Holy cow, I haven’t written about anything for some 2 ½ months!  The reasons are many and varied, everything from taking a break after the legislative session, taking a trip back to Connecticut to visit grandkids, to I just plain old didn’t feel like it.  Now a couple of things have prodded me to wake up – one being the huge data center controversy, here in Utah as well as around the nation (I’ll leave commentary on that one for later), the other being both my trip back to New England and a recent editorial in the New York Times.

On the trip to New England, my wife and I did a little touring around with some of the free time we had, and while in Massachusetts I heard about a controversy shaping up about state-mandated small lots, down to 5,000 square feet (sound familiar?).  Returning home, I then saw a NY Times editorial opining in favor of the proposed measure, giving some interesting data and reasoning.

After our recent legislative tussle over a proposed bill which would have mandated small lots for many Utah communities (I don’t think this issue is gone by any means), and recent actions by  legislatures in other states to mandate small lots, it got me to want to share some of my thoughts.

The Times editorial raises valid points:

Currently, many Massachusetts towns require house lots to be at least 20,000 square feet, which is larger than most midsize supermarkets, like Trader Joe’s. Nationwide, only about one-fifth of homes are built on such large plots. It is a minimum that caters to the affluent.

The initiative would create a statewide minimum of 5,000 square feet, which is about the size of a basketball court, and bar towns from setting their own standards. The policy would enable the construction of more homes that young families and other members of the middle class could afford.

We recognize that many homeowners are wary of allowing more construction. They like their neighborhoods as they are and want to maximize their home values. These skeptics tend to be older and richer, with the time and resources to attend town meetings and criticize plans for new development. Yet if the United States has any chance to reduce wealth inequality, increase economic mobility and help more people achieve the American dream, it needs significantly more housing. Blue states like Massachusetts need to be part of the solution.

It goes on to cite examples of local communities that epitomize the problem:

For more than a century, Massachusetts state law has allowed town and city governments to dictate what housing can be built within their limits. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, Massachusetts towns, particularly affluent suburbs, passed a flood of zoning rules that limited the construction of apartments and small homes. These rules often exacerbated economic and racial segregation.

Newton, a small city bordering Boston with excellent public schools, is typical. It adopted many of its current lot-size minimums in 1953, preventing it from adding sufficient housing as the economy has grown. Today, young people who grew up in Newton say they cannot afford to raise their own families there. The rules create problems even for some existing homeowners.

Beth Sagan, a 68-year-old Newton resident, wants to split her 17,400-square-foot property in two. She hopes to build a new home in her large backyard that will be accessible for her husband, who has arthritis and knee trouble, and then sell her current home. But her part of Newton requires lot sizes for new homes to be at least 15,000 square feet. The ballot initiative would allow her to split her property. It would also allow construction on vacant lots that are smaller than the current minimums.

As I noted earlier, a number of states have in the last couple of years passed legislation that mandates small lot minimums for all or most communities – Idaho, Texas, Maine, as well as a number of states that allow existing residential lots to be split for additional homes to be built.  I think this issue will be back.

But – should it be?  Around the country, a number of cities have taken action on their own, without state-level mandates, to allow for smaller lots.  And I think that move is catching on in our fair state as well.  I know of several communities, including my own home town of Kaysville (I’m on the planning commission) that have recently amended their zoning codes to allow for lots as small as 6,000 sf or 5,000 sf or even smaller.  And I know more are considering it.  At a Utah League Legislative Policy Committee meeting this week, a Slido survey question was presented asking if the participant’s community allowed for small lots.  I am most interested to see the results of this survey.  Our own APA Utah Board member for legislative affairs, Francis Lilly, just asked the chapter’s legislative committee to survey all the MIHP cities to see who allows for small lots, and how.

My point in all this is, I think this move toward smaller lots is already happening and maybe a statewide mandate isn’t needed.  Sure, there are communities that have proclaimed that there’s no way they’re going to allow smaller lots.  And then we have the issue that even though the local code allows for small lots, will the council approve development proposals that make use of them?  Still, this may be the best way to assure that the hearts and minds of the local officials and citizens who have the most immediate role in land use are engaged and supportive of such efforts.

Now I’ve heard plenty of people, including planners, say that allowing small lots doesn’t assure that the housing built on them will be affordable.  I would agree, I’ve seen such developments in my own community where the lots are small but the houses are huge and expensive.  But the point that those who advocate for small lots make is that small lots just means more housing, period, and that the law of supply and demand will kick in (once we meet the current pent-up demand out there, which is HUGE right now) and prices will moderate.  The NY Times editorial I linked to above has an interesting chart in it that shows that areas that have the lowest attainable housing prices are also those areas that have had the most home-building (there are some other studies showing the same that I’ve cited in some previous blog posts).  Some would argue about the chart, saying that what it really shows is that areas with the lowest pricing thus have more building.  But given our nationwide housing market, I think the opposite is more likely – more building results in lower prices.

Anyway, there’s plenty of food for thought here.  And I would encourage all our cities and towns to consider allowing for smaller lots on their own initiative – keep the big bad legislature out of your business, you can deal with it yourself!