals, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies implementation strategies as well as
resources and tools for achieving its housing goals. Chapter 4 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan provides
more background information on the City’s housing stock, its housing goals, and how these goals will be
implemented (Attached).
Housing Study:
________________
PC 02/11/2021
Page 4
In November 2020, the City entered into a contract with Dr. Brittany Lewis and the Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs (CURA) with the University of Minnesota to complete a city-wide housing study. The
scope of work is attached to this memo, and includes a dual research approach with both quantitative
and qualitative methods. CURA has recently completed a demographic and housing data analysis which
has been included as an attachment to this memo.
The purpose of the study is to:
• Develop a housing policy plan that addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current
and future housing needs of the community are met.
• Provide stable and affordable housing options for current and future residents while providing a
balance of land uses that support a resilient community.
• Help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could potentially widen
the affordability gap and help to identify ways to mitigate gentrification pressures.
The scope of the study includes:
• Understand existing housing conditions and trends in the City of Brooklyn Center.
• Provide an analysis of the likely impact of forecasted growth on property values and rents with
a focus on the potential for gentrification.
• Survey residents in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand their perspectives on current
housing conditions, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs.
• Complete a best practices literature review and analysis on impacts of major investment on
property values and residential rents (i.e., “opportunity site master plan”).
• Identify strategies and policy initiatives that mitigate displacement and gentrification as
investment occurs.
• Co-facilitate a conversation with the City Council about housing policy, gentrification and the
affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding
• Final report with policy recommendations, and presentation of findings to local leadership.
Dr. Lewis will facilitate an Advisory Council, which will oversee the housing study and provide input on
the qualitative research methodology as well as the final recommendations. CURA has already begun
the data analysis portion of the project. The project is anticipated to wrap up in the fall of 2021.
Housing Discussion:
The purpose of the discussion this evening is to provide an overview of a variety of housing topics as
they relate to Brooklyn Center’s housing. The discussion this evening is a starting point, and will require
further dialogue as the City continues to learn more about what is needed to address housing needs in
the community.
Jeff Matson, with CURA, and Nelima Sitati Munene, with ACER, will present along with staff at this
evening’s work session.
The agenda for the work session:
• National/Regional Housing Trends Affecting Brooklyn Center
• Responses/Strategies being Employed
• Brooklyn Center Housing and Demographic Data
• Brooklyn Center’s Housing Policy Work Plan
• Housing Study Overview
________________
PC 02/11/2021
Page 5
• Discussion
Staff intends to hold a follow-up work session with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission
that covers the basics of tax increment financing and multi-family housing finance.
Discussion Questions:
During the presentation, think about the following questions:
• Is there additional information that would be useful to understand this topic area better?
• Are there additional topics related to housing that we didn’t talk about, but that you think
would be helpful for you to feel better prepared to make decisions and recommendations?
• Are there outside subject matter experts that might be able to provide more information or a
different perspective that you feel would be beneficial for the group?
Attachments:
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4
• Housing Study Scope of Work
• CURA’s Housing Report
CHAPTER 4:
Housing & Neighborhood
Comprehensive Plan 2040
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-1
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future
housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs
communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement
prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing
stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use
includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations
which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use
will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers
neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to
a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against
market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps
the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with
employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the
community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future
residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing
and neighborhood environment.
The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important
information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability,
and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic
data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this
Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing
products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located.
In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes
a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and
neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses
the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and
housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section
of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the
City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is
not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and
consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-2
2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals
»Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and
accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents.
»Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing
with the City’s changing demographics.
»Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and
ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future
residents.
»Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family
neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and
enforcement.
»Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into
redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically
diverse neighborhoods.
* Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-3
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods
The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of
housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although
the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era
that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were
constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the
region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community
where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center,
and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development
can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for
many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its
surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and
developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types.
Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing
types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent
sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center
was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was
concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to
the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists,
the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in
high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-4
The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community
including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a
different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods.
A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows:
Single-Family Residential
Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single-
family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s
single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher
intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway
corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on
a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed
within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents
have views and/or frontage of the river corridor.
The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner-
occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the
demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land
in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s
housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40
years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building
including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity.
Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing
stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and
proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-5
While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a
significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology,
and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence
of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’
expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the
overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and
in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size,
and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice
for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small
families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers.
Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of
a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing
variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size
and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per-
square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the
potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in
the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household
incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in
their homes such as replacing windows or a roof.
Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn
Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market
trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at
the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly
related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different
considerations and challenges
because it is not necessarily physical
growth or changes to homes
and neighborhoods. Instead the
community is challenged with
how to manage larger numbers of
people living within a household
such as growing numbers of multi-
generational households.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-6
Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to
maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the
current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in
the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition
to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that
as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are
changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the
City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents.
The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it
is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of
existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but
also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some
of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational
households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family
neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be
present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used.
Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to
promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout
this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to
help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family
neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single-
family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options,
new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is
common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes,
their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place
for generations to come.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-7
Multi-family Residential
Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential
buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed
in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and
surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old
or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration
and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of
the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated.
There has been some maintenance and
management of the multi-family housing
stock, and a few complexes have even
incorporated modest upgrades to the
interiors. In fact, the City has started one
large-scale rehabilitation of a building
that would bring higher-market rate rental
options to the community once completed.
However, this is one project and despite
these improvements the City’s multi-family
housing stock continues to be one of the
most affordable in the region with some of
the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan
area.
Many of the multi-family areas are near
major corridors and are adjacent to high
intensity uses that do not necessarily
support or serve the residential use with the
current development and land use patterns.
As a result, many of the multi-family areas
do not feel like an incorporated part of
the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in
subsequent sections of this Chapter, the
City is planning for redevelopment in or
adjacent to many of the existing multi-
family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate
and reconnect the existing multi-family
uses into a larger neighborhood context.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-8
Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family
options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing
stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some
of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to
consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock.
Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with
at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with
more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that
were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily
use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces
were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life.
Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable,
accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and
long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely
known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that
is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter
does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods,
it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these
areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the
community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people
feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they
are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle
these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a
part of a neighborhood, and the larger community.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-9
Housing Stock Statistics
The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood
descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description,
provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its
housing stock.
Total Housing Units
According to data from the Metropolitan
Council and the City of Brooklyn Center,
there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn
Center as of 2017. As a fully developed
community, new residential development in
Brooklyn Center has been limited since the
late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan
Council, around 100 new housing units
have been built since 2000 and these homes
were primarily small infill locations or small
redevelopment opportunities.
Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units)
Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in
apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report
in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of
renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of
such structures becomes critically important
to the overall health of the housing supply.
The majority of the apartments were
constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of
the units being constructed between 1966
and 1969. This means that the majority of
the apartments is more than 50 years old,
and that structural deficiencies and major
capital improvements may be required in
the relatively near term in order for the
structures to remain marketable.
11,603 Brooklyn Center
housing units as of February 2017
- Sources: Metropolitan Council
40% of community residents
are renters
- Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-10
Housing Type
Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to
Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in
the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family
detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71
percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached)
and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing.
The type of housing structure can influence not only
affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of
housing structures can provide residents of a community
options that best meet their needs as they shift from one
life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire
multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily
residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site
management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also
provide oversight should an acute health problem occur.
The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes.
This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan
area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in
large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are
included in the Background Report in the Appendix.
Year Built
The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates
to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As
described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World
War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler
architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively
short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn
Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development
pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be
easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods.
However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows,
HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable
to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for
more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods.
71% of housing units are
single-family
- Sources: Metropolitan Council;
US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-11
Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than
40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important
to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can
rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can
be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared
to newer construction.
Table 4-1. Year Built
86% of housing stock is
more than 40 years old
- Sources: US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-12
Housing Affordability
The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending
no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if
their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI).
The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin
Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017
in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of
this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing
is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were
480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was
roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental
housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent
for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area
average of $1,190.
$186,125
2017 median home sale price
in Brooklyn Center
$247,900
2017 median home sale price
in the Metro Area
- Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors,
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-13
Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing
Brooklyn
Center
Broo klyn Park
Columbia
Heights
Crystal
Fridley
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
-
Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value
1/5/2018
.1 in = 0.55 miles
Brooklyn Center
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Streets
Lakes and Rivers
Owner-Occupied Housing
Estimated Market Value, 2016
$243,500 or Less
$243,501 to $350,000
$350,001 to $450,000
Over $450,000
Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset,
2016 estimated market values for taxes payable
in 2017.
Note: Estimated Market Value includes only
homesteaded units with a building on the parcel.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-14
Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment
Total Housing Units1 11,608
Affordability2
Units affordable to households with
income at or below 30% of AMI
Units affordable to households
with income 31% to 50% of AMI
Units affordable to households with income
51% to 80% of AMI
460 4,451 6,029
Tenure3
Ownership Units Rental Units
6,911 4,697
Type1
Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing
Units
8,275 3,333 0 0
Publicly Subsidized Units4
All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units
for people with disabilities
Publicly
subsidized units:
all others
553 22 0 531
Housing Cost Burdened Households5
Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI
1,691 1,406 895
1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and
quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units.
2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from
these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income
data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data.
3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates.
4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016)
5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010-
2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates.
The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the
single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family rental
neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they have significantly less
living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has increased each decade since the
1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the apartment stock, coupled with the average
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-15
number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting the relative affordability of the multi-family
units. The condition in both the single-family and multi-family housing stock is what is known
as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), because the physical characteristics of
the properties are what makes them affordable rather than the affordability being established
through a legally binding contract. Although there is a high rate of affordability for existing
units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for additional affordable units in any new
housing construction added to the community through 2040. This condition would most likely
be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other financing mechanism as new affordable
housing product would be difficult to achieve without some assistance given construction and
land costs. Of the approximately 2,258 projected new housing units, the Metropolitan Council
establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI to
satisfy the regional share of affordable housing.
Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as
naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest
the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018
the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the
median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased
pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including
the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for
new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse
housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written.
Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and
to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing
as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct
monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and
resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community.
A few key existing housing needs can be summarized as the following:
• The need to protect the City’s existing NOAH properties, both owner and renter-
occupied, and to maintain NOAH properties with high-quality living standards.
• More rental units with larger square-footages and increasing number of bedrooms to
meet the needs of the City’s residents that tend to be younger and/or include multi-
generational households.
• The City needs greater diversity within the existing housing stock to accommodate a
wider market including the desire to incorporate market-rate product types that will
supplement the City’s existing affordable housing product types.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-16
KEY DEMOGRAPHICS
Age Profile of the Population
The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods
and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are
presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the
population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000
and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase
in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in
the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of
retail goods and services needed.
The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with
the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With
such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as
of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than
five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background
Report in the Appendix.
Household & Family Type
Changing family and household structures can
also have a profound effect on housing and
other community needs. For example, decreasing
household size has a direct impact on the amount
of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the
presence of children not only impacts local schools
and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be
supported and the nature of housing demanded.
Since 2010, the number of households with children
in both single-parent and married couple households
has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the
trend among households without children, especially
married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the
decline. The percentage of households with children
is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the
rate in the County and the metro area.
32.8 Median age of
Brooklyn Center residents
- Sources: US Census, SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-17
Cost Burdened Households
Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When
lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and
utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for
other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from
the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80
percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend
more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above
the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income
households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened
households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of
older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working.
FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Projected Housing Need
As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the
Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add
approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the
following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030.
Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation
AMI Range Units
At or below 30% AMI 103
31 to 50% AMI 0
51 to 80% AMI 135
Total Units 238
Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council
Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs
The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-18
housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other
chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City
is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the
opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for
existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive
areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the
community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity
in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment,
planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood
sustainability and stability in all areas of the community.
New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and
multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties.
The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing
new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically
on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not
implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy
housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are
no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale
housing as redevelopment takes holds.
One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed
for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this
is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced
as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be
displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as
flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents.
To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined
in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an
ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive,
and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing
affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing
conversations about:
• Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance.
Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-19
their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn
Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a
similar ordinance depending on its outcome.
