I just have to say that the activity and energy spent this year on growth related issues and planning is as much as I’ve ever seen.  The only thing I can compare it to was during the high-growth years of the 90s, when the state code for planning enabling legislation was rewritten to create LUDMA, the Quality Growth Commission was created, and Envision Utah was founded.  It’s being driven I’m certain by our nation-leading growth rate and the crisis in housing affordability.  The latter is very much an issue in much of the country as well, leading to what is broadly being called “zoning reform” – efforts to overcome NIMBYism and allow higher densities and limit or eliminate exclusive single-family residential zoning.

Not only have we had significant changes made in the last couple of years to the requirements for Moderate Income Housing plans and the establishment of a Commission on Housing Affordability, the talk about what else to do is at nearly a fever pitch right now.  Everybody is becoming a planning and land use expert, given what I hear about discussions going on behind the legislative scenes right now, in addition to the overt efforts like the CHA, conferences on the future of the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake, and the discussions being held by the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission (see previous posts).  There’s talk of funding a statewide discussion on growth and planning, of making significant changes to the way land use is regulated at the local level (not quite the zoning reform we’re seeing elsewhere, but close), and establishing significant new state-level growth management policies.

I may have given the impression from some of my previous posts that I am not in favor of some of these efforts, but let me assure you that is not the case – things could use a good shake-up.  What I’m worried about is if we’re going to go through the effort of making these changes, we should do it in a way that would help them to be more successful.  When I see what is being pushed through in places like California and Oregon and now maybe Washington State, without the support of many local officials and citizens, all that effort may go to waste.  Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that NIMBYism is a serious problem, but the evidence of what is happening in these other places indicates that we must be careful about how we implement things.

Here’s an example.  One of the things being discussed extensively in Utah right now behind the scenes is requiring local governments to put in place provisions to allow for more mixed use and higher densities around transit stops – transit-oriented development as we planners call it.  We need to be careful, however, to not engender problems similar to what has cropped up in other places that have tried this.  Here’s an interesting story about the experiences of places like Massachusetts, Atlanta, Chicago and California that have been undertaking similar efforts.  It’s not gone smoothly oftentimes.  Here’s a snippet from the story about California’s moves:

In California, which has arguably the worst housing shortage in the country, some state lawmakers have repeatedly sought to force cities to allow denser housing near transit stops. While statewide efforts to mandate local transit-oriented upzoning have so far failed, some incentive programs at the state and local levels have shown results.

And in Atlanta:

the bills failed to clear the committee amid opposition from many neighborhoods. Homeowner resistance to denser housing often cuts across partisan divides, Farokhi noted. “History has proven that with single-family homeowners across the country, their initial reaction is oftentimes to resist even mild increases in density,” he said.

And in Washington State, where the legislature is currently considering a bill that would essentially eliminate exclusive single-family residential zoning, these comments were made during the bill’s committee hearing this week:

“(Auburn City mayor Nancy Backus) said it will be difficult for cities to overhaul all utility, transportation, housing and capital facility elements to accommodate more density.  Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell said he thinks the bill is too much of a one-size-fits-all approach to solving the “missing middle” problem. He said he believes the bill would undercut local control of Federal Way’s well planned, middle density development.  “I think ultimately this comes down to local control,” Ferrell said, “We ask that you please stop this mandate that offers this limited solution but allows for more local control” and “maintains a city’s ability to determine the best way to address this critical issue.”  https://www.thereflector.com/stories/proposed-law-would-force-cities-to-increase-housing-density-in-single-family-neighborhoods,282988https://www.thereflector.com/stories/proposed-law-would-force-cities-to-increase-housing-density-in-single-family-neighborhoods,282988

In yesterday’s Legislative Policy Committee meeting of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, League executive director Cameron Diehl said of all the land use proposals floating around the legislature right now that we must not do as California did (“we don’t want to be like California!”) where such changes were forced onto the local level by the state, but should instead have state officials work cooperatively with local officials to craft solutions that will have a better chance of being accepted and succeeding.

The talk behind the scenes on growth management right now seems to be considering things, in addition to “required” TODs, like regional “fair share” for affordable housing (see the Mount Laurel New Jersey cases) and tying the awarding of state infrastructure funding to local land use policies (can you say “smart growth?”), and many others.  I’m in complete agreement with Cam, that the best way to accomplish such things would be through cooperative initiatives between all levels of government.