New Bills
Two bills of interest introduced yesterday in the state legislature:
HB227 – Recreational Trails – makes some modifications to the state recreational trails program and administration, most notably the process for dealing with a complaint relating to the trails use and purpose.
HB232 – Utah Lake Authority – we’ve talked about this in previous posts, this is the awaited new bill (last year’s bill was tabled to allow for more discussion and reconsideration). This bill establishes a new specific purpose “regional” entity. It will have lots of planning responsibility, being charged with developing a Utah Lake Management Plan and other related policies. It is to do this in cooperation with other entities that border the lake and/or have impact upon it. It does not have any direct regulatory authority over any of these other entities, but it does over the area it is given jurisdiction for. That area is defined as the legal line of compromise for the lake, which is set at 4,489 ft. above sea level. Most of this area is under the water of Utah Lake, but not all. The authority has direct legal authority over this area to manage, allow for development projects, etc., including land use authority. This would mean that if the much-discussed plans for creating new islands in the lake and building new communities on them were to actually happen, the Authority would have land use jurisdiction over them, not any of the surrounding communities.
Green Lawns
An interesting story in the St. George News about HB95, the bill prohibiting requirements for lawns.
Zoning Reform
To re-emphasize my points made in yesterday’s post about cooperation between levels of government being the best way to move any kind of “zoning reform” forward, here’s a story about how things are going down in Massachusetts, which passed a zoning reform bill last year. Titled Can You Force the Suburbs to Build Apartments? Massachusetts is Trying, it details how rocky going down such a road can be when not everyone is on board:
The Boston suburb of Essex, for example, requires a four-bedroom apartment include six parking spots! “As a developer told us in a forum last week,” he said, “there’s also a concern that as-of-right zoning could have so many restrictions that it ends up being infeasible.” Even well-meaning rules, such as affordability requirements or environmental standards, can put a chokehold on new supply.
More worrisome, perhaps, is the possibility that suburbs can fulfill the mandate by redrawing zoning maps to include existing apartment buildings constructed during a more freewheeling era. According to the planning council, this double-counting could reduce the law’s impact by 75,000 units, nearly 25 percent of the total, especially in places that are already relatively dense and well served by transit—such as the college towns of Cambridge and Somerville. Perversely, this means that those places could sneak through allowing little new housing—while some faraway small towns zone for rapid growth.
Finally, there’s the concern that prosperous suburbs will simply not follow the law—a possibility that a couple of Newton councilors suggested might be easier than abandoning their right to shape future projects. “It remains uncertain what the courts will do if they don’t comply,” said Clark Ziegler of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, which is working with jurisdictions on adapting to the new rules. “It is a mandate. It’s not an opt-in.” But if penalties don’t go beyond loss of grants, the mandate may not legalize apartments in very many suburbs. That, in turn, would funnel pent-up demand into those jurisdictions that do permit new apartments, increasing the burden of compliance.
It ain’t easy being green!