Finally, in the third of my trilogy on housing for the future generations, just to put an exclamation point on how hard it’s apparently going to be to turn the corner, here’s a couple of recent examples.
First, this from Summit County, which has one of the worst affordability problems in the state (at least around the Park City area). The county council there is struggling with a proposed dedicated affordable housing project, which requires significantly higher density to work. https://www.parkrecord.com/news/summit-county/summit-county-council-conflicted-on-pinebrook-affordable-housing-project/, where a
proposal would construct 22 townhomes on a 1-acre lot that was once used as a tennis court and restrict units to people earning 30%, 60% and 80% annual median income.
The story brings to life the proposition put forward by the authors of the Neighborhood Defenders book (see May 12 blog post) that nimbyism has transformed into defense of community character:
The Summit County Council recognized the efforts of developers hoping to bring 22 units of affordable housing to Pinebrook on Wednesday but questioned if the project will be compatible with the neighborhood.
One of the council members
said he’d received several emails about the project. He has concerns the property may be too dense to be compatible with the neighborhood, and said the project’s “fatal flaw is that it is not integrated into the community.”
“You get people who look at [concentrated affordable housing in one development] and say ‘That’s where the brown people live and I don’t like the brown people.’ That’s why we have a lot of strong consideration for integration. We’re not just warehousing people here. We’re bringing people into our community. That’s the whole idea … this is not it.”
In fairness to the Summit Council, they do seem to be genuinely struggling with this:
County Councilor Glenn Wright indicated he would be in favor of the project, with certain stipulations in the development agreement like environmental mitigation efforts. He said he learned from Summit County Planning Department staff there are 3,500 undeveloped entitlements and 70% of those are expected to be single-family homes, which aren’t likely to offer the same level of affordable housing.
“We are not going to be able to build affordable housing unless we build it dense. This type of project is the only thing that is affordable, that can be built affordably in our county,” Wright said.
But the pressure from the neighborhood residents makes it really hard for elected officials to move in that direction. The project is still under consideration.
The second example comes from Washington City. https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/06/10/tsb-parking-availability-at-proposed-200-unit-housing-complex-in-washington-city-sparks-debate-with-developer/#.YqgDtS1OKf1
One of the bigger elements affecting the affordability of housing projects is parking requirements. Often the standards in local ordinances are higher than they need to be. The Washington City Council there recently considered a
proposed 200-unit project by Wasatch Acquisitions — named “The Ash” — planned for the northeast corner of Bella Vista Drive and Desert Cactus Drive. “The Ash” will consist of 168 apartment units and 32 townhome units. The apartments will have one-, two- and three-bedroom options and the townhomes four, two-story units per plex.
The debate revolved around parking. A council member
began the debate by saying Wasatch Acquisitions’ plan lacks sufficient parking spaces allocated per housing unit. He outlined the larger problem Washington City has faced where private housing residents fill their garages with storage items, boats or RVs, leading them to park their cars on city roads to avoid private road ticketing.
The alarming part for me in this example is how local officials sometimes go beyond what may even be legally required.
Responding to (the council person), the applicant explained the 348 parking spots in the proposal already meet and go above the city code requirement of 335 parking stalls, but (the councilor) maintained his position that there still needed to be more parking spaces for private residents.
This is the kind of stuff that gets local governments in trouble with the state legislature. In the end, the applicant caved in and agreed to additional parking.
I apologize for picking on these two communities to make my point..Unfortunately, stories like this are not uncommon. There are many others out there. Wither the future of affordable housing?