Man, that was a long break I took!  I’ve been away on a trip to Alaska and the Yukon for a couple of weeks, and catching up on a lot of other stuff, and am now finally getting around to paying some attention to this blog again!

The attention being paid to the housing affordability crisis and efforts at zoning reform around the country has steadily been increasing, as I’ve noted before, and that trend continues.  Here in Utah, we really haven’t experienced the kinds of measures that have been enacted in a number of other states, such as passing state legislation that establishes higher minimum densities in residential zones, smaller minimum lot sizes, missing middle housing permitted in single-family zones, and so on.  A lot of the credit for that can be laid at the feet of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which at the behest of its local elected officials membership, has pushed back on such efforts at the legislative level, and has instead crafted a variety of measures that have had at least grudging buy-in from local officials – in other words, a cooperative approach.

That may be about to change.

In recent posts, I’ve noted that there have been signs that certain state legislators are more willing to contemplate imposing more “drastic” measures in efforts to combat high-priced housing due to perceived local government action (or inaction).  That conclusion is increasingly reinforced by discussion at last month’s legislative interim committee meetings and yesterday’s Commission on Housing Affordability meeting.

Both meetings had on their agendas a review of the recommendations of the legislative performance audit of Utah Housing Policy.  One of those audit recommendations was “…that the Legislature consider options to increase zoning density on a wide scale within the state.”  The basis for the recommendation was observation of what had been happening in other states.  Follow-up discussion in both committees centered around the idea of preparing legislation that would require or allow for densities higher than what any residential zones in cities, towns and counties would allow, generally along the lines of 1, up to as many as 4, additional dwelling units per acre.  Such legislation could also be couched in terms of allowing up to two, three, or four dwelling units on any lot in any residential zone, as has been done in some states and cities around the country.

At the legislative interim meeting where this was discussed, Cameron Diehl, Utah League Executive Director, pushed back somewhat by noting that simply increasing the density in all residential zones throughout the state will likely not result in improved affordability on its own, particularly for starter homes, which is the main state-level focus currently.

We appear to be slipping more into the mainstream of legislative actions throughout the country, which is to have state-level policies and priorities at the local government level in reform of land use and zoning.  M. Nolan Gray, author and noted critic of current zoning practice who spoke recently in Utah and who’s cachet around the country is high right now, advocates for state-level action, albeit in his case, to do away with zoning altogether.

One of the national writers who I have been reading who I thought had really gotten the zeitgeist around local land use regulation right, Jerusalem Demsas, just this week in an introduction to a new book of her recent essays on the housing crisis, said about local government control of land use:

The problem is that the game is rigged in their favor. NIMBYs haven’t won because they’ve made better arguments or because they’ve mobilized a mass democratic coalition—I would very much doubt that even 10 percent of Americans have ever seriously engaged in the politics of local development. NIMBYs win because land politics is insulated from democratic accountability. As a result, widespread dissatisfaction with the housing crisis struggles to translate into meaningful change.

Her solution?

The politics of land should play out in the domain of democratic participation instead of leaving it to the zoning boards, historic-preservation committees, and courtrooms. Instead of relying on discretionary processes subject to review by countless actors, governmental bodies, and laws, states should strip away veto points and unnecessary local interference.

In general, debates about how our land is used should happen where more people are paying attention: at the state level, where governors, watchdog institutions, and the press are able to weigh in and create the conditions for the exercise of public reason. Not at the hyperlocal level, where nobody’s watching and nobody’s accountable.

Hmmm, I find myself agreeing in part with what she says, and disagreeing with some as well.

Looks like we’ll be heading down that road her legislatively in a very short time.