Well, the backlash has finally hit (at least it’s more apparent now), as evidenced by a story last week in the St. George News.  Ivins Mayor Chris Hart expressed strong feelings about restrictions the state legislature has put on local governments’ ability to set design standards for homes and townhouses.

The mayor of Ivins and members of the City Council say their hands have been tied by the Utah Legislature as far as being able to regulate how homes look in their community.

A piece of legislation that passed with little fanfare or opposition in the state legislature in March – HB 406 Land Use, Development, and Management Act Modifications – prohibited cities from making rules on design elements of housing developments such as color, style of roof and exterior or fencing requirements.

Actually, the design restrictions were put in place by the 2021 legislative session – this year’s HB406 only made some minor modifications to those provisions.  Nevertheless, the reaction, though delayed, is getting stronger.

Mayor Hart, who is a developer and a past president of the Utah Homebuilders Association, minces few words.

“I’m a developer. That’s been my 55-year career. And I have got to tell you, I am so offended by what this developer-dominated, real estate-dominated state Legislature has done to the rights of cities,” Hart said. “My question back to them is, ‘So is it worth destroying the character of the communities in this state?’ Their attitude is, ‘Get the hell out of the way. Let a developer come in and build whatever he wants or she wherever they want, and have the city not able to say really very much about it.’”

The specific beef is about design requirements that have long been in place in Ivins.

Ivins has had rules that the exteriors of new homes couldn’t be too bright and should go with the red mountain landscape. Other design requirements, city officials say, have played a role in giving the area its desert/adobe landscape look.

All that is now out the window, and it really troubles Ivins officials.

Groups of vocal residents in both Ivins and nearby Santa Clara have protested what they say are attempts by developers to “destroy” the aesthetic of the two cities.

“You screwed all the cities. You just make life impossible for us as a mayor and city council to try and keep something special about this place,” Hart said, referring to the Legislature. “I think that they’ve betrayed the people of this state in what they’ve done. And the people don’t know it yet, but they’re going to figure it out.”

This, and other measures passed in recent sessions by the legislature, reflect a trend of preemption of local policies and laws by state legislatures around the country.  A piece last week in FiscalNote, a technology provider of global policy and market intelligence, highlights this trend in a number of policy areas, including land use.

A recent example of (preemption) comes from Connecticut. In 2021, state lawmakers passed HB 6107, which changed the state’s zoning for housing laws in an effort to alleviate its housing shortage. One of its key provisions prevents towns from enacting zoning regulations that cap the number of multi-family housing units. Since zoning is one of the most important powers reserved for local governments, this state law had a direct impact on local authority.

The FiscalNote piece describes local preemption thus:

Lately, some state legislatures have been introducing a substantial number of preemption bills aimed at curbing the autonomy of cities and other local governments. In contrast to earlier preemption bills that set minimum standards but allowed communities to establish more restrictive local laws, these bills seek to limit the ability of local authorities to create ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws, effectively creating policy ceilings.

That certainly would include a number of recent actions by our state legislature on land use planning and administration.  Think subdivision process, accessory dwelling units, concentrated animal feeding facilities, residential street design standards, limits on inclusionary zoning, water-wise landscaping, and a number of others.

I’ve written previously about how zoning reform seems to not work well in states where the requirements are imposed on locals from above without collaboration and input from local officials.  While we seem to have done a better job of that in Utah than in most other states, the Ivins blow-up shows that it is not necessarily always the case.

There’s a broader issue to consider in all this preemption as well.

Cities and local governments often serve as laboratories for policy experimentation, enabling innovative approaches to emerging issues. While preemption laws can help create a simpler regulatory environment, opponents say it comes at the cost of stifling policy innovation. Limited in their power to create laws related to local environmental, social, and economic challenges, local governments find it harder to implement creative solutions tailored to their communities’ strengths and needs.

“When legislation is utilized to preempt local control, it impedes our ability to capitalize on the unique qualities that make up each individual community,” John LaMacchia (Michigan Municipal League Director of State and Federal Affairs) says.

We certainly need to find better ways to work together on these, and other, issues.