So reference back to yesterday’s post about SB262 for background. In the hearing yesterday afternoon, there was considerable discussion about mandatory general plan consistency. As I’ve noted in that and previous blog postings, Utah is a state where general plans are considered to be advisory, and do not mandate consistency. Nathan Blackburn in his Oklahoma Law Review article outlines this well, and describes what consistency vs. advisory means and how it works. The issue of making Utah a consistency state has been discussed for nearly two years now by the LUTF, the CHA, and the UEOC. This is one of the items on which there has not been any consensus reached.
In yesterday’s committee hearing, Sen. Fillmore, who is a co-chair of the CHA, acknowledged that agreement had not been reached on the consistency vs. advisory issue, but that he felt strongly enough about it to present a bill that would propose making the change. That was clearly a statement of his intent in including the term “by ordinance” into the definition of “general plan” in LUDMA. Now I’m not so sure that just doing this would make Utah a mandatory state, but that’s another discussion for another time. The bottom line is, that’s his intent, and there were those who spoke in favor of it, notably Chris Gamvroulas of Ivory Development and Steve Waldrip, the Governor’s Housing advisor. Cameron Diehl of the League spoke against, mainly because of the unintended disruption this could cause to the entire practice of land use planning and administration, and that time should be taken to really understand this. If you’re interested in watching this discussion, this is a link to the committee hearing, press on the button under the video for SB262 to get you right to that discussion.
For me, as a planner, I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of switching Utah to be a mandatory consistency state, but I think it’s going to take some thought and consideration up front before we jump into it. The Oklahoma Law Review article referenced above makes some of that apparent, as do these two Zoning Practice publications from APA – The Consistency Doctrine in 2008, and then Reconsidering the Role of Consistency in Plan Implementation in 2021. Plenty to think about first!
Planners in general, I think, seem to be open to the idea. I’ve gotten several comments back to that effect already, including the one I’m displaying below from Ralph Becker, former state legislator and Salt Lake City mayor, and a former APA Utah Chapter President and one of the few AICP Fellows in Utah. Here’s what he has to say:
The consistency requirement between plans and local government policy raised in your blog is a great issue raised by a statutory change. Many of us in the planning world have been debating this issue for decades. While not a simple issue, I ask this question for planners: what is the point of all the work done by planners, the public and decision makers (City and County legislative bodies and executive branch) on developing and adopting plans if they do not have the force of law? A resolution is advisory; an ordinance is mandatory. For those who complain that plans looking long-term at a community cannot anticipate every situation in the future, I say then when changes are made that affect the plan the community should review the plan and concurrently amend the plan with whatever other ordinances are created or amended. If we, as planners and the involved public, don’t follow our plans, what is their real value? I’m not suggesting this is an easy issue, and maybe each community should decide whether and in what form to adopt a consistency provision for plans. But to just say plans are advisory undermines the value of planning. – Ralph Becker, FAICP
I’d love to hear from others of you about this issue.