I intended to write next about some of the goings-on with zoning reform in a couple of places around the country, but a closer-to-home story caught my attention with some (potentially) good news on the local government/state cooperation front.

Last week, Ivins Mayor Chris Hart, in his State of the City speech, announced that the city would be partnering with the State Institutional and Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to create a land trust, where homes can be built on state lands put into the trust, which will be leased to the builders/owners of the homes and thus reduce the up-front costs for construction of new homes.  The homes themselves will be financed through a Housing Authority with money provided by the city or a municipal bond.

The trust will own land in Ivins on which houses – mostly lower square footage and starter homes – will be built. People can then buy the house and lease the land from the trust with a pathway to potentially gain equity. The plan is to mainly limit the homes to families with members who work in essential services like public safety, education and utilities.

As the St. George News story notes, community land trusts are nothing new, having been used in various places around the country since the early 1900s.

In Utah, a community land trust in Moab has been active since 2012 and one is being developed in Provo. For the last two years, the Washington County Housing Action coalition has been trying to develop a countywide land trust.

It’s really good to see some of our communities try something different to address housing affordability.  As noted in yesterday’s blog post, Gov. Cox says he’s going to be watching if locals will step up to make use of the tools that have been made available, and he’s apparently aware of this one.

Cox said he was well aware of the plan in Ivins. “Anything we can do to increase supply and to keep that supply in the chain is going to be better off for our kids,” Cox said.

Mayor Hart got some attention last year when he railed on the state legislature over a bill limiting local governments’ ability to impose design requirements on single-family and two-family homes.

Hart, a developer and former president of the Utah Home Builders Association, said the move by the state Legislature is pro-developer and creates an “anything goes” attitude toward the look of new homes in Ivins and other local cities. … “My question back to them is, ‘So is it worth destroying the character of the communities in this state?’

Planners and others have noted that if the goal is to increase density, even just with smaller homes on smaller lots, design can play a big role in how such developments might be accepted by the neighborhood.  However, this recent legislation precludes that from happening, and Mayor Hart is not happy about that.

The legislation was presented as a way to decrease regulatory red tape and hurdles that many have said have gotten in the way of creating a more affordable supply of homes in the state. Cox has also said cities need to do more to remove hurdles toward more housing.

“This is intended to reduce regulations to increase the supply of homes,” the sponsor of the bill – Rep. Stephen Whyte, R-Mapleton – said.

“You screwed all the cities. You just make life impossible for us as a mayor and city council to try and keep something special about this place,” Hart said, referring to the Legislature.

Getting back to affordable housing and the land trust proposal, Mayor Hart was more positive.

“Affordable housing? What a challenge,” Hart said. He noted that the city had just formed an affordable housing committee, and the land trust was seen as another answer.

But there’s another challenge: the will of those who already have a place to live in Ivins and the prevailing view against more growth and more density.

“The question that’s on the mind of our residents is, ‘All right, we’re growing. We came here, we helped it grow. We kind of like it the way it is. What are you going to do to keep it this way?’” Hart said. “And isn’t that the challenge in growth, right? It’s how do you keep the flavor, the personality, the image of the city intact as you grow?”

So it gets back to a question of design.

Two steps forward, one step back, it seems, is the order of the day.