Minneapolis Moratorium on Redevelopment
“Ex post facto law” (Latin for “from after the action” or “after the facts”): also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
[Editor’s Note: see also the follow-up to this post, “Fallout From Minneapolis Moratorium on Redevelopment.“]
I consider myself relatively agnostic when it comes to (re)development (I’m for good projects, against bad), and don’t make a habit of monitoring what’s on the Minneapolis City Council’s docket.
But, judging from a slew of highly charged emails in my in-box this week — and the lack of discussion in the local Realtor community beforehand, at least that I’m aware of — it sure seems like the Council’s action to slap a moratorium on redevelopment last Friday was: a) precipitous; and b) overstepped on the side of squashing redevelopment.
Left in the Lurch
What’s unambiguously clear is that the Minneapolis Council’s action — by a unanimous 13-0 vote — leaves in the lurch lots of Buyers and Sellers in the middle of deals that explicitly or implicitly contemplated tearing down the existing home, and putting up a (much) bigger one.
The subsequent uproar this week suggests some near-term backpedaling.
(Un)Settled Expectations
My recommendation?
Carve out an exception — via a Grandfather clause — for home Buyers and Sellers who were under contract as of last Friday, March 7.
That only seems fair, given the parties’ “settled expectations” at the time they signed their contract — lawyer-ese for, “the parties wouldn’t have done the deal they did if they knew the home/lot couldn’t be redeveloped.”
That may not make the City Council happy.
But, it’s infinitely cheaper and easier than fending off all the litigation surely in the works.
P.S.: Unintended side effects – Exhibit A: guess what a Minneapolis moratorium does to the value of tear-downs in St. Louis Park, Edina, Golden Valley, etc.?
