The St. Paul City Council's new eviction notice extension sounds compassionate on paper. For landlords, it's another month and a half of unpaid rent with no guarantee of resolution.
On March 25, the St. Paul City Council voted unanimously to extend the pre-eviction notice period from 14 days — already set to expand to 30 — all the way to 60 days. The measure is framed as a lifeline for tenants facing housing instability in the aftermath of Operation Metro Surge. We understand the concern. We genuinely do. No one wants to see families lose their homes.
But good intentions don't pay mortgages. And this ordinance, as well-meaning as it may be, does not solve the underlying problem. It simply pushes it down the road — and stacks the financial burden squarely on the shoulders of property owners who are already operating on tight margins.
Let's be clear about what this ordinance actually does. It does not help tenants pay their rent. It does not create new funding or resources. It does not resolve the financial hardship that residents are facing. All it does is extend the amount of time a landlord must wait before they can even begin the legal eviction process. That's 60 days of unpaid rent before a filing can be made — and then the court process begins on top of that.
For a small landlord with one or two properties, two months of zero income on a unit isn't a policy inconvenience. It can mean missing a mortgage payment, falling behind on property taxes, or being unable to cover maintenance and utilities. The council's vote treated property owners as if they're an unlimited financial buffer. We are not.
Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis got it right when he vetoed a similar ordinance in his city. He argued that giving tenants more time to accumulate unpaid rent doesn't reduce their debt — it grows it. When a tenant finally does face eviction after 60, 90, or 120 days of nonpayment, they are in a far deeper financial hole than they would have been at 14 days. More debt makes it harder to find new housing, not easier. The council's response to this concern was essentially to wave it away, but the math doesn't lie.
The St. Paul Public Housing Authority itself raised a red flag during the debate, noting that extended periods of unpaid rent could jeopardize their federal funding. The council voted 5-2 to include them in the ordinance anyway. When even the city's own public housing agency sees the financial risk in this policy, that should give everyone pause.
We are also concerned about what happens when this ordinance expires at the end of the year. Tenants who have gone 60-plus days without paying rent will owe large sums. Landlords will have lost months of income. And if the underlying economic situation hasn't improved, we'll be right back where we started — except with bigger balances owed and more financial damage done on all sides.
The real solution here is rental assistance funding — direct money that actually closes the gap between what tenants owe and what landlords are owed. That addresses the root of the problem. Extending timelines just means everyone waits longer for a crisis that doesn't go away on its own.
We support policies that help tenants get back on their feet. We want stable, long-term renters as much as anyone. But this ordinance isn't a bridge to stability — it's a delay of the inevitable, paid for by property owners who had no say in the matter.
The council had tools at their disposal. They chose the one that costs landlords the most and solves the least.