So if state officials have been reluctant to approach big-picture growth issues with statewide policies, as I noted in the previous post, does that mean they won’t in the future either?  The much discussed Utah Lake Authority is just the latest example of this tactic.

The big issue in growth talked about for the last few years as been housing affordability, here and in other states (and even in other first world countries). Will our state legislature consider statewide policies and mandates for local officials to abide by?  Something more than advisories and recommendations?  This certainly seems to have been the case in other states, as places like California and Oregon have adopted requirements for local zoning standards, ranging from TOD allowances to prohibition of single-family zoning.

We’ve already started down that path here, as evidenced by requirements for beefed up moderate income housing plans (not just advisory any more, with likely more to come), mandates for accessory dwelling units, and limitations on residential design standards.  Will things go even further in the upcoming legislative session?  It looks very possible.

These statewide mandates are often triggered because local jurisdictions are judged to not be adequately dealing with these affordability issues. Frequently it seems that any such attempts by city and county officials are cut short because of strong NIMBY reactions.  But these same local officials are generally heard to say that these local growth and land use policies are best dealt with at the local level.  I’m not sure that for some of these really tough problems that that is necessarily true. It can be very challenging to deal with self-interested citizens, particularly when the understanding of what the real issues are is so limited. Local officials don’t really have the time, budget, or ability to carry out such “education” and discussion.

Some state officials have suggested that it might be beneficial to have statewide policies put in place to, in effect, “give cover” to local policy makers, providing the justification that the state is requiring it and locals have no choice.  League of Cities leaders have said, however, that locals are not asking for cover.  But that is exactly what I heard one councilmember say in the recent session on this topic at the Utah Land Use Law conference, so…

The bigger question may ultimately be not who should be adopting and implementing these new policies, but has enough consideration gone into them beforehand?  There’s some recent research out there on the effectiveness of statewide growth policies. More on that upcoming in a future post.