Apologies for being slow to update what has happened the last couple of days at the legislature on the bills we are watching, I just got buried doing other stuff. But, somewhat belatedly, here goes (and as I type this, a couple of other big bills we’re watching are being debated – more on those next time).
Two interesting media stories about the two Ray Ward bills held and effective killed in committee last week, put an interesting spin on it all. Utah House committee votes against bills looking to expand ADUs, allow homes on smaller lots, and Utah lawmakers say no to ‘preemption,’ halt 2 housing bills aimed at allowing smaller homes, both seemed to take the position that legislators don’t want to go there because they are bowing to the strenuous objections of the local governments, as represented by the League. But another view, which I happen to share, was that these bills were created in a vacuum, without the cooperative discussion and engagement that has been happening on the other big land use and housing bills that have been vetted through the LUTF and the CHA. The press has been characterizing that now as “Utah House eyes a softer approach to get cities to allow more housing density.”
Several committee members expressed their appreciation for the cooperative approach that has taken place for many of the major land use and housing bills, saying this is a more effective way to make things actually happen. The arguments made by the communities also got traction with legislators.
Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, motioned to hold Ward’s bill, saying lawmakers have to be “incredibly careful” not to infringe on cities’ ability to plan for their own growth and maintain existing “quality of life.” She also said it’s important for city leaders to be able to manage what their cities can and can’t handle infrastructure-wise, including water and sewer lines.
While the tone was supportive of local governments, there was also a warning:
Rep. Gay Lynn Bennion, D-Cottonwood Heights, was among those that voted against Ward’s bill — but with a warning that if Utah doesn’t begin to see progress on its housing crisis soon, more drastic measures may be needed. “…it’s time” for Utah to “get this solved within the next year. I’m ready to give it one more year,” she said. “And if we can’t find a way to increase the speed of which we’re developing housing, then I’m going to have to vote for a bill like this.”
Yesterday a couple more of the major land use bills were heard in committee. The big one, quite literally (over 7,000 lines long!) was HB386 – Local Land Use Amendments. The bill has rightfully been called by some an “omnibus” bill, because it covers so many things. The contents of this bill were meticulously crafted through discussions mostly in the LUTF, though the CHA discussed some of this material as well. It was well-received by the committee and passed out favorably on a unanimous vote. Rep. Whyte, the bill sponsor, noted that there were still some technical and procedural changes that were in the works for the bill, which will likely by a substitute when it is on the House floor for action.
The committee also considered and approved HB37 – Utah Housing Amendments. This bill, and another one similar to it – SB262 – Housing Affordability Modifications, detail options for overlay zones that could be adopted by cities and counties to enhance affordability in various ways (increase density, smaller lots and houses, missing middle housing, etc). If a community creates such an overlay zones, it counts positively toward their meeting the goals of the Moderate Income Housing Plans, and may also give them preferential treatment for some types of state funding. The Building Salt Lake newsletter has a good piece about the bill. While these bills were not specifically developed by the LUTF or CHA, the concepts were discussed and it was apparent that something like this would be coming.