To quote Senate President Stuart Adams from his statement in the October 16 posting, “Wow!”

I start off today’s posting with that quote because, in the entire life of this blog that I’ve been doing for nearly two years now, that October 16 posting has garnered the most reaction.  And it has mostly been negative about the statements quoted.

Those negative reactions have come almost entirely from local officials and staff, who by and large feel like the efforts to address the housing crisis they have been attempting to undertake are being ignored by state officials.  Here’s some samples (I am not including names as I haven’t asked specifically to use these quotes):

From a local elected official:  “Just read about the comments made at UEOC and now my blood is boiling.  What the heck? … it does get frustrating to know that there are thousands of entitled lots that could be built on that aren’t being built on.  Why don’t they work on trying to get property owners who have land that is entitled for homes to build on them instead of forcing cities to zone everything R-M?”

From a mayor (later that same evening): “At COG I asked each city to prepare a letter for their legislators and an invite to do a site tour – they need to see what we are doing.”

From an experienced planner: “It seems that the construction industry is stalling right now due to high material prices, scarcity of materials, scarcity of workers (and what is needed to pay them), what is being charged for homes, and interest rates!  It appears that the jury is still out on whether the build, build, build concept really gets us lower prices.  If supply increases but is still unaffordable, does that solve the problem?  The market is still setting those prices.  Are cities really just the scapegoats in this discussion?”

And then, at his monthly news conference at PBS Utah on Thursday morning, Gov. Cox doubled down.  Among the many issues he talked about, housing affordability was one, and Cox said:

“There are some cities out there that think, ‘Oh, yeah, everyone else, we’re unique. We’re different,’”… “No, you’re not. You’re not unique and you’re not different. You have to find more supply and you have to do it quicker.”

“Every day longer it takes adds to the expense of that house,” he said. “You have to look at the added expense, the requirements that you’re placing on that housing.”

To be fair, I must say that I am aware of some communities that are doing very little to diversify away from a heavy dominance of large-lot, single-family residential zoning.  Among all the negative comments I have received, I did get a few like this one from another experienced planner:  “Cities say they’re doing everything they can, but they’re not.  I see resistance everywhere I go.  It’s being hid in fees and slow process – less resistance in zoning than before, but a lot is still there.”

So the question really maybe should be, is it fair to call out all communities generally, as many are taking the comments of Gov. Cox to be doing? Or would it be better to keep encouraging those who are working on it, and just go after those few that are laggards?

Why are some, maybe many, communities slow to address this issue? The obvious answer is – politics.  Most elected officials respond to the messages they get from their constituents, and as most planners know from sad experience, new development of almost any kind usually draws opposition from a generally small but very vocal group.  For elected officials, this is hard to ignore.  It’s the wiggling laser pointer that’s right in front of them, and they pay attention to it.

When I raise this, I get a reaction from some of my planner colleagues that says, the community is really much larger than that small group, and they’re okay with it, or at the very least aren’t very concerned about it.  That’s who the electeds should be paying attention to.

Case in point, the recently released Utah Guiding our Growth Survey, conducted over the last year by the State Planning Coordinator’s Office and Envision Utah:

60% (of urban Utahns) choose the housing option that allows the most new housing: in centers and TODs, existing neighborhoods, and new greenfield development.

58–59% want to allow more small lots, townhomes, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units. ○ They also want to allow more strip malls, big box stores, and parking lots to be redeveloped into housing.

If that’s the case, then why don’t local elected officials pay attention to those numbers when they are asked to consider new, denser development?  From personal experience, and from the literature, I can say why:  those 60% don’t show up at the meetings when new developments are under consideration.  It’s that vocal, small group that does.  It’s the classic maxim of the squeaky wheel being the one that gets the grease.

Not only that, but those citizens who say they generally favor those other housing options, well, yes, they do, as long as it’s where it’s appropriate – not in their own neighborhood, you know, that’s already set, but elsewhere, that’s where it’s just fine.

I can say I’ve heard that argument numerous times over my career.  And guess what?  It’s just been ratified by a survey published just this September by Qualtrix and Redfin.  The byline under the title of the survey says:

Nearly 80% of respondents to a recent Redfin survey support policies that promote homebuilding. But just one-third of them would feel positive about a large new apartment complex built near their home.

Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather says:

“Personal preferences for things like a quiet neighborhood or old-fashioned charm are often at odds with building new housing. Even though so many Americans believe in building new dense housing in theory, that ideology isn’t strong enough to outweigh their own desires–especially when they don’t stand to directly benefit from the building. That’s why it’s so difficult to overcome community opposition to dense new housing, even during a time when so many Americans believe in the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) movement.”

So.  Who’s got the high ground here?  Gov. Cox?  Yes, to some degree.  Local elected officials?  Yes, they do too, in many (but not all) cases.

I get the Governor’s passion, and it often takes passion in the world of politics to accomplish something.  But sometimes that passion can alienate the very people whose help you need to accomplish what you’re trying to do.  And to those other people, see what’s really going on here and show some political courage and do what needs to be done.  Many of you are.  Keep it up.  This is a complex issue, and it needs careful scrutiny and strategy.