Here’s an interesting news story that shows just how dominant the whole issue of housing and land use still is in our public and political consciousness. After that, I’ll talk about a new bill that just popped out at the start of the session and some of the issues I have with it.
First, a story in Monday’s DesNews about a poll they did on what the most important issues are for registered voters as the legislature gets started. According to the story, far and away the top issue was – drum roll, please – housing affordability!
Concern over affordable housing united voters across all partisan affiliations and age categories. The share selecting it as their sole priority for lawmakers — 32% — was more than double that of the next-ranking topic.
One of the proposals to deal with housing affordability has been, of course, mandating specific zoning provisions for local land use codes, as has been done in other states. This, of course, would have to be done by the legislature. Gov. Cox has spoken out on this within the last year:
Feeling a sense of urgency as young Utahns are priced out of the market, Cox has ratcheted up his rhetoric, promising a “more aggressive” approach to increase supply that could include, as a last resort, preempting local zoning policies.
“I don’t think it’s good policy to preempt local municipalities,” Cox told the Deseret News/KSL Editorial Board in December. “But the worst policy is having starter homes at $550,000 — that’s worse than bad preemption.”
As far a public support for such a move goes, the poll found as much disfavor as support.
Roughly 40% of voters support, and 40% oppose, letting the state override local zoning restrictions, the poll found. Support rose among urban residents and 18-34-year-olds, and fell among suburban residents and those over 65.
Hey, I’m in that over 65 group (and so are many of my friends and neighbors)! How do I feel about state overrides of local land use regulation? Well, I really would prefer it if the locals would on their own see the issues and craft their own approaches to improving housing affordability. But I’m not naïve, and know there are jurisdictions out there that have the attitude of “well, we’re good the way we are, let others deal with it.” Obviously, if everyone had that attitude… . I think most every local entity can do something to support housing affordability. Not doing anything is a cop-out, in my humble opinion. Unfortunately, the stories about those places that are indeed doing nothing are what make their way to state political leaders and then they think, well, we’re going to have to force the issue, for everyone. Sigh!
Likely this will all play out in the current legislative session.
Okay, now to the bill that popped out Monday. It is HB285 – Local Planning and Regulation Impacts on Wildlife Amendments. The bill would require municipalities and counties to consider development impacts on wildlife in the process of considering and adopting general plans and land use regulations.
This bill was not reviewed by the Land Use Task Force. It is one of the (many) bills that now come out as the session gets underway where a legislator has a particular issue about planning they want to address (another one that has come out already is HB239, noted in a previous post). And this one is, to my mind, a confirmation of a fear I expressed last year as other bills were coming out calling for certain issues to be addressed in general plans, like the water element that is now required in all general plans. My fear was that we may well start going down the road of every specific interest group wanting their issue addressed in local general plans.
In this case, it is about wildlife. Now, I’m not opposed to thinking about and planning for wildlife, but this bill would elevate it to one of the top considerations that would need to be made in local general plans and local regulations. The bill also has language that would greatly expand what general plans are required to address. Right at the beginning of the general plan section of the state code, in 10-20-401 (2), the bill would change the language thusly:
The general plan may provide for shall address:
The bill then goes on to provide a long list of various issues the could be addressed in a general plan. This new language would now make those mandatory to be addressed, things such as prosperity, civic activities, aesthetics, recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities; the use of energy conservation and solar and clean energy resources; many others, and,
the impacts of development on wildlife, wildlife movement, and wildlife habitat; and how impacts of development on wildlife, wildlife movement, and wildlife habitat may be mitigated.
In Section 10-20-404, the preparation of the general plan, for the required land use element, the issues to be considered were originally pretty broad. But a couple of sessions ago, a provision was added about planning for water. Okay, well and good, that makes some sense as water is so key, but I feared at the time this may just open up things to eventually get a laundry list of things to be included in the general plan. Well, this bill would now add this provision to the required land use element:
considers how land use categories and land uses will impact hunting opportunities, wildlife habitat connectivity, and wildlife migration corridors.
But even more concerning to me is the language that would be added to 10-20-501, Enactment of Land Use Regulations. The code currently says about enacting regulations, “A legislative body shall ensure that a land use regulation is consistent with the purposes set forth in this chapter.” That’s all it says.
This bill would add this:
In considering and adopting a land use regulation, a legislative body shall, to the extent the legislative body determines advisable, consider:(i)the impacts of development on wildlife, wildlife movement, and wildlife habitat; and (ii)how the impacts of development on wildlife, wildlife movement, and wildlife habitat may be mitigated.
That appears to elevate the consideration of wildlife issues above everything else, which does not appear to be warranted to me. Needless to say, I’ve got issues with this bill. It would really help if legislators would bring their proposed land use bills to the Land Use Task Force ahead of the session for some discussion.
As I’ve already said a couple of times, what else would adopting such a provision open up the general plan and regulations for other “important” special interest provisions? ‘Nough said.