• The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better
understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand
cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial
disparities, and gaps in the housing stock.
• Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to
residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile
and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance
or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is
aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing.
The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated
as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion
and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following
sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period.
The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing
neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is
achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come.
New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period
Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-20
envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to
accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided
residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the
Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as
shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in Chapter 3, the market will play an important role
in how much redevelopment occurs, but at this time the City is anticipating that a minimum
of 1,276 new units that has the potential to address the affordable housing allocation will be
brought to the market.
Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Households
Future Land
Use Density (DU/A)2021-2030
Est. Acres
2021-2030
Acres
Residential
HH
Transit Orient
Development
31.01-130
DU/A 48 36 1,116
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use
15.01-31
DU/A 12 6 90
Commercial
Mixed Use
10.01 – 25
DU/A 14 7 70
TOTAL ----1,276
Source: Brooklyn Center, SHC
There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for
significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have
the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices.
Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of
housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages
between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following
section discusses these areas further.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-21
Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City
that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment.
While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community,
none have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City
redevelops, the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant
new housing development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is
purposeful because the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94,
and will be served by two transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) and the potential future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open
in 2019 and will mimic the operations of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit
service that will connect residents to the larger region. To best support the C-Line, and future
D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate and re-imagine this central area of the community
as a more livable, walkable, and connected neighborhood within the City. In addition, the
potential for desirable views of Downtown Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller
structures in this area. Any development of this area should also be seen as an opportunity to
support commercial users, improve multi-modal service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and
walkable connections to transit, parks, and other community destinations.
As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to
improve. As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding
to a more economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community.
This would add more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of
both market rate and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally
binding affordable housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes
explore policies such as inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an
appropriate consideration in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current
market conditions. However, in the future if significant increases
in the market occur it may warrant further discussion in the City.
Regardless of the policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive
based) selected, consideration will need to be given to working
with any future developer in a possible partnership with the City
to help deliver affordable units as part of redevelopment. As
described within the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will
continue to explore proper methodology and policies to ensure an
economically diverse housing stock is created as housing continues
to evolve in the community.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-22
Commercial Mixed-Use Areas
The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for
large-scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users.
These areas are generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for
regional and local transit services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to
capitalize on this as an amenity. Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may
provide exceptional opportunities to introduce multi-family uses such as town homes, row
homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater to larger families and incorporate
more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous sections of this Chapter,
the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with more bedrooms
and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to confirm
the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the
potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to
become a consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction
naturally costs more and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs.
It is therefore important, just as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City
evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a range of affordable and market rate opportunities in
new developments.
Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas
The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and
policy-makers desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of
the ways the City can accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include
residential uses, but protect key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a
more vibrant streetscape. The City acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop
with any regularity. Therefore, the number of new housing units expected to come on-line
in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with large contiguous redevelopment acres.
However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another housing style and type, as these
areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans. Instead, these areas are
contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store front or restaurant
for example.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-23
HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS
Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s
identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to assist
communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting point. As
the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with options.
Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Promote a diverse
stock that provides
opportunities for
all income levels
Housing
Demand
Market Study
Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing
demand. This study and report could double as a marketing
and promotional piece about housing opportunities.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HRA/CDA/
EDA
Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and
enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies
to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the
City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and
other program providers.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Site
Assembly
Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density
or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to
developers.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
CDBG and
Demonstration
Account
(LCDA)
Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help
low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation
assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use
to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s
goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/
affordable diversity).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Tax
Abatement
Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals
that provide unit and income-mix within a single project.
The City is particularly interested in projects with market
diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger
market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HOME and
Affordable
Housing
Incentive
Fund
Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and
Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a
diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that
include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of
single-person and families in the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Housing
Bonds
The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects
that include units for large families, particularly in projects
with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be
noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority
and other programs may be more suitable
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Brownfield
Clean-up
In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN
DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance
with planning, assessment, and site clean-up.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
4D for NOAH
Properties
The City will continue use of 4D classification for the
purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Pooled TIF
Funds
Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving
loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single-
family and multi-family NOAH properties.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-24
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Identify ways to
match housing
stock with changing
demographic Housing
Coordinator
Position
The City would create a position that would serve as
a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to
shifting demographics through training and access to city
resources. The position could also serve as a resource
for tenants to connect to support services in the event of
eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues
related to housing access. The position would include
coordinating housing programs, including home ownership
programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the
intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful
home owners.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Referrals
Review and update reference procedures and training for
applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to
refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside
the scope of local services.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Preserve
LIHTC
properties
The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to
find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units
to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents.
The City will approach owners with expiring properties to
discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Explore
opportunities
to improve City
housing policies
and ordinance
to make more
responsive
Expedited
Application
Process
Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize
unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated
housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Fair Housing
Policy
The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into
its ordinances and policies.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Existing
ordinances
The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing
Program, and will periodically review and make
enhancements to support the City’s residents.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Update the
City’s Zoning
to support
new land
uses
The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities
to include high density residential uses in the areas
identified for redevelopment. The City will update its
zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts,
to support the housing needs identified in this Housing
chapter.
<30% AMI
51-80%
Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-25
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Maintain existing
housing stock
in single-family
neighborhoods
through proper
ordinances,
incentives and
enforcement
Foreclosure
Prevention
In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures,
especially in close proximity to one another, can have a
deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be
aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners
at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent
foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Low or No
Cost Home
Loans
Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair
heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve
existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s
Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs
make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if
the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota
Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost
home improvement loans, often with discounted interest
rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services,
through a trained lender network.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Home
Ownership
Program
Work with residents to provide education and programs
to make home ownership possible, particularly converting
existing renters to home owners through supporting down-
payment assistance programs.
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Code
Enforcement
The City will continue to operate a robust code
enforcement program that includes both complaint-based
enforcement and proactive sweeps.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Vacant
Building
Program
The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building
Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the
City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Homes within
Reach
The City will cooperate with Homes Within Reach, but will
not imitate a Community Land Trust independently during
this Planning Period.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Explore
opportunities to
incorporate new
affordable housing
into redevelopment
areas
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance
If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the
extent that policies would not deter investment, the City
could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to
ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new
housing development. Since current market conditions
in the City are well below those of adjacent communities,
an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment.
