News & Articles

Few issues have the potential to get people as riled up as zoning issues. Zoning, of course, specifies what types of activities may occur in a given location in a town or city. Some situations are clear-cut and obvious: Zoning, for example, would prevent a slaughterhouse from being built next to a school, or a chemical plant from opening up in a residential neighborhood. Historically, such blatant situations did arise, which is what led to the creation of zoning codes. Today, the controversies that erupt tend to revolve around much smaller issues—but the participants are no less fervent.

I.  Kenwood townhomes
At the Duluth Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 2014, commissioners considered a proposal by Green Capital, LLC, to build six townhomes, with a total of 33 bedrooms, at the corner of Mississippi Avenue and Lyons Street in the Kenwood neighborhood. This particular area, adjacent to the University of Minnesota Duluth campus, is a landscape of short, steep hills with roads running straight up and over them, like roller coasters. There are plenty of handsome houses, big lawns, and well-tended gardens to be seen. One house, across the road from the proposed development, is currently on the market for $400,000.

The homes in the neighborhood are predominantly of a type called “single-family residential,” though only two-thirds of them are actually occupied by single families; the remaining one-third are rentals, primarily for UMD students. There are no townhomes in the area, but under the neighborhood’s zoning, which is R-1 (Residential-Traditional), townhomes are an allowable land use, provided that the Planning Commission grants a special-use permit to the developer.

Neighbors turned out in force to oppose the project. Thirty-two people spoke against it, occasionally applauding each other; Jason Ross, the developer, was the only person in favor. Many people mentioned the extra traffic and parking issues they believed the townhomes would bring. Many mentioned the adverse effect on their property values. Many people accused the developer of only being out to “make money.”  Many worried about trespassing college students. Nearly everybody held up “single-family homes” as symbols of pure goodness, saying that townhomes would cause families to move away. One man broke down in tears as he described how he and his wife wanted to live in a neighborhood where they could teach their kids to ride bikes in the road, which apparently they wouldn’t be able to do if the townhomes were built.  
The neighbors seemed to regard the zoning code as a nuisance. “Is Mr. Ross within the law?” asked one neighbor rhetorically. “Absolutely. But does that mean, because he’s within the law, we’ll just let him go ahead and proceed without regard to the rest of theneighborhood?”

“Because I abut this development, this is a NIMBY project,” said another. “That’s a made-up word from the 20th century meaning Not In My Backyard. Well, it’s next to my backyard, so it’s a NIMBY project.”

This was a moment of rare candor. Most people do not like to admit they are NIMBYs.  A later speaker said, “We’re not here because we don’t want something in our backyard. We’re not here because we’re against progress. We’re here because we care!”

Following the public comments, commissioners decided to table the measure to gather more information. Before it came back for reconsideration, however, the developer withdrew the application. The controversy, for the time being, went away.

Fast-forward nine months. On May 12, 2015, Jason Ross reappeared before the Planning Commission with a fresh proposal. After taking the neighbors’ concerns into account, he said, he had reduced the total number of bedrooms in the townhomes from 33 to 22. He had also reduced the height of the building by one floor and built a screening fence into the plans.

As before, the neighbors packed the room in opposition. This time around, they had an ally: City Councilor Joel Sipress, in whose district the neighborhood is located. Speaking on behalf of the neighbors, Sipress delivered a long explanation as to why commissioners should deny the application.

His main point was that the proposed townhomes would constitute a “random pattern of development” in a neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. Random patterns of development are discouraged (but not prohibited) by the city’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2006. Sipress suggested that higher-density developments be concentrated along the busier thoroughfares of the city, so as to leave the “single-family character of the side streets” unscathed.

“I think we all know that there is a tipping point where if the balance between rental and homeownership goes too far, you essentially lose the balanced neighborhood and have a neighborhood become predominantly rentals,” Sipress said. “When we’re looking at an eight-unit, 23 bedroom development on a relatively small piece of land, that’s a level of density that we typically associate more with a small apartment building than we would with townhomes. The bottom line is that if we open the door for this level of density in that neighborhood, it will destabilize the neighborhood and contribute to an exodus of residents to the edge of town, perhaps out of town.”

