State Housing Plan Discussion

[zsmallwood]

Hello Everyone,

I am Zachary Smallwood, I’m the Planning Manager for Murray City and the Legislative Co-Chair with Wilf Sommerkorn. We initially sent out an email to APA Members to provide input regarding the State Housing Plan that was recently released. I felt that instead of taking (at minimum) an hour of your day to have a discussion via zoom or teams it may be more beneficial to start a conversation here.

Wilf provided a great introduction which I’ve copied below:

“The plan was put together by a state project management team under the direction of Laura Hanson, formerly the State Planning Coordinator, now the Senior Advisor to the Governor for Long-Range Planning.  Laura is a member of APA and is also on this working group.  There were a long list of contributors to the plan, including APA Utah President Jason Boal, and former Holladay Community Development Director Paul Allred (both are also on this working group).”

I know that Wilf has received some initial comments back which we could summarize in a reply to this thread. If you have any questions or would like to make your opinions private you may reach out to me at zsmallwood@murray.utah.gov or Wilf at wilfsommerkorn@live.com

We look forward to a great conversation and hope to get a lot of comments back!

Thanks,

Zachary Smallwood

• This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by zsmallwood.

[laurahanson]

Thanks Zach and to everyone who takes time to offer suggestions!

This first phase of the plan focuses on defining what success looks like, establishing principles for how we plan to work together to solve this challenge, identifying metrics that would help give us a fuller picture of what is happening, and compiling an inventory of available data and housing structures.  Like all good plans, we’re focusing on shared goals first!

Phase two of the plan is likely to generate a lot more comments and suggestions. This phase will kick off in early April. That’s when we’ll get into specific implementation tactics (policy changes, strategic investments, or educational/communications initiatives), making assignments on who will be responsible for collecting and reporting on what data, and making recommendations to realign or refocus our existing housing programs. There will be a similar public review and comment period when we have a draft of that part of the plan, so please plan to stay engaged.

I’m looking forward to all your input and suggestions on how to make this better and more successful!  We’re happy to host an in-person discussion about the plan here at the capitol if you ever feel like that might be useful. Just let me know.

Thanks!

Laura

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by laurahanson.

[Andy Hulka]

As planners, we recognize the urgent need for housing throughout the state, but we also understand the negative impacts associated with sprawl. I think we could suggest some changes to the Phase 1 Draft of this plan that would help make sure this process doesn’t just lead to uncontrolled expansion of low-density single-family development. Here are a few ideas I’d like to discuss:

• We could recommend including a guiding principle related to wildlife habitat preservation or environmental protection. We should specify that the loss of natural area for housing is not a desired long-term outcome.
• Where the plan discusses “non-productive public land” we should be clear that uses like outdoor recreation or natural open space are productive uses.
• Goal #1 says that achieving success means using public lands for housing. While this may be appropriate in some cases, I don’t think we should rely on the sale of public lands to private developers as a primary solution to our housing crisis. I would recommend not including this as a metric for success.
• The plan discusses housing that is limited by infrastructure deficiencies and the need to expand infrastructure systems. Again, the focus should not be on endless expansion into undeveloped areas, but rather on improving existing infrastructure to accommodate growth without sprawl.

Just a few thoughts I hope the group will consider.

PS – I also don’t think $450,000 should be considered a starter home, but I understand it’s already in the State code (Nobody I’ve ever met spent $450k on their first home. I think $350k or less is more of a “starter” range, personally).

[kstruthers]

I think the Plan should address the connection between the State’s economic development policies/strategies and the effect those have on the demand for housing. A growing economy leads to increased job creation, population migration, and higher incomes, which in turn results in more people needing places to live, thus increasing the demand for housing. When the State’s economic development policies strongly encourage new businesses or existing ones expand, it attracts more people to the region, creating a need for additional housing. Higher wages resulting from economic growth enhance people’s ability to afford housing, further stimulating demand. Economic opportunities also often lead to population movement towards areas with strong job markets, putting pressure on local housing stock.
With the State’s strong push for economic growth, it seems little wonder that there’s an increased demand for housing, and the supply is struggling to keep pace. Maybe there’s a way to tie providing additional housing to our State economic development policies, so if we (as a State) are incentivizing a business to locate or expand in Utah, as part of the deal, that business needs to contribute in some fashion to increasing the housing supply or affordability?
I also agree with Andy’s comments above. I think if we just focus on producing more housing units without much thought about how the growth is taking place, we will erode the quality of life and the reason people choose to live here in the first place.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by kstruthers.
• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by kstruthers.

[aujean]

Hi all,

Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback on the first phase. I’m glad that the plan recognizes housing as a crisis.

I wonder if under the goal “Promote Opportunity and Inclusivity,” does this include across the housing spectrum? Given the administrative priorities, I’m unsure about whether the unhoused and affordable housing parts of the spectrum will be addressed. I also am wondering how the plan will engage some of the other stakeholders (e.g., nonprofits, CDCs, community land trusts). For example, would shared equity housing models be considered or would these groups only be consulted about their feedback?