The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the
market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Livable
Communities
(LCA
and LCA
LCDA-TOD)
Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA
programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided
for high density residential and targeted to households of
all income levels.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Tax
Increment
Financing
(TIF)
To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City
will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and
mixed uses.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Consolidated
RFP Process
- Minnesota
Housing
The City will support developer applications for
the Consolidated RFP Process when a proposed
redevelopment meets the City’s goals stated within this
Plan, and will focus on redevelopment opportunities in the
central core including TOD and Mixed-use areas.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d.
Project Proposal for the Brooklyn Center Housing Study
The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA)
University of Minnesota
& Research in Action (RIA)
Principal Researcher: Dr. Brittany Lewis
The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) connects the resources of the University
of Minnesota with the interests and needs of urban communities and the region for the benefit
of all.
The City of Brooklyn Center is ultimately looking to develop a housing policy plan that
addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the
community are met. The City is seeking to provide stable and affordable housing options for
current and future residents while providing a balance of land uses that support a resilient
community. This housing study aims to help the City become more aware of the ways that future
development could potentially widen the affordability gap and help to identify measures that can
be tracked to mitigate gentrification pressures.1
The City Council of Brooklyn Center is currently grappling with what it should do with
its surplus of underdeveloped land and do it in a manner that does not directly displace or harm
its current community members while also trying to create the most resilient community
possible. The City of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is incredibly homogenous with a majority
of single-family homes built in the pre-1970s that are single level ramblers. The multifamily
rental properties were also built primarily in the pre-1970s with 1- & 2-bedroom units primarily.
Half or more of Brooklyn Center renters are paying more than they can afford in housing. The
City of Brooklyn Center staff reported that a significant number of renters are on month to month
leases. Further, through engagement, renters in the community have reportedly experienced 3 or
4 rent increases a year, and fear retaliation when they file complaints over rental conditions or
issues with maintenance.
The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) and Research in Action (RIA) submits this
proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center to support its efforts to do the following:
• Understand existing housing conditions and trends in the City of Brooklyn Center.
1 At the core of the debate over gentrification are the issue of displacement and the question of who benefits and
who is harmed by the neighborhood changes induced by it. Gentrification describes a specific type of neighborhood
change, that is, the upgrading of previously disinvested neighborhoods. Physical displacement was one of the
defining characteristics of gentrification in its original usage. In Ruth Glass’s study of London published in 1964 in
which she coined the term, she wrote of gentrification as the changing social status of neighborhoods occurring “as
the middle class—or the ‘gentry’—moved into working-class space, taking up residence, opening businesses, and
lobbying for infrastructure improvements.” She adds, “Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes
on rapidly until all or most of the working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district
is changed” (Glass, Ruth. 1964. Introduction: Aspects of change. In Centre for Urban Studies (ed.) London: Aspects
of change, London: MacGibbon and Kee.).
• Provide an analysis of the likely impact of forecasted growth on property values and
rents with focus on the potential for gentrification.
• Survey residents in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand their perspectives on
current housing conditions, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs.
• Complete a best practices literature review and analysis on impacts of major
investment on property values and residential rents (i.e., “opportunity cite master
plan”).Co-facilitate a conversation with the City Council about gentrification and the
affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding (Fall of 2020)
• Final report and presentation of findings to local leadership.
CURA and RIA believe in the power and impact of mixed methodological research. The
goal is to collect qualitative and quantitative data to provide a stronger and more comprehensive
picture of the housing conditions and experiences in the City of Brooklyn Center with tangible
policy and practice recommendations that aim to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification.
The strength of a mixed methods approach is that each method can provide different types of
information and can minimize the limitations of the other method, which is critical in the study
of an elusive and complex process such as the study of housing stability/instability, evictions,
gentrification, and disinvestment.
In addition, RIA believes there is power in defining research questions and in controlling
the production of knowledge. When research is done in communities of color and low-wealth
communities, a power imbalance often exists between researchers and community-based
organizations that must be disrupted. Community-engaged action research values community
knowledge and people’s lived experiences. It reflects meaningful collaboration between
academics, advocates, policymakers, service providers, and impacted communities. It leads to
more robust and holistic data, more effective policy solutions, and stronger community action.
When we use a community-based action research model, community members are not the
subjects of research—they are the co-producers of knowledge. Dr. Brittany Lewis employs an
actionable research model that uses a mixed methodological research approach to: (1) build
community power, (2) assist local grassroots campaigns and local power brokers in reframing the
dominant narrative, and (3) produce community centered public policy solutions that are
winnable. This model relies heavily on the development of reciprocal relationships across sectors
that embrace an open process where the collective develops shared understandings for the
purpose of creating social transformation. This actionable research model embraces a racial
equity framework that asserts that we must: (1) look for solutions that address systemic
inequities, (2) work collaboratively with affected communities, and (3) add solutions that are
commensurate with the cause of inequity.
Quantitative Analysis
Research Approach/Design
CURA will undertake the quantitative analysis portion of the Housing Study using a
variety of data sources and methods relating to the key points of analysis outlined in the
Proposed Scope of Work. This includes completing an inventory of current housing in Brooklyn
Center that focuses on housing type, age and cost. Housing will be classified as either single-
family or multi-family, rental or owner-occupied, and whether it is considered
affordable. Affordability can be either naturally occurring (generally in older multi-family
buildings) or subsidized (usually with income limits related to area median income) and will be
noted as such. Current and historic rents will be examined for affordability and whether change
(increases) in rent differs by housing type or geography. The cost of housing and its relationship
to household income will also be analyzed with attention paid to cost-burdened households
(>30% of income spent on housing) that are both owner-occupied and renter occupied, and the
degree to which housing in the city is affordable to its residents. Particular attention will be paid
to signs of gentrification or involuntary displacement. CURA completed a gentrification study
of suburban Hennepin County in 2019 (using 200-2016 data) and found that all eight census
tracts in Brooklyn Park were vulnerable to gentrification. This study will update that data and
look for additional evidence of neighborhood change.
