[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The study compared it to cities with similar population trends but different rates of new housing approval (Omaha, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City)

They claim it isn't quite that simple apparently:

At a high-level, Minneapolis has been very effective at building housing over the past decade, leading major American Midwestern cities in housing construction per capita over the last five years. This is in spite of a slower population growth (around 1% since 2017) than the other high supply cities such as Columbus and Omaha (both have grown around 2%). Clearly, Minneapolis is doing something right to build homes.

While it may be tempting to attribute this solely to supply-side reforms, there are several complex factors affecting the Minneapolis environment before and after the 2040 Plan’s implementation which make assessing the policy’s impact challenging. Unfortunately, we do not have access to sophisticated econometric research similar to that carried out in Auckland that can effectively control for these factors, isolate the plan's impact, and make specific policy effectiveness claims. As a result, we must consider these local factors when analysing time-series trends and correlations, in order to draw conclusions about the success of reforms.