Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing Lihtc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate spotlights senior renters harmed by rising LIHTC rents; committee lays over Abler measure
Summary
Senate File 16‑52, introduced by Senator John Abler, drew emotional testimony from seniors in tax‑credit housing who said rents have outpaced Social Security and left many paying 70–80% of income for housing; the committee laid the bill over and members discussed supply, federal LIHTC rules and alternative state actions.
Senate File 16‑52, a proposal from Senator John Abler addressing rent increases in senior-designated Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties, prompted extended testimony from affected tenants and a split reaction from industry and tenants’ advocates. The Housing and Homelessness Prevention Committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus measure.
Senator Abler framed the bill as a response to seniors in tax‑subsidized properties who say annual rent increases have outpaced Social Security cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLA), leaving some tenants paying large shares of monthly income on rent. Multiple tenants testified about rent increases they called unaffordable and detailed fees they said developers impose.
Janet Bragleman (testifying as a resident at River North Apartments) told the committee, “I am paying 73% of my income,” and described a multi‑year pattern of rent increases that, she said, exceeded Social Security COLA in several years. Dawn Cortes described moving because of rent increases and urged continued legislative attention. Michael Dahl, public policy director for Home Line, a statewide tenant advocacy organization, said the current federal/state LIHTC implementation and area median income (AMI) calculations can allow rents to rise faster than tenant incomes and urged measures that would stabilize rents in subsidized properties.
Industry testimony opposed the proposal. Cecil Smith, president and CEO of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, said MHA “respectfully raise[s] opposition” to the bill and warned that the proposed regulatory approach risks reduced investment and lower production of senior affordable housing. Smith summarized economic arguments against rent‑control approaches and recommended alternatives such as supplemental rental assistance.
Minnesota Housing staff explained technical constraints: Dan Kitzberger said the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates AMI regionally each year and Minnesota’s qualified allocation plan and compliance manual implement federal LIHTC rules at the state level. Committee members pressed on whether the proposal would apply retroactively and how many properties would be affected; witnesses and members said the bill addresses a narrow slice of LIHTC senior properties but acknowledged the broader supply challenge.
Senators on both sides described the problem as serious and long‑term. Several committee members said they were sympathetic to tenants’ testimony but warned that strict state limits on rent increases for LIHTC properties could reduce financing and new production — a concern highlighted by the Saint Paul experience with citywide rent control.
Senator Abler said the bill is intended to provoke a policy conversation and called for greater “conscience” among owners, while other members emphasized the need for longer‑term supply‑side solutions and federal coordination.
Ending note: The committee laid Senate File 16‑52 over for possible inclusion in the omnibus; members asked for more detailed counts of affected properties and for further discussion of statutory constraints tied to federal LIHTC rules.