[Crystal Rudds]

In reading this document, I am very happy to see repeated consideration of resident populations who fall below 60-80% AMI and recognition that the housing crisis impacts Utahns who are rent-burdened at an equal or greater intensity as what prospective homeowners might feel. That said, it does seem like many of the goals to increase the housing supply for homeowners are more specific than goals and objectives for alleviating cost or zoning burdens for tenants and potential LIHTC developers. It would be great if the total list of tactics was made public to stakeholders and a discussion of HOW that list will be curated for Phase II. I’m also wondering if additional maps could be provided that show regional differentiation in metrics.</p>

[GrantAmann]

Grant Amann – Here’s my “Strong Towns” review of the plan:

My comments are in 4 parts.
1.  SMART Goals and Metrics
2. We Don’t Know the Barriers
3. Utilizing Every Tool Available to Government
4. Missing Metrics
____________________________________________________________

1 – Smart Goals and Metrics

A professor once told me, “Your data is only as good as your metric.” Metrics should clarify barriers and give a sense to the priority that solutions are needed.

Metrics should include a measurable unit (e.g., per year, city, acre).
Example: “Percentage of vacant/second homes per year.”

Goals should be S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound) and address the actual problem.
Example of a weaker goal: “Partnering across sectors to use public land for housing.”
This misses the core issue—Utah’s growth being hindered. Why do we want housing?

Better goal:
“By [date], evaluate the feasibility of selling public land to private developers by comparing its land value per acre to nearby city-owned land, projecting long-term maintenance costs, and assessing whether housing investment would generate greater long-term value than retaining the land, after 100 year maintenance costs.”
____________________________________________________________

2 – We Don’t Know the Barriers to Homeownership

In phase 2, we will look at which barriers have the highest impact on the problem. Before defining metrics, we must first ask the right questions. I believe this is missing from this report. Including these questions will clarify the metrics needed to identify and address barriers, which is essential in Phase 1. Key questions include:

• Is housing expensive to build?
• Is financing difficult?
• Does income keep up with housing prices?
• Where is it most financially responsible to build?
• What’s preventing growth?
• What stops people from becoming homeowners?
• What leads to eviction—the last step before homelessness?

Without these metrics, the report concludes that housing is cheap to build, but expensive to purchase – which I don’t think is true.

Although we are sure we need more housing, “lack of housing,” cannot accurately describe why housing isn’t getting built, or why ownership rates are declining.

The overarching problem is that there are barriers causing a lack of affordable housing, which stunts Utah’s growth and decreases quality of life. We are looking for the barriers to attainable housing ownership.

Simply proposing a plan to encourage building will not fix all the barriers in the way of itself, such as community pushback, let alone the bigger problem at hand, “attainability.” (Without education campaigns, for example, it’s likely every new development will be met with tremendous pushback from residents and be stalled for years.)
____________________________________________________________

3 – Utilizing Every Tool Available to Government

I have developed a list of things a government can do:

1. Provide: Healthcare, social services, welfare, etc.
2. Preserve: Environment, recreation, parks, air quality, clean/garbage, etc.
3. Promote: Economic Development, cultural development, growth
4. Educate: Education, Public awareness, human development, etc.
5. Develop: Infrastructure, transportation, public utilities, etc.
6. Govern: Regulate, interpret law, elected officials, police, etc.

The tactics menu should be divided by what the Government can do. The plan currently only really talks about 2 options (5 & 6). Here are examples of the others:

1. Provide: government owned land or social housing. Public developers could enjoy lower property taxes, zoning exemption, and no need to require a large return. Affordable units would need to be subsidized by market rate apartments.
2. Preserve: existing natural lands. I echo Andy’s comment, preservation is not only good for the environment, but good for the budget. Also-preserve existing affordable housing.
3. Promote: Incentivize supply of housing builders. Encourage competition in the housing market and encourage competition of the housing sector.
4. Education campaign – here at the local level, we receive tremendous pushback on enabling multi-family units to be built in existing multi-family districts. An education campaign would help the public understand that more housing does not mean their property values will go down.
5. Develop: already discussed.
6. Govern: already discussed.

____________________________________________________________

4 – Missing Goals and Metrics

Main Missing Metrics:

• Land Value Per Acre – This is the most crucial metric for sustainable growth. This is crucial when discussing non-productive land. This metric reveals that the more reliant on automobiles a city is, the less financially productive it tends to be. Urban3 and Strong Towns have great examples. This should be prioritized over other metrics.
• Income-to-Home Price Ratio Over Time – If housing is unaffordable, wage growth may need to be part of the solution.
• Units Within 1 Mile of Schools – Can families find housing near existing schools
• Housing Costs Per Year/City – Example: Price of Concrete Per State. Utah has some of the highest concrete costs in the nation—why? Could material costs be reduced?  Concrete is just one example. Is lumber expensive in Utah?
• Percentage of Homes Bought by First Timers Per Year – Are we prioritizing homes for new buyers or just those who already own property?
• Non-Productive Private Land Acreage – Can we sustain existing infrastructure? Are we maximizing existing private land before developing public land?