Expected growth in both the housing market and the city’s population will be compared
to existing housing stock and proposed developments in order to answer the question of whether
gaps in housing types and affordability exist. The potential loss of affordability, especially the
risk of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units being sold, remodeled and upscaled
will also be noted. A key component to this will be an examination of property tax rates and
revenues for both residential and commercial/industrial properties. The disproportionate amount
of revenue generated by existing residential property tax is of concern and efforts will be made to
estimate the increase in development necessary to offset or reduce the burden on current
homeowners and landlords, and to identify land uses which might help achieve this.
In addition, this quantitative analysis will look at and assess what affordability goals and
bands should be put into place around the “opportunity site” helping to identify affordability
policies that the City of Brooklyn Center should adopt. This should also include the use of
CoStar or HousingLink data on the average rents in the area overtime. Acknowledging that there
is a huge gap in housing options in the City of Brooklyn Center and the need to identify the
housing needs now and into the future. This might include a comparative analysis of the amount
of rental housing in the City of Brooklyn Center compared to adjacent communities, looking at
year built, its characteristics, and size. Lastly, the City of Brooklyn Center will make their rental
licensing data available to the quantitative team to analyze. The CURA quantitative team will get
access to a report on rental complaints, inspection reports, landlord rental types, who accepts
section 8, and analysis of a recent landlord survey conducted by the City of Brooklyn Center for
quantitative analysis. This portion of the analysis will also address health-related impacts of
housing. Health can be affected by the age of housing stock (eg. presence of lead paint or
asbestos) and the condition of rental housing (tenant complaints related to unhealthy living
conditions.)
Data Sources:
• Hennepin County parcels - housing type / land use, tenure, year built, property tax
• HousingLink Streams - subsidized housing (AMI limits, senior housing, expiration
date)
• HousingLink Rental Revue - rents asked on new openings (includes single-family
rentals and duplexes)
• CoStar - current and historic rents for 4+ unit properties
• American Community Survey - housing costs, cost-burdened status, household income
• Met Council - population and housing growth forecasts
• City of Brooklyn Center rental license data
Project Outputs:
It is expected that tables, charts, graphs and/or maps will accompany the final report. These will
provide a visual and easy to understand look at housing in Brooklyn Center.
Qualitative Analysis
Goals:
(1) Better understand housing stability/instability and quality of life in the City of
Brooklyn Center by engaging with up to 40 residents for in-depth analysis.
(2) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with
tenants for the purpose of helping to identify the conditions that often lead up to housing
instability and eviction as well as to gain a clearer understanding of these tenants’
housing composition/stability overtime and the various income streams they rely on to
help better inform the development of targeted interventions, needs, and policy
prescriptions.
(3) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with
landlords to learn more about, a) there investment strategies and interests, b) what
policies and procedures they have in place to determine that eviction is the best course of
action for dealing with a tenant (during a regular rental context), b) how they determine
the cost benefit of evicting a tenant and owning rental property more generally speaking,
and c) what practices they employ once that decision is made and whether and why
those practices are employed for certain rental populations to help better inform the
ways that the city can work with landlords as partners in community building and help
the city produce targeted incentives for landlords illustrating positive behaviors. A
recent survey conducted by the City found that landlords during the pandemic were
presently working with tenants on payment plans with 2/3 not planning to evict any
tenants.
(4) Ensure that multiple stakeholders will benefit from this research including, but not
limited to academics, philanthropists, the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, the
Minnesota Multi Housing Association, the courts, tenant advocacy organizations,
landlords and many others. CURA will make concrete policy and program
recommendations for local government, housing practitioners and investors, and tenant
advocacy organizations.
Research Design:
In preparing for the qualitative side of the project, the first step would be to connect with relevant
stakeholders (elected and neighborhood leaders) and those most affected by housing instability
(residents) in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand the landscape. The second step would be
to convene an Advisory Council comprising of tenants, landlords, community organizers,
community-based staff members, and staff members from the city of Brooklyn Center to inform
the interview questions and outreach strategy. These engagements would frame the project and
inform the scope of work, survey and semi-structured interview questions and methodology.
Proposed Timeline:
Fall 2020
• Solidify research partnerships with City of Brooklyn Center
• Finalize research design and fiscal support.
• Submit Institutional Review Board (IRB) application for University of Minnesota
approval (application approving human subject research)
• Begin Quantitative analysis and initial policy analysis.
• Complete a “mini” quantitative report/analysis highlighting the affordability landscape,
development possibilities, and areas for further exploration.
• Begin literature review.
• Complete early engagement process with Brooklyn Center City Council and solidify
community research advisory council and community-based housing partners to establish
collective outreach efforts and identify community interview sites.
• Work with the advisory council to define survey and semi-structured interview
questions and methods for interviews in the Spring of 2021.
Spring 2021
• Complete expansive quantitative analysis.
• Identify and make initial contact with tenants and landlords (20)
• Conduct initial intake of all interviewee(s)
• Begin interviews (complete 20 of 40 interviews)
• Transcribe and analyze simultaneously
• Complete literature review and finalize policy analysis.
Summer 2021
• Complete remaining interviews (20)
• Transcribe and analyze simultaneously
• Meet with advisory council
• Produce a working internal draft of data findings
Fall 2021
• Write and deliver a final quantitative and qualitative based report with data findings
with policy recommendations by October/November 2021
• Meet with advisory council & discuss the dissemination of findings
Project Principal Investigator
Dr. Brittany Lewis
Quantitative Team Members
Jeff Matson, Research Specialist (CURA)
Kyle Malone, Graduate Research Assistant (CURA)
Qualitative Team Members
Dr. Brittany Lewis, Senior Research Associate (CURA)
Dr. Shana Riddick, Junior Research Associate (CURA)
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING STUDY: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS PART I
Brooklyn Center’s Housing Stock
Brooklyn Center has an estimated 11,797 housing units.
Approximately 37 percent of those, about 4,400 units,
are rentals. Of the nearly 7,400 owner-occupied units,
90 percent are single-family homes. The distribution of
residential buildings in the city is displayed in Figure 1,
with tenure type shown in Figure 2.
