As the mayor of a successful suburban city, I value good data — it helps to develop a community plan and a path to prosperity. As in business, planning community success in a competitive and changing marketplace requires that we in local government understand the demographic and market trends that will affect our cities and the region we're part of.
Two recent commentaries criticized the Metropolitan Council's housing plan with different but equally tired and unproductive perspectives.
Katherine Kersten's ideologically fueled attack — "Do we really want to live like this?," Sept. 27 — is based in a politically potent but false "boogeyman" narrative of the Met Council pushing around local governments like mine in Eagan.
In response, Myron Orfield and Will Stancil paint an equally distorted narrative — "Actually, the Met Council is protecting the status quo," Oct. 4 — of suburban policymakers who need pushing around because of their proclivity to "use their zoning powers" to "effectively ban" housing that is affordable to lower-income families.
Both are wrong, bordering on offensive.
To be sure, I was one of the suburban mayors on the council's Housing Plan Advisory Committee. I'm not 100 percent supportive of every detail in the final housing plan, and I can't speak for all mayors and suburban policymakers in our region. However, Kersten's notion that the housing plan somehow empowers a "strong-arming" Met Council to impose its will on suburban governments is fiction and dangerously devalues the importance of regional planning to a prosperous, vibrant future for our communities.
The planning partnership between the council and local governments is rooted in a common understanding of regional trends. In that partnership, communities like Eagan are indeed autonomous and control local land-use decisions. Nothing in the housing plan allows the council to "impose its will" or "its vision of an ideal community."
Conversely, the suburban colleagues I worked with on this housing plan, and those from across the region, genuinely care about affordability, gaps in their community housing stock and the increasingly diverse needs of all their residents. Orfield's and Stancil's image of suburban leaders caring only about "expensive houses on expansive lots" is an all-too-familiar and easy distraction from the very real challenges policymakers and advocates face when trying to encourage affordability in a dynamic and changing housing market