Thread by @alexschief

The Minnesota Supreme Court was extremely stupid to open the door to assessing comprehensive plans based on their "full build-out," seemingly not understanding that a zoning envelope provides for flexibility and does not prescribe maximum use.

However—

—the Appellate Court decision today is correct to notice that the District Court order enjoining the Minneapolis 2040 plan and reinstating the previous comprehensive plan did not make any attempt to verify that the prior plan was better for the environment (it was not).

Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this should re-open the door for the City to challenge the myopic analysis by the fake environmental groups suing to block the plan, something it failed to do the first time.

In such a way, the court *could* back into the correct decision.

Whether or not that's the case, it doesn't change the fact that the judiciary has made a hash of what should've been a straightforward case.

The #mnleg should fix the issue this spring by exempting comp plans from MERA, or clarifying that environmental impacts are regional.

Let me add—so often there is a presumption that any kind of change needs to be closely scrutinized, while the status quo is assumed to faultless and not worth analyzing.

I do want to stop and appreciate a judicial decision that spotted this error and insisted it be remedied.