The audience applauded. One of the neighbors, Al Makinen, approached the microphone. “Being legal or in compliance with each of the various regulations does not, in aggregate, make the project right. With some of the guidelines there’s room for discretion because of density, and if we focus on that issue with density in this project, the project location has adverse impacts. This project is not correct for this location, and the special-use permit should be denied.”

Commissioner Drew Digby had a question for staff. “This does meet the minimum square-foot-per-unit requirement for R-1. Am I correct?”

Senior City Planner Steven Robertson replied, “Yes.”

Digby: And if something fits in the R-1 zone, that wouldn’t be a random pattern of development. Is that correct? It wouldn’t be like putting a commercial unit in an R-1 zone would create a random pattern of development.

Robertson: Commissioner Digby, staff would agree. Our Comprehensive Plan has “shoulds” and “coulds” and goals; our Unified Development Chapter [which addresses zoning] has “you must have this” and “you must have that.”

Digby: So it does meet the requirements within the UDC for R-1 zone.

Robertson: Staff believes so.

Because the new application had a number of technical and engineering issues that still needed to be ironed out (for example, city staff wanted to know how snow removal would be addressed), the Planning Commission decided to take no action on the matter until their next meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 9. Undoubtedly, the room will be packed.

II. Chester Parkway vacation rental

Later in the meeting of May 12, planning commissioners found another item on their agenda that was opposed by neighbors. In this case, it was not townhomes that had the neighborhood upset, but a proposal by one person on Chester Parkway to turn their home into a vacation rental.

Vacation rentals are a relatively new type of business in the city. As currently written in city code, people may rent out dwellings in traditional neighborhoods to visitors for stays of up to 21 days, provided that the dwelling is properly licensed and inspected. The number of vacation rentals has been growing rapidly over the last couple of years, to the point that the city council recently declared a one-year moratorium on new vacation rentals in order to study the issue more fully.

On May 12, however, the moratorium had not yet been instituted. The applicant, Beth Magomolla, told commissioners, “We would like to share this beautiful home as a place of retreat, relaxation, reunion, rejuvenation and reflection. We intend to select good-hearted people who appreciate our quiet, cabin-feeling home. This is not a party house. I will be careful to select the visitors, and closely monitor. I live within a mile from the house, and I will quickly respond to any concerns from the guests or from our neighbors, 24-7.”

City planning staff was recommending approval of the application, but neighbors opposed it. Tony Dierckins, who lived up the street from the property, told commissioners, “It’s a single-family-home neighborhood, and a rental unit is certain to do little if anything but bring our property values down, and make it unattractive to the young couples that might buy these starter homes. We’d like to maintain our property values.” It was a different issue, but the language sounded very familiar.

Dierckins showed commissioners a diagram he had made from Google Maps. “I went around the neighborhood last night with a petition. And what we have here are 22 houses within 350 feet of [the proposed vacation rental]. Four are college rentals, one is currently unoccupied. The 17 remaining homes are all opposed to this becoming a vacation rental, or really any rental of any kind.”

Leon Rohrbaugh, who lived immediately adjacent to the dwelling, had nothing kind to say about it.  “It’s in terrible disrepair. The homeowners have not displayed a great record of property stewardship. I have no reason to believe that the current condition of this property will improve if it becomes a rental property. She lives a mile away, which means that there’s no one to hold accountable when the renters are loud, up late, having bonfires, having parties, and parking in my driveway. And the main thing is my children’s bedrooms face this place. People who rent vacation properties come for Grandma’s, Bluesfest, Reggaefest, Tall Ships. They’re gonna be loud. I don’t [want to have] to find my phone, call Beth, and wait for her to go over and stop a problem, and then try to get my kids back to sleep. I believe a venture like this holds no value for my neighborhood.”


