So what is going to be the best way to address the issue of housing affordability?  For that matter, what is the best way to address any growth-related issue in our state?  State-level policies? Regional? Local?  Let the market prevail?

I’ve found some interesting research that addresses this topic and maybe presents us with some lessons to learn from, if we will.

I’ve noted in an earlier post that we seem to leave much of land use policy to the local governments, with some regional coordination for mainly transportation.  And when we do run up against some bigger policy issue that needs a broader overview, we take an ad hoc approach at the state level.  This is not unusual, as it appears that a number of other states take a similar approach.  A few have taken on the challenge of developing state-level growth and land use policies, like Oregon, Florida and Maryland.  But is one approach more effective?  Are there other considerations?

In a research project by Jerry Anthony, University of Iowa, titled Do State Growth Management Regulations Reduce Sprawl? he says:

“This paper provides a case study of one of the lesser-known states, Michigan, which is representative of the vast majority of non-growth management states. The study finds that Michigan has been influenced by trends from the better-known areas. This has led to a host of state, regional and local-level initiatives, sometimes wrapped in the language of economic development, aimed at [land use policies]. However, there is little evidence that these initiatives are successful. This is primarily due to the absence of state level mandates for planning, a lack of funding and a strong home rule tradition. The findings are probably repeated in many states across the nation: a proliferation of initiatives (emphasis added), which, with only few exceptions, will not represent best practices.”

This seems to describe Utah pretty well, particularly the part about absence of state level planning, lack of funding, and strong home rule tradition.  Every so often we get into problems that seem difficult to solve without better high-level coordination and even policy and program statements.  See MIDA, Inland Port, Utah Lake, ADUs (partially) and it looks like upcoming, the Great Salt Lake.

This seems to argue for doing a better job of statewide policy setting.  We’ve had such discussions in the past and sort of tried to do something along those lines, with things like the Quality Growth Commission.  And this year, it appears that the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission is becoming the overall arbiter of growth policy at a state level.

Indeed, there is some research out there that argue forcefully in this direction.  In a paper titled The Erosion of Home Rule through the Emergence of State-Interests in Land Use Control by John R. Nolan published in the Pace University Environmental Law Review, the author cites some issues that have occurred in New York State along these lines.  In an older court ruling on regional fair share for housing, the state’s court of appeals:

“… called for the state legislature to adopt a system of “State-wide or regional control of [land use] planning” to “insure that interests broader than that of the municipality underlie various land use policies.” The state’s highest court also minced no words (when) it stated that New York’s “zoning enabling legislation is burdened by the largely antiquated notion which deigns that the regulation of land use and development is uniquely a function of local government . . . . ” Under this system of local control, “questions of broader public interest have commonly been ignored.” The court referenced criticisms of community autonomy finding that local land use control suffers from “pronounced insularism” and produces “distortions in metropolitan growth patterns.” It noted that local control has the effect of “crippling efforts toward regional and State-wide problem solving, be it pollution, decent housing, or public transportation.

“How the regional impacts of local land use decisions are to be controlled is an enduring problem still seeking a solution in this state.”

And, I would argue, in our state as well.

More to come on this topic, stay tuned.