However, many of those buildings are aging. As Figure 3
shows, more than 90 percent of the residential units in
the city were built more than 40 years ago, compared to
just one percent constructed after 2000. Owner-occu-
pied units skew older, with nearly two-thirds built prior
to 1960. Over three-quarters of renter-occupied hous-
ing was built in the 1960s and 1970s. The distribution of
buildings by age is displayed in Figure 4.
Figure 1. Map of Land Uses in Brooklyn Center
Figure 2. Map of Housing in Brooklyn Center by
Tenure
Figure 3. Age of Brooklyn Center Housing
Figure 4. Map of Housing in Brooklyn Center by
Year Built
Source: Hennepin County
Source: Hennepin County Source: Hennepin County; Brooklyn Center
Source: Hennepin County; Brooklyn Center
The City of Brooklyn Center partnered with the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) in 2020 to collect
qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive picture of current housing conditions, affordability,
residential experiences, preferences, and housing needs in the city, and to provide tangible policy and practice
recommendations that mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification. Below are the initial findings from the first
phase of the quantitative component of the Brooklyn Center Housing Study. The primary objective was to identify
gaps in affordability along with racial disparities in incomes and key housing outcomes. These results will inform
subsequent research and recommendations on promoting affordability in Brooklyn Center.
1
Incomes and Housing Costs
Incomes for both renters and owners have not kept pace
with housing costs, though the problem is more acute
for renters. Figure 5 shows how incomes and housing
costs have changed relative to the year 2000, in 2018
inflation-adjusted dollars. By 2018, the median income
for renter households had fallen by 24 percent, from
$39,701 to $30,060. Over that same span, median rents
increased by eight percent, rising from $930 to $1,008.
The divergence between owner incomes and home
prices, while not nearly as dramatic, was still notable.
Incomes fell 12 percent while the median home value
rose five percent between 2000 and 2018.
Figure 5. Change in Incomes and Housing Costs
Since 2000
A closer look at year-by-year changes in asking rents
in Figure 6 reveals that rents were falling or stagnant
until 2014, after which they began a precipitous upward
climb.* In the span of five years, the median asking rent
rose nearly 14 percent, from $969 to $1,103. This trend
holds for one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments,
which can be seen in Figure 7. The exception is for studio
apartments, where rents rose in tandem with the other
units until 2017, when they fell by over $100, or 14
percent, compared to 2016. The reason for this sudden
drop is not clear, but it may be tied to the completion of
The Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center, a 158-unit affordable
housing development.
However, renters are not the only ones feeling the pinch.
Home prices have increased even more rapidly since the
housing crash. In Brooklyn Center, the median sale price
for a home doubled between 2011 and 2019, jumping
from just under $110,000 to $220,000 in real terms.
Renters thus have greater difficulty becoming homeown-
ers and building wealth while current owners benefit
from appreciation in home values, widening the wealth
gap.
Figure 6. Median Asking Rent, 2000-2020
Figure 7. Median Asking Rent by Number of
Bedrooms, 2011-2019
Source: 2000 US Census; 2009 & 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey
Source: CoStar
Source: CoStar
*Due to sampling differences, CoStar and the Census Bureau
do not list the same median rent. However, the trend of rising
rents and stagnating incomes is the same across both data sets.
2
Lack of Affordable Options
There is a substantial mismatch between available rental
units and what households in Brooklyn Center can af-
ford. Nearly one-quarter of households earn less than
$20,000 per year. At that income, the maximum rent a
household can pay and not be cost-burdened is $500 per
month. By that metric, there were zero affordable apart-
ment units for renter households in that income range in
2020, which can be seen in Figure 8. Another 30 percent
of households earned between $20,000 and $35,000,
but only 11.2 percent of units rented for less than $875,
the maximum affordable rent for that income bracket.
The overwhelming majority of units--61 percent--had
listed rents between $875 and $1,250, the range of af-
fordability for households earning between $35,000 and
$50,000 per year.
The data for Figure 8 includes only market-rate units in
apartments with at least four units. About 21 percent
of Brooklyn Center’s rental housing is income-restricted,
the majority of which is set aside for households earn-
ing no more than 60 percent of the area median income,
or about $62,000 for a family of four. Only 4 percent of
rental units are restricted to those households earning
no more than 30 percent of AMI. These numbers are
presented in Table 1.
Given the dearth of affordable units for low-income rent-
ers, it is little surprise that a significant number of Brook-
lyn Center renters are cost-burdened. More than half of
renter households are paying at least 30 percent of their
monthly incomes toward rent, including nearly one-third
paying at least half, the cutoff for severely cost-burdened.
Both of these numbers exceed the averages for Hen-
nepin County and for the seven-county metropolitan
area. By comparison, only about 22 percent of Brooklyn
Center owners are cost burdened, 8.5 percent severely.
However, these numbers are also both higher than the
county and metrowide averages displayed in Figure 9.
Figure 8. Distribution of Renter Incomes and
Affordable Rental Units
Figure 9. Percentage of Renters and Owners Cost-
Burdened
AFFORDABILITY UNITS PERCENT
Total 915 21.1%
30% AMI 182 4.2%
50% AMI -- --
60% AMI 733 16.9%
80% AMI -- --
Table 1. Affordable Housing Units
Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey; CoStar
Source: HousingLink
Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey
3
Racial Inequities
Brooklyn Center is one of the most diverse communi-
ties in the entire Twin Cities area. Only about 38 per-
cent of its population identifies as non-Hispanic white,
compared to 69 percent of Hennepin County residents.
Conversely, 27 percent of the city’s inhabitants identify
as black or African American and nearly 18 percent as
Asian, both of which are more than double the county
and metro averages. These numbers are presented in
Table 2.
Unfortunately, Brooklyn Center must contend with the
same stark disparities along racial and ethnic lines faced
by other cities. Households headed by non-Hispanic
whites earn significantly more than African-American
or Hispanic households: just under $60,000 compared
to $36,000 and $46,000, respectively. However, Asian-
headed households have the highest median income at
slightly less than $75,000. These numbers are displayed
in Figure 10.
Despite out-earning non-Hispanic whites by a significant
margin, an equal proportion of Asian-headed house-
holds own their homes, about 79 percent. Other de-
mographic groups are disproportionately renters. More
than half of Hispanic-headed households and nearly
three-quarters of African American households must
fork over money to a landlord each month. Given the
importance of homeownership as a means of building
wealth, the racial wealth gap will thus continue to grow.