Britt Rohrbaugh, Leon’s wife, agreed. “If there’s a noise complaint and I have to stumble down to my kitchen and turn on my phone and make a phone call, it’s going to be to the police, and it’s not going to be to anyone else. The police first.”

Like the Kenwood townhomes, this issue, too, had attracted a city councilor: Sharla Gardner, who lived in the neighborhood. Councilor Gardner told commissioners how horrible the house looked every time she walked by it with her dog. “It does not appear, on the outside at least, to be in good repair at all. And the garage area is in a very poor state of repair. It was always my understanding that before an interim-use permit is granted, the property needs to pass an inspection and be up to code. And I seriously doubt that this property is up to code.”

Planner Robertson replied, “We do have several inspections [filed] in the city clerk’s office. So they had those inspections done, and have passed them.”

“They have passed the inspections?” Gardner asked skeptically.
“I have an application approved for a Duluth tax permit, a license for bed-and-breakfast, something from the state for lodging inspection on site. I believe I have all the inspections that were required,” said Robertson.

“Okay,” said Gardner, still skeptical. “So perhaps this property is in better repair on the inside than it is on the outside, but I would still hesitate, because of the appearance of the property.”
Commissioner Marc Beeman said, “There is a license that they have. It comes from the building inspection, and they aren’t going to give a license for the rental without the house passing a whole inspection.”


“I understand that,” said Gardner. “My concern is that it does not appear that it would pass an inspection when you look at it from the outside. So it may be all right on the inside, and Mr. Robertson said he believes that he has all the applications, but his answer wasn’t definitive enough to satisfy me.”

Robertson, faced with a city councilor who was apparently unable to accept facts, appeared to get a little flustered. As the meeting proceeded, he dug through his papers and worked on his computer. A few minutes later, he broke into the discussion to say, “The five licenses that we asked for all have been submitted and are complete.”

Mogamolla returned to the microphone to explain that she had been fixing up the interior of the house, and that she planned to fix up the exterior as money allowed. In fact, she had been hoping to use the rental income to do the exterior work. She showed pictures of the interior. To me, the rooms looked neat and clean.

In the end, commissioners tabled the matter until the applicant could provide proof of sufficient off-street parking.

III. A theory about NIMBYs

Listening to the NIMBYs in these cases, it strikes me that there are many parallels between their arguments and the arguments of racists.

First of all, as their comments make clear, single-family homeowners consider themselves to be on a higher moral plane than renters; the very phrase “single-family home” is uttered with reverence, while rental housing is spoken of with disdain and contempt. Single-family homeowners are responsible, quiet and neighborly; renters are loud, inconsiderate, and prone to trespassing.
Kenwood neighbors fear that the proposed townhomes will destroy the fabric of their neighborhood, which may seem to be an overly vehement feeling to have about a building. But, of course, it is not the building they fear, but who will live in it: people of color. I mean renters.

Single-family homeowners believe that rental housing will bring down their property values and endanger their children, just as racists fear the same things about minorities. When discussing the Chester Parkway vacation rental, Leon Rohrbaugh accused the hypothetical future renters of being “loud, up late, having bonfires, having parties, and parking in my driveway,” as well as waking up his children in the middle of the night—all before a single renter had set foot in the place. His wife warned commissioners that she intended to call the police at the first sign of trouble.

Like racists, NIMBYs make snap judgments based on superficial cues alone. Councilor Gardner was convinced that the Chester Parkway house was not meeting safety codes because it looked shabby on the outside. Even when assured by city staff—four times—that all the applicable permits and licenses had been secured, she still had her doubts. Likewise, racists are unable to see past a person’s skin color and imagine that anything of value can exist within.

The human capacity for intolerance and self-righteousness is not limited to matters of race. The admiring rhetoric NIMBYs use to describe themselves, and the exclusionary rhetoric with which they marginalize others, is powered by the same dynamic.

To be clear: I’m not saying that NIMBYs are racists. I’m sure they’re not.