What timing!  A couple of things just took place that happened to reinforce the very things I just blogged about, entirely by coincidence!

Last week, I wrote about how the requirements for reporting progress in implementing the Moderate Income Housing element was making conformity with at least a portion of community general plans mandatory (see the August 1 post).  The seeming inflexibility of state compliance requirements appears to co-opt local legislative discretion on general plan conformity.

Shortly after I published the Aug. 1 blog post, a newly released report from the Utah Foundation came to my attention. Titled AN APPETITE FOR HOUSING AFFORDAILITY: INSIGHTS FROM UTAH’S MUNICIPAL OFFICALS, it gives the results of a survey of local elected officials around the state to a number of questions about the issue of housing affordability, how the issue could/should be tackled, and what officials thought of those measures taken thus far at the state and local level.  And lo, one of the survey questions was about the reporting requirement for progress in implementing MIHPs.

Guess what?  Local officials were none too enamored with those reporting requirements and how they are being interpreted by state staff.  The responses to that particular question are found on pages 8-9 of the report. Here are some of those results.

Several representatives from cities with which the Utah Foundation spoke explained their personal opposition to Utah’s Moderate Income Housing Plan requirement. … just over 36% of Utah Foundation’s survey respondents note that the plan is “hurting,” and only 14% assert that the requirement is helping.

Comments made relating to this survey question tend to focus on the implementation’s overly bureaucratic nature and inefficacy.

Open-ended survey responses to this question highlight a strong resistance to state-mandated influence placed upon municipal officials and their choices. Respondents noted that the policy might be backfiring and “pushing some in the opposite direction.” They also assert that the state-level requirement is very much a “one size fits all” requirement that is difficult or impossible to impose upon a diverse set of cities.

Survey responses noted that state-based data gathering and educational initiatives might be more productive than much less flexible reporting requirements for cities. Calls were also made to implement a more flexible moderate-income housing requirement that effectively considers municipal diversity. … The general perception that state policy is hurting rather than helping the housing situation in Utah is reflected in the response, noting that the plan is “just another way for the state to be mandating things that should be handled on a local level.”

The second coincidental occurrence took place just last night.  Many of you know that I am an appointed member of my city’s planning commission.  Last night, we were given an update by city staff on the MIHP implementation report that had just been submitted, followed by some discussion about what may be viewed as being in compliance and what might not.

Later in the agenda, the commission considered a rezone request by an owner of property in an area of almost exclusively large lots.  The request was to rezone the property to allow for the development of up to 27 townhomes on 2.8 acres.  No design of buildings was included.  As you might imagine, the opposition from surrounding residents was intense.

Long story short, the PC was open to the idea of allowing for something other than large-lot single family zoning on this property, but indicated that more detail would be needed to assure better compatibility with the neighborhood.  It was also felt that the requested density might be too high.  The applicant insisted on an up-or-down vote on the request as is, and the PC ultimately failed to recommend approval of the requested rezone (it turned out to be a tie vote).  This application still needs to be acted on by the city council to get to the final decision, but if the non-approval is upheld, it points right back to the staff’s dilemma of how to report such an action and how it would be considered in a state compliance review.

In the state guidance provided that I cited in the Aug. 1 blog post, “The justification of why the rezone was not approved must be specific, detailed, and evidence based. The city will need to rely on plans, policies, or assessments and describe a relevant reason which led to the decision not to approve the rezone as they draft this section, because barriers like public clamor or council turnover will not be accepted.”  Here’s one issue with such a determination:  if denial is the ultimate outcome, it may have been based on a local legislative determination, with citizen input, that the proposal was not appropriate for the neighborhood.  So will the state deem that such a local determination is not non-compliant?

Also, the end of the story on this may not be written yet, either.  What if the applicant comes back in a year or two (or next week) with another proposal that is more acceptable to the local officials, that is also not large-lot single family?  Maybe some type of missing middle housing that is designed to look like what exists in the neighborhood?  In the end, the goals of the MIHP may yet still be met, but it may take a while to get there.

Lots of “alternate universe” possibilities here that are hard to fit into bureaucratic boxes.

There’s a lot of other interesting stuff in the Utah Foundation report.  For example,

When asked about the most significant obstacles to increasing affordable housing, the most common response was “community opposition” by over half of the respondents (56%).

Nearly 54% of respondents indicated significant opposition from residents, and 42% reported moderate opposition from the same group. Only about 4% of respondents stated no opposition to affordable housing from residents. These figures highlight that municipal officials perceive that affordable housing opposition emanates not primarily from within their ranks but from those they represent.

On the question, “Do you agree or disagree with the statement: ‘Municipal officials who pursue affordable housing over resident concerns face political consequences,’”

78% of respondents said they strongly or somewhat agreed that municipal officials face such consequences. Only 8% of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that political consequences face officials who ignore residential concerns about affordable housing.

The ULUI has invited the report author, John Salevurakis, to join us at the annual ULUI fall conference, to be held October 22-23 in Sandy, to discuss the implications of this study.  More details coming in the next few weeks!