BROOKLYN
CENTER
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
7-COUNTY
METRO
AREA
Non-Hispanic White 38.3%69.2%73.2%
Black or African
American 27.1%12.9%9.4%
Asian 17.7%7.0%7.4%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 0.3%0.6%0.5%
Some Other Race/Two
or More Races 3.5%3.4%3.2%
Hispanic or Latino,
Any Race 13.3%6.9%6.3%
Table 2. Racial Composition of Select Geographies
Figure 10. Median Household Income in Brooklyn
Center by Race of Householder
Figure 11. Percentage of Renters and Owners by
Race of Householder
Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey
Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey
Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey
Next Steps: Over the next three months, the quantitative team will conduct a literature review to understand the
trade-offs associated with the preservation versus creation of new affordable housing; study the effects of new
construction on rents in neighboring cities; re-run CURA’s gentrification analysis; study the development potential
of underutilized land; and investigate connections between corporate landlords and code violations/evictions.
4
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
HOUSING STUDY AND
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NELIMA SITATI MUNENE, ACER
JEFF MATSON, CENTER FOR URBAN AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
MEG BEEKMAN, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AGENDA
•NATIONAL/REGIONAL HOUSING TRENDS AFFECTING BROOKLYN CENTER
•RESPONSES/STRATEGIES BEING EMPLOYED
•BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
•BROOKLYN CENTER’S HOUSING POLICY WORK PLAN
•HOUSING STUDY OVERVIEW
•DISCUSSION
African Career Education & Resources, Inc
The African Career Education and Resources, Inc. is an issue based organization.
We are experts in developing sustainable policy solutions that address the
concerns impacting community. We are committed to creating access to
education, jobs, health, housing and the means to build wealth.
Our Mission: ACER is the leading issue based community organization working
to uplift and amplify the Africna Diaspora to build power for systemic change
that advances racial and economic equity in communities
Our Vision:A transformed system, free from inequities where African Diaspora
communities can thrive and lead prosperous lives.
ACER’s Housing Work in Brooklyn Center
•Blue Print for Equity in Housing Justice
•City of Brooklyn Center Housing Complaint
•Fair Housing Implementation Committee (FHIC) -Regional Analysis to
impediments to Fair Housing
•Tenant Organizing -Victoria Townhomes
◦Georgetown Townhomes
•Advocating for Equitable Development
◦Opportunity Site
•Sessions with the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission
NATIONAL CRISIS OF
AVAILABILITY &
AFFORDABILITY
National crisis of availability & affordability
•Lack of housing
◦Construction rates not keeping up with
demand
◦Loss of housing
◦Due in some cases to restrictive zoning
◦Due in some cases to lack of developer
interest (where incomes won’t support
rents necessary to provide profits)
◦Increased demand for rental housing
◦Generational, financial, demographic
National crisis of availability & affordability
•Lack of affordable housing
◦New construction at top end of the market
◦Loss of units at the low end of the market
◦Conversion
◦Rent increases
◦“Financialization” of housing and investor
strategies
◦Incomes not keeping pace with rents &
maintenance costs
◦Lack of resources to finance affordable new
construction
National crisis of availability & affordability
•COVID-19 impacts
◦Job & income losses
•Disparate racial impacts
•Unbalanced power structure between tenants and landlords
◦Increased rents (up 8 percent year over year)
◦Increased interest from outside investors in Class B and C rental properties
◦Landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to
◦Reduction in number of landlords accepting Section 8 vouchers
Responses
•Creation of New Legally-binding units
•Preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units
•Tenant protections
Responses
•Reducing regulatory barriers
◦Zoning for affordability
◦Permitting costs
◦Impact fees
•Subsidies
◦Development subsidies
◦Household subsidies
•Tenant protection
◦Rent stabilization, tenant legal services, TOPA, just cause evictions
•Tax breaks and incentives
Strategies –ACER Recommendations
•People Centered Development -Implementing a robust community engagement
framework
•Centering the voices of the most disenfranchised communities and those who are
most impacted. -Tenant organizing, community organizing, engaging businesses.
•Long range visionary planning:
•Implementing Fair Housing Policies.
•Preserving tenants’ rights
•Preserving and continued production of affordable housing
•Building an inclusive city in which every past, present and future resident of Brooklyn
Center can prosper. -implementing an equitable development tool.
•Applying a social and racial justice lens.
Strategies –ACER Recommendations
•Promote Fair Housing policies.
•Advance policies that strengthen and protect tenants’ rights.
•Invest in the preservation and protection of affordable housing. This includes building NOAH
preservation funds.
•Increase family size rental units to meet the needs of families who are renting.
•Advance and strengthen zoning policies that promote development and remove barriers such as
increasing density to serve a growing population.
•The City of Brooklyn Center has the 2nd highest racial home ownership gap in the state of
Minnesota. Pass policies that will support the building of strategies that will increase home
ownership in BIPOC communities and close the inequity gaps.
•The City of Brooklyn Center has grown and changed over time. Develop a comprehensive Housing
Policy Plan that will support the successful future growth and development of Brooklyn Center as a
City.
Brooklyn Center Housing Policy Work Plan
•Housing Choice
◦What is the composition and condition of the current housing stock?
◦What are the current market demands for housing?
◦How does the city's housing stock relate to the market, and does the city have enough and
the right type to meet current and future need?
•Affordable Housing Policies
◦What can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to quality affordable housing for
residents?
◦What best practices exist to support an effective approach to addressing the need for
affordable housing in the community?
◦What policies are most effective to prevent displacement?
Brooklyn Center Housing Policy Work Plan
•Adopt a Fair Housing Policy (Complete)
•Conduct a comprehensive housing study (in process)
•Explore a NOAH Preservation program (in process)
•Explore a mixed-income/inclusionary housing policy (in process)
•Revise rental licensing through the lens of tenant protections (in process)
•Tenant Protection Ordinance
•Single family housing stabilization
BR0OKLYN CENTER
HOUSING STUDY
What is CURA?
