By Josh Berg
At a moment when Minneapolis and the broader Twin Cities are straining under a historic housing shortage, our policy choices should be guided by a simple North Star: expand access, reduce barriers, and protect civil rights. HF 4144—the bill introduced by Rep. Danny Nadeau—does the opposite. It would impose new location requirements and layers of local gatekeeping on small assisted living and disability residential programs, effectively pushing people with disabilities to the margins of our communities. That’s out of step with federal civil rights law, Minnesota’s Olmstead commitments, and the values the DFL has long championed.
Start with what the bill does. HF 4144 targets assisted living settings with six or fewer residents and licensed residential programs—precisely the scale of community-based homes that help Minnesotans with disabilities live integrated, self-directed lives. The introduced text directs regulators to consider a facility’s proximity to other disability housing and adds separation and notification requirements—what many of us know, in practice, becomes exclusionary spacing and clustering rules. These mechanisms give municipalities additional levers to deter or block disability housing. This is the well-worn playbook of not-in-my-backyard zoning by another name.
That playbook clashes with federal law. The Fair Housing Act prohibits state and local land-use decisions that treat people with disabilities differently or limit where disability housing can be located. HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice have been explicit for decades that spacing requirements, special permits, or other barriers that single out disability group homes are unlawful unless narrowly tailored and justified—something spacing rules almost never are. Minnesota and local governments must also make reasonable accommodations to zoning rules to ensure equal housing access. In other words, civil rights cannot be zoned away.
HF 4144 also conflicts with Minnesota’s ongoing Olmstead obligations—the binding commitment to support people with disabilities in the most integrated community settings possible. Our state’s Olmstead Plan calls for expanding integrated housing options and eliminating unnecessary segregation. Minnesota’s own reporting recognizes that while progress has been made, the shortage of accessible, affordable community placements remains a central barrier. Adding new spacing restrictions and gatekeeping pushes us backward.
For a city like Minneapolis—where they have spent years confronting exclusionary zoning—the contradictions are glaring. Civil rights experts have repeatedly warned that restrictive land-use rules exacerbate housing shortages and disproportionately harm protected groups, including people with disabilities. Policymakers are urged to expand fair housing and reduce barriers, not invent new ones that curtail choice and integration.
Supporters of the bill sometimes frame it as neighborhood compatibility or local input. But history teaches us to be clear-eyed about how those phrases have been weaponized to police who gets to live where—especially when the residents are people with disabilities, people in recovery, or individuals with mental health conditions. Federal guidance is clear: local governments cannot impose special burdens on disability housing that are not applied to comparable households. Equal housing means equal rules.
The timing makes this bill even more troubling. The Twin Cities metro faces a severe housing shortage, particularly for low-income renters and supportive housing. These are exactly the kinds of homes HF 4144 would constrain. Adding red tape for small, community-based homes in the middle of a housing crisis is not responsible governance—it is harmful.
For DFL lawmakers who have coauthored or are considering support for HF 4144, the bill is fundamentally misaligned with stated party values. The DFL platform explicitly opposes discrimination based on disability and affirms housing security and community inclusion. Supporting legislation that empowers municipalities to wall off disability housing undermines those commitments and sends the wrong message to disabled Minnesotans and their families.
The harms here are not abstract. Spacing rules and expanded notification requirements invite organized opposition to homes where people with disabilities live. The predictable outcome is fewer homes in high-opportunity neighborhoods, more concentration in already-burdened areas, and longer waits that keep people in institutions or unsafe settings. These outcomes conflict directly with both the ADA and Minnesota’s Olmstead obligations.
If lawmakers want to improve quality and oversight, there are better paths forward. Minnesota can fund more unannounced inspections without discriminatory siting rules, pay the true cost of care so providers can retain qualified staff, expand rental assistance and capital funding for accessible units, and streamline licensure processes that delay openings. These approaches strengthen accountability without sacrificing civil rights.
For all Minnesotan residents, this debate is a test of values. Our state prides itself on inclusion and on recognizing disability as part of human diversity. HF 4144 would make it easier to say not here to homes that should be welcome on any block where a family can live. We should not codify stigma into law.
Legislators—especially DFL members—should withdraw support for HF 4144 and work collaboratively with disability advocates, housing providers, and civil rights experts to craft solutions that expand access without discrimination. Minnesota can choose integration over exclusion, rights over red tape, and communities that truly include all of us. HF 4144 fails that test.
Josh Berg is Director of Services and Strategic Growth with Accessible Space Inc, and a City Council Member in Elko New Market
Josh Berg is right, and this article deserves to be read alongside what is happening simultaneously inside Minnesota’s Waiver Reimagine process — because the two threats are moving in the same direction at the same time.
While HF 4144 risks restricting where people with disabilities can live in community settings, Minnesota DHS appears to be quietly redefining what self-direction means in ways that would restrict how they live once they get there. For years, Minnesota’s CDCS program has allowed participants — including people with the most complex medical needs — to direct their own Home Care Nursing allocations, hire staff they trust, and build stable care arrangements that keep them out of institutions. DHS is now characterizing those arrangements as non-compliant, moving Home Care Nursing outside participant budgets entirely, and requiring exclusive use of formal agency providers — agencies that, by DHS’s own acknowledgment, largely do not exist for adult clients with complex needs in this state.
CMS published guidance in May 2024 stating explicitly that budget authority in self-directed services “can reduce unmet need and increase flexibility in worker recruiting, in response to workforce shortages.” Minnesota has a severe Home Care Nursing workforce shortage. CMS says that is a reason to expand budget authority. DHS is eliminating it.
The Olmstead obligation Mr. Berg cites doesn’t stop at the front door of a community home. It requires that people with disabilities have the supports necessary to actually remain in those homes. Restricting where homes can be located and eliminating the service flexibility that makes community living viable for the most complex individuals are two sides of the same coin — and both need to be on legislators’ radar right now.