Next weekend, everyone associated with the state legislature will be sleeping in late, headed to Hawaii or Mexico, or in a catatonic state.  It’ll all be over.  But, as League Exec Director Cameron Diehl said in last night’s legislative recap email, the last 5 working days of the legislative session are like a month!  So there’s lots to watch for and update on, even over this weekend.  Here are a few things I’ve picked up since Friday about the bills we’re following.

First, this from our fellow planner Todd Draper at Draper City (really?  How appropriate!).  Todd took a close look at the subdivision provisions in the substitute bill for HB406 – LUDMA Modifications https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0406.html, specifically having to do with lot line adjustments.  Todd co-positioned the new language in the bill with the language that remains as is in LUDMA, and came to this conclusion:

So would this mean that any adjustments between property lines that were created by a subdivision plat would no longer be permitted, and any petition for adjustment of the boundary line between Lots, or between a Lot and a parcel must be categorically denied or refused because by definition a subdivision amendment cannot be a lot line adjustment, and by definition a lot line adjustment must comply with requirements of 10-9a-608 which would including meeting the definition of a subdivision amendment, which excludes lot line adjustments? I think they intended to eliminate the platting requirement and instead remove the ability to make adjustments for properties within a subdivision at all. Unless there is something here I am missing.

There are often unintended consequences from legislative changes, particularly when they move along quickly and people don’t get a chance to contemplate and stew over them for a while.  In this case, Todd seems to have picked up one pretty quickly.  Todd showed all his work in the message, I’ll forward it to some of our legal experts and see if he’s got a point.  Please, if any of you out there pick up on anything else, send it along.  Better to get them fixed now before they are enacted!

Next, with regard to the land use referenda process addressed in SB199 – Local Land Use Amendments, here’s an opinion piece written by one of the organizers of the referendum on the redevelopment proposal for the old Cottonwood Mall property in Holladay.  He, expectedly, excoriates the purpose of the bill, saying:

I believe those who serve in public office are generally good. But they don’t always get things right. In my community, elected officials ignored the recommendation of the planning commission, discounted citizen feedback captured in third-party survey work they commissioned, and falsely believed that this was the only developer who would come up with a plan for the old Cottonwood Mall. They unanimously approved the development, which was later overturned by referendum, an overwhelming number of popular votes… .  The housing constraints or affordability issues are not a byproduct of referendums. To suggest otherwise or state that referendums are being weaponized, as McKell does, is ignorant.

These kinds of comments about referenda overlook some of the very obvious flaws in that process.  For a good discussion about these issues, I urge you to take a look at this excellent paper in the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy titled Reconsidering the Use of Direct Democracy in Making Land Use Decisions. Here are a couple of excerpts from that paper:

Electoral processes are not designed to facilitate narrow factual inquiries. Instead, they employ communication channels designed to convey arguments quickly and persuade voters. … the information generated by a hearing before a planning commission differs markedly from the information generated in the often-raucous public debate fostered by elections. Thus, it should come as no surprise that some commentators have roundly condemned the sufficiency of the information available to the electorate, implying that it is of such poor quality as to invalidate any decision based upon it. … the evidence indicates that in some situations the information deficiency in elections is serious.  … Even if sufficiently detailed information is generated about a ballot measure, little control exists over whether that information is accurate or used appropriately. Fact-finding by voters during an election is a rough-and-tumble process in which opinion and fact are not necessarily congruent. Proponents and opponents can take facts out of context, and responses to inaccurate statements may not reach the same audience that heard the initial statement.

This is just some of the excellent discussion to be found in this paper on the referendum process.

Lastly today, there’s a lengthy and detailed story in the DesNews on the background and fallout to SB84 – HTRZ Amendments and it’s very controversial last minute amendment regarding the Dakota Pacific development in Summit County.  A couple of excerpts:

“This horrible assault on local communities’ rights of self-determination is a blemish upon fair, open and transparent government,” said Summit County Council Chairman Roger Armstrong in a statement issued earlier this month, after the bill won legislative approval. “The Utah Legislature should be ashamed.”

However, the bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, is accusing Summit County of being in “violation of state law”’ for not adopting a housing and transit reinvestment zone at Kimball Junction. …

“This is the first time in the history of the Utah State Legislature that it has ‘spot zoned’ a specific property to benefit and enrich a specific developer,” Janna Young, interim county manager, wrote in a staff report to Summit County Council on Wednesday.

The bill has already won legislative approval from both the House and the Senate, and currently awaits Gov. Spencer Cox’s signature or veto. Cox’s office said this week he was still reviewing the bill.

Eric Moxham, one of the founding members for Friends of Responsible Development, said his group is encouraging county officials to “stand up for the citizens, and whether that means litigating with Dakota Pacific or the state, so be it.  If this is how our Legislature is going to operate … we are truly on a slippery slope to hell,” Moxham said. “Whether it be Summit County or any other counties across the state, they’re not going to have any ability to determine what’s best for their individual counties.”

As noted in an earlier post, this is indeed the silly season at the Legislature.  Five more days to go!