Comparing Outcomes of Regional Government in Portland and the Twin Cities

Two major issues affect large metropolitan areas in the United States: racial inequality and climate change. Planning experts have long argued that regional governments could mitigate these challenges, though their creation is often complex.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Minnesota and Oregon established regional governments for their largest metro areas. The Metropolitan Council serves the Twin Cities, while the Metro operates in the Portland region. These bodies aim to prevent urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and protect central cities from neglect.

Both regions enforce metro growth boundaries and fair-share housing policies. These require municipalities to address affordable housing needs. A study by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota highlights some differences in effectiveness between Portland and the Twin Cities.

Portland’s Metro Council significantly reduced racial inequality and decreased household driving. Residents in Portland drive a third fewer miles annually than those in the Twin Cities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the Twin Cities face increasing racial segregation despite similar policies.

Demographics in both regions are comparable, with about two-thirds of the population being white and low poverty rates. Both areas have seen steady population growth.

Between 2000 and 2020, the Twin Cities’ metro boundary grew twice as fast as Portland’s. Unlike Portland, the Twin Cities struggled to control urban sprawl. The Twin Cities also expanded freeway lane miles 19% more than Portland on a per capita basis.

Portland is more successful in enforcing fair share housing. Lot sizes in its single-family home areas are smaller, and rental housing makes up 38% of all units in Portland’s suburbs, compared to 26% in the Twin Cities. This offers better access to preferred living areas and schools for residents.

Minneapolis and St. Paul suffer from a lack of affordable housing, resulting in distressed neighborhoods that are larger and more numerous than those in Portland. These areas struggle economically and socially.

Portland’s smaller distressed neighborhoods contribute to fewer schools with low test scores. While both metros have the same percentage of white students, the Twin Cities have 189 schools with over 90% nonwhite students. By contrast, Portland has only one such school.

Social distress in the Twin Cities correlates with higher crime rates. Minneapolis has an 83% higher murder rate and a 43% higher violent crime rate than Portland.

Portland’s central city’s growth surpasses that of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The city’s tax base and service provisions benefit from more middle-class growth and businesses.

If the Twin Cities’ Met Council enforced existing laws effectively, it could also achieve racial justice and environmental goals seen in Portland. Regional planning is a crucial achievement, and local leaders in Minnesota must ensure the Twin Cities leverage this legacy effectively.

Myron Orfield is the Earl R. Larson Professor of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law at the University of Minnesota and directs the university’s Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity.