(My apologies to Steven Colbert!)
February 6, 2024
I was hoping today to do a brief summary of all the bills we are following on housing/land use in this year’s legislative session, but, as is not uncommon in a packed, fast-moving, time-limited forum, breaking events override. I will still do the bills summary upcoming, but for today I need to focus on what might have been one of the most impactful bills of the session.
According to a piece in yesterday’s Building Salt Lake newsletter, H.B. 306 Residential Housing Amendments may be done for this session. This is the bill that would have set a mandatory minimum lot size of 1/8 acre for “starter homes,” making such homes a permitted use in all residential zones in “urban” communities. The story, Bill to allow construction of starter homes won’t get a hearing in Utah House, quotes bill sponsor Rep. Ray Ward of Bountiful saying:
“I couldn’t scrape up enough support really to be close, so in the end it won’t get a hearing.”
Last week, (the bill) was assigned to the House Political Subdivisions Committee, where Ward said it doesn’t have enough support.
HB306 faced opposition from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, a lobbying group that typically opposes state-level changes to municipal powers. It also failed to win over allies in the House and among other powerful lobbying groups, Ward said.
While the League did oppose it on the basis of co-opting local land use authority, it seemed to me there was more opposition to the bill because of the lack of collaboration and cooperation in crafting the bill. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, Utah has displayed a high degree of collaboration on housing and zoning reform measures, as opposed to other states where the approach has been more top-down mandates which generally result in poor implementation.
Ironically, the APA Utah Chapter Executive Committee just yesterday finalized a position statement regarding HB306, saying essentially that they were not necessarily opposed to the concept of the bill, but that the details need to be discussed and worked through with those who would be expected to implement them. Accomplishing that during the few weeks remaining in the legislative session, alongside all the other housing and land use bills that are jostling for attention, would be difficult at best. Here’s the full text of APA Utah’s statement:
The Utah Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA UT) recognizes that housing is a statewide issue that requires action at both the state and local levels. We support a thoughtful and collaborative approach to finding a solution that considers our communities’ diverse needs.
Before adopting specific standards, further study and discussion are necessary to ensure that any proposed solutions are practical and equitable. We also believe that impact fees should be accessed for providing services to a new home, just like in any other development, to mitigate the impact and help fund the capital cost of the additional public services, infrastructure, or transportation facilities necessitated by, and attributable to, new development.
On a national level, the American Planning Association believes collaboration is key when setting policy and upholds six principles driving its Action Agenda as follows:
- Modernize State Planning Laws
- Reform Local Codes
- Promote Inclusionary Growth
- Remove Barriers to Multifamily Housing
- Turn NIMBY Into YIMBY
- Rethink Finance
In line with these principles, APA UT supports creative statewide solutions to the state’s housing crisis that involve the collaboration of legislators, policy makers, planners, developers, advocates, and residents. Housing is a statewide issue, and we agree with the need for action at the state and local level to address this issue.
APA UT OPPOSES HB306 on the basis of a lack of such collaboration.
Details of potential solutions such as HB306 are a step in the right direction, but should be discussed with all players ahead of time to ensure some level of agreement and collaboration in order to ensure the policies are able to be effectively implemented. APA Utah would support a bill like HB306 if key players were able to to collaborate on the following items before a bill is passed into law for Utah’s planners to successfully implement:
- Definition of Starter HomeIs ⅛ acre a size that will make a difference in what housing products are offered? Will smaller lot sizes result in smaller homes? Do cities have the capacity to service increased density on a per residential unit basis (i.e. water, sewer, utilities)?
- Limits on House SizesWill a limit on starter home sizes be more effective than a regulation on lot size? Will this increase affordability or increase the price per square foot of new housing products?
- Design ConsiderationsWill smaller lots or smaller homes fit into neighborhoods with larger lots and larger homes? Are there any design standards that need to be implemented to foster a good fit or transition between various housing types and sizes? Also, automatically allowing structures in flood zones is problematic.
- “One Size Misfits All”Legislation that would increase moderately priced housing supply should recognize that communities differ in their urban, suburban, and rural context, and that there are also differing contexts within each city. Mechanisms are needed to tailor the provision of housing opportunities to the locations within cities that make the most sense for those opportunities.
- Deed RestrictionsThe cost to implement this bill is not addressed. Who is meant to manage and enforce deed restrictions on an annual basis? Some cities have housing staff and existing administrative processes to review and enforce such mechanisms, but most do not.
- Impact FeesWho will cover the cost of impacts to other services if impact fees are waived? Limiting impact fees limits municipalities’ ability to service new structures. Costs still need to be addressed and will likely be transferred to existing residents or other new developments.
- Additional Study/Discussion NeededAdditional study and discussion needs to be had before specific standards are adopted.
While the overall goal to increase access to purchase property to build the “American Dream” is noble, the solution will only be found in a thoughtful, collaborative approach. For Utah’s planners, May 2024 is not a reasonable timeline to understand the impacts of the proposed changes and enact them into zoning and development codes, especially when cities were not involved in the details and drafting of this bill.
As an association of urban planners, many of who work in local government, we would invite Rep. Ward to discuss his goals and aims for addressing housing affordability and zoning reform, and work with us to craft some meaningful, acceptable changes. Let’s get together!
Finally, I just have to call out the author of the Building Salt Lake piece cited, Taylor Anderson. At the end of his story, he writes:
Another bill in the Senate that was supposedly in line with Ward’s never materialized, and it appears the Legislature is on pace to avoid meaningful policymaking this session around housing creation.
Seriously? Mr. Anderson, have you looked at the other bills that have been introduced so far this legislative session on housing and land use? And none of those are, to you, “meaningful policymaking?”