The legislative session ended early last night, at about 9:40 pm. I can’t remember the last time it didn’t go until midnight of the last day – kind of amazing when you consider the number of bills that had been filed and were under consideration. A lot of bills didn’t pass, though, which may be explained by the early adjournment.
With regard to the land use bills we’ve been following, there really isn’t much more to update on beyond what has already been covered in all the previous posts from the session. Coming up in the next couple of days, I will list the bills that were passed. I’ll also describe briefly the topics that were addressed in each bill, as some (most notably the LUTF bills) covered multiple issues. As usual, there will be post-session briefings about what happened in the legislative session, and what local governments and planners need to do to come into compliance with the new code sections. A joint session with APA Utah and the ULCT is being planned for noon on April 5, more details to come. We will also be doing a legislative update at the APA Spring Conference in Vernal on May 12. I have been contacted by some planners and former colleagues asking to get info on the legislative bills ASAP, so I may try to set up a small roundtable session in the next week or so for those who are interested to bring lunch, sit down, and go over the bills. Let me know if you’re interested in that.
This has been a most unusual legislative session regarding land use issues, viewed from my years of experience. Every year seems to be unique in its own way, but this year was particularly different. I think in large measure this was because of the heightened attention given to land use matters in relation to the housing affordability crisis of recent years, and because of the nationwide attention being paid to zoning reform and other land use issues. When the National League of Cities and National APA team up together to launch a program to reform land use, and other organizations like the National Association of Realtors and the National Home Builders Association call it out, things are bound to get interesting at the local legislative level. Some good new policy and practices were adopted, though I must say the LUDMA is getting very long and very complex – it’s going to take specialized land use attorneys to oversee understanding and compliance if we keep going down this road.
Still, there were some actions taken or attempted in this year’s legislative session that to me just seemed to go beyond good statewide policy to address growth and land use issues. Most notable were the provisions that were passed regarding a specific development in Summit County, the restriction on regulation of fractional homeownerships, and the attempted passage of special provisions targeted for one well-off homeowner and the owner of a potential quarry. These actions really went farther than most anything I can recall from all the years I’ve been involved with the legislature (since about 1990!). I would express more explicitly my thoughts, but I think I’ll just borrow the closing lines from SL Tribute columnist Robert Gehrke, who in his updated column on SB271, said this:
And, of course, the eagerness (of some legislators) to smash local governments grows even more intense when they are doing it for someone with enormous amounts of money and access to high-priced lobbyists.
Recently, I wrote about how the Legislature slipped language into a bill green-lighting a highly controversial mixed-use development near Kimball Junction for the developer Dakota Pacific — ignoring the concerns raised by county officials and ongoing efforts to try to resolve the issues. There was also legislation pending … that would give the owner of a proposed gravel pit in Parley’s Canyon the right to start ripping up the mountainside, despite the strenuous objections from local and county officials. And this week, I wrote about a bill that would give developers the unprecedented power to issue bonds to finance projects, levy taxes and even condemn property through eminent domain — essentially act like their own little, unelected, unaccountable government.
None of this reflects how our system is supposed to work. In our system of government, people are supposed to be treated the same and play by the same rules — even if you happen to be the richest man in the state. Fortunately, this time, the system worked.
Mostly it worked, I’d say. Many of the examples given showed up as late-session bills and got very little discussion and negotiation. Some passed anyway, some didn’t. With this door now open wider, what will happen in the next session?