State and local
Governments,
Neighborhoods,
nonprofits
Faculty, staff &
students
from all campuses,
colleges, centers
and departments
Traditional Method to Research
CURA’s Approach to Research
CURA’s Research Model Continued...
CURA’s Racial Equity Model
Purpose:
◦Develop a housing policy plan that addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the community are met.
◦Provide stable and affordable housing options for current and future residents while providing a balance of land uses that support a resilient community.
◦Help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could potentially widen the affordability gap and help to identify ways to mitigate gentrification pressures.
◦Opportunity for local stakeholders to help develop a project examining housing stability, land development, and economic growth in Brooklyn Center
Scope of Work:Mixed methods approach & partnership between
CURA and the City of Brooklyn Center
Qualitative Analysis
◦Led by Drs. Brittany Lewis & Shana Riddick
◦Team of Graduate Research Assistants
◦Advisory Council
◦Literature review
◦Stakeholder Interviews
◦Written Report & Recommendations
Quantitative Analysis
◦Led by Jeff Matson & GRA Kyle Malone
◦Housing Report
BR0OKLYN CENTER
QUANTITATIVE
HOUSING STUDY
UPDATE
Scope of Work:A. Part 1 Analysis (Fall 2020)
◦1. Composition of rental housing stock
◦2. Age of housing stock
◦3. Cost of rent, ownership & income trends
◦4. Rental affordability
◦5. Cost burdened households
◦6. Racial disparities in income and home ownership rates
B. Part 2 Analysis (Spring 2021)
◦1. How much affordable is needed, balance between new units and
preservation of existing NOAH housing
◦2. Evictions analysis –trends, evictions by landlord
◦3. Code violations, absentee and corporate landlords
◦4. Gentrification analysis –rerun with 2019 data
◦5. Compare rent trends near new construction in similar cities
◦6. Property tax burden by land use type
Scope of Work:
A. Part 1 Analysis (Fall 2020)
◦1. Composition of rental housing stock
◦2. Age of housing stock
◦3. Cost of rent, ownership & income trends
◦4. Rental affordability
◦5. Cost burdened households
◦6. Racial disparities in income and home ownership rates
B. Part 2 Analysis (Spring 2021)
◦1. How much affordable is needed, balance between new units and preservation of existing NOAH housing
◦2. Evictions analysis –trends, evictions by landlord
◦3. Code violations, absentee and corporate landlords
◦4. Gentrification analysis –rerun with 2019 data
◦5. Compare rent trends near new construction in similar cities
◦6. Property tax burden by land use type
◦7. Development potential of underutilized land
Updated as of 2/3/2021
Most of Brooklyn Center’s Rental Housing
•37% of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is rental
•829 properties and 4,340 units
•Nearly all of it is considered naturally occurring affordable
housing (NOAH)
•All multi-family constructed between 1961-1971 –
homogeneous
•3.7% are legally-binding affordable; this will go to 6% when
Sonder House is completed
•425 Section 8 voucher holders (up from 402 in 2018)
What is Considered Affordable?
•Average rents in Brooklyn Center are affordable to households making 50-60 percent AMI
•Median Household Income in Brooklyn Center is $59,550 (2019)
•71% of regional AMI
•Median Household Income in the region is $83,698 (2019)
Most of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is more than 40 years old
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
e
t
r
o
G
I
S
,
B
r
o
o
k
l
y
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
Incomes have not kept pace with housing costs, particularly for renters
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
0
0
U
S
C
e
n
s
u
s
,
2
0
0
9
&
2
0
1
8
5
-
Y
e
a
r
A
C
S
Rents fell through the early 2000s but have rebounded sharply since 2014
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
S
t
a
r
Home sale prices have doubled since 2011 while rents across all bedroom sizes have risen
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
e
t
r
o
G
I
S
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
S
t
a
r
For renters, there is a substantial shortage of affordable rental units
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
8
5
-
Y
e
a
r
A
C
S
,
2
0
2
0
C
o
S
t
a
r
More than half of Brooklyn Center renters are cost burdened, and nearly one-third severely
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
8
5
-
Y
e
a
r
A
C
S
Brooklyn Center has significant disparities along racial and ethnic lines
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
8
5
-
Y
e
a
r
A
C
S
Non-Hispanic White and Asian households are more likely to own their homes
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
8
5
-
Y
e
a
r
A
C
S
A prior CURA study found that Brooklyn Center was vulnerable to gentrification
Scope of Work:
A. Part 1 Analysis (Fall 2020)
◦1. Composition of rental housing stock
◦2. Age of housing stock
◦3. Cost of rent, ownership & income trends
◦4. Rental affordability
◦5. Cost burdened households
◦6. Racial disparities in income and home ownership rates
B. Part 2 Analysis (Spring 2021)
◦1. How much affordable is needed, balance between new units and preservation of existing NOAH housing
◦2. Evictions analysis –trends, evictions by landlord
◦3. Code violations, absentee and corporate landlords
◦4. Gentrification analysis –rerun with 2019 data
◦5. Compare rent trends near new construction in similar cities
◦6. Property tax burden by land use type
◦7. Development potential of underutilized land
Updated as of 2/3/2021
What to watch for:
•Effect of Covid-19 on rents, home prices, vacancies –too soon to tell, though
evictions and foreclosures are both down in 2020
◦Lack of new federal aid, expiration of eviction moratoria may lead to a spike in
evictions and foreclosures in 2021, particularly among lower income people of
color
•Whether Brooklyn Center’s gentrification risk has changed since 2016 –will
update analysis with most recent (2019) American Community Survey data
•How can the Opportunity Site, redevelopment of other underutilized land
contribute to affordability in a growing Brooklyn Center?
•How should Brooklyn Center think about the trade-off of preserving existing
affordable housing, new development, and the creation of new affordable units?
Discussion
•Future topic: Tax Increment Financing/Multi-family Housing Finance
•Discussion Questions:
◦Is there additional information that would be useful to understand this topic area better?
◦Are there additional topics related to housing that we didn’t talk about, but that you think would be
helpful for you to feel better prepared to make decisions and recommendations?
◦Are there outside subject matter experts that might be able to provide more information or a different
perspective that you feel would be beneficial for the group?
THANK YOU
&
QUESTIONS