The 2023 general session of the Utah State Legislature ends tonight at midnight, and as usually happens, there are still a lot of bills left to be dealt with and things to consider. And crazy things happen in these last hours as well. Just read on.
Two stories in today’s Trib deal with a couple of the more controversial – and non-consensus – bills on housing and land use issues.
In the February 24 post, I described a provision that had been included in HB406, one of the major land use bills, that had not been discussed or agreed to by the Land Use Task Force. It was a provision for what was called “local non-historic lots.” The language was eventually removed in subsequent versions of the bill because of the reminder that this bill should honor the process that created its main provisions, but I wondered aloud what anecdotal incident had prompted it. Now we know. A Robert Gehrke piece in today’s Trib describes a situation where a proposal to build a new very large estate in Park City eventually resulted in this legislative proposal. Gehrke wrote,
Toward the end of the legislative session, a few seemingly innocuous sentences were slipped into a bill that would have essentially given Prince carte blanche to demolish the two houses and build his new home as large as he wants and as tall as he wants without the city’s approval. … As of right now, the bill green-lighting Prince’s home has passed the House and is waiting to be heard in the Senate — although the provision may be moved to another piece of legislation. And officials in Park City are fuming.
The provision was indeed removed from the bill, and HB406 – LUDMA Modifications was substituted and passed by the Senate this morning – without the offending provision (other changes in the substitute bill did not result in any major alterations to the original version). Where the “local non-historic lots” provision will show up – well, read on.
The second Trib story has to do with SB271 – Home Ownership Requirements. See the February 21 and 22 posts for the initial descriptions of this bill. Today this bill was placed on the House 3rd Reading calendar, and there is a substitute version of the bill out now, likely to be adopted when the bill comes up for a vote by the House. And as if the bill isn’t controversial enough already (see the Trib story), the substitute bill now also contains – can you guess? – the “local non-historic lots” provision! I have to say, I cannot recall a legislative session where such games have been played with regard to land use provisions. I’m sure there will be substantial opposition to the passage of this bill because of all the things in it – but whether the opposition can be mustered quickly enough as things move so rapidly on the last day – well, we shall see.