Additional Metrics:

• Utility Maintenance Costs Per Mile  – Shows where infill is cheaper than sprawl but excludes maintenance costs.
• Rent vs. Ownership Rate Per Year – Ownership should be a goal.
• New Contractor Business Licenses Per Year – Does Utah foster new developers or just established ones? Is there a labor shortage in the housing sector?
• New Condo Units (%) Per Year – Why are condos so expensive? How do regulations affect costs?
• Commute Times & Roadway Congestion Per City – Heavy congestion near job centers may indicate a need for closer housing.
• Number of Planning Staff vs. Permit Speed – Does staffing affect approval timelines?
• Water Usage Per Resident Per County
• Months to Secure Construction Financing Over Time – Long delays suggest difficulties in accessing capital.
• Foreclosure/Default Rates on Development Loans (%) Per Year – Higher rates suggest financial struggles in completing projects.
• Utilization Rate of Tax Credits & Grants for Development Per Year– Are developers leveraging available financial support?
  ________________________________________________________

Overall, there’s some great layout and content here. The guiding principles are solid. But it is crucial to get this document pointed in the right direction, and right now it is very narrowly headed in a direction of 1 solution — Build housing. There are some really cool metrics, but without the overarching direction, they will be ignored.

Final Proposal: Change the name to “Utah Attainable Housing Strategic Plan.”

Thank you for listening and for all your hard work! This is a tremendous undertaking and it’s a great beginning.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by GrantAmann.

[enelson]

I don’t want to pass up the opportunity to post some notes into this discussion although we’re in mid-March. Deadlines kept me away, so these topics are not fully formed but presented as ideas that I see as having great potential to help in Utah’s housing situation.

First, developers need to be supported in bringing new building to market. Specifically, in the constantly shifting legal environment. Developments are being successfully stopped, even by illegal actions of the groups who fight changes to their communities. Since developers put so much on the line, a few years locked in legal battles easily kills projects; even good projects that would provide great benefits and needed housing. Quoting a developer I’ve worked with: “The legal framework for developers needs continual improvement. Some quality improvements have been made but there are ways to help developers move things along on appropriate timelines.”

Second, custom house plans cost about $10K and take about a year to develop. Every house that has been built recently has gone through the process of meeting the current requirements of a complete plan set. There is a possibility that those on the building side would agree to make the approved plans available to a state library of plans for a savings on their initial building project. Houses are often personally tailored and are naturally site specific, and yet subdivision builders often use no more than 2 or 3 plans. To speed building and save costs, a pre-approved state library of plans might help. A library that encourages using the majority of an existing plan but allows for edits to accommodate specific families, climates and sites would be much more useful. Home design companies and architectural offices may donate the full set for the opportunity to make the small final adjustments. People who want fully custom houses will still go to architects or home designers for a full design, but it could speed along those who might not otherwise consider building.

On the same topic of building homes: I am an architect as well as a planner and I see how unaffordable it is to build new housing due to the adopted building codes. People make the assumption that all new code changes are for the better, or that all codes are equally life saving. Yet, housing built based on tradesmen learning what worked over generations is more long-lasting and successful than many recent houses built without that knowledge and experience. There is no good reason for detached houses to be so expensive to build as they are today. There have been great advancements in insulation, and in the construction of windows and doors. If we built in traditional methods developed specifically for our climate, with these new technologies added, building would be cheaper and work better for our area than through the currently adopted requirements meant to apply universally. It stands to reason that codes designed for international application are probably over-engineered in ways that provide no benefit.

Last: ADUs and flexible housing would have an out-sized effect on helping Utah’s families help themselves. Although updates to state law have increasingly made ADUs easier to build — what would it take for a majority of detached houses to have ADUs? Currently, an ADU is treated like a unit added after-the-fact, where infrastructure is insufficient to allow for the addition. The state and local governments should push for these units to be included in new development, incorporated into the initial build of houses seamlessly. American households are currently structured to need this type of living and working arrangement, but the housing stock we have is not meeting the needs of our contemporary living: working and studying at home, the need for more elder support, the need for more family support in general, the need for more privacy in multi-adult households that a post-war or typical single family house doesn’t provide. ADUs can help new home buyers afford the home because families are pooling resources toward one mortgage. Twice the number of units would be available with each new detached house that included one ADU. Fewer families would need to move to adjust to changes in their life as they aged and communities would be more stable.

Emily N. Nelson, AICP, NCARB

• This reply was modified 1 week ago by enelson.

[Elizabeth Sodja]

Here are my thoughts, hopefully they are helpful and not too in the weeds! Feel free to ask for any clarification:

• Page 1 (exec sum): Could the citations here (GPI, Census, etc.) be hyperlinked like the citations on Page 2?
• Page 2/5 (exec sum): I agree with Andy’s concern about the definition of “starter home”. As someone whose first house was an adorable little 1902 750-square foot cottage in Logan, I think size should be considered at least as strongly as cost when considering what constitutes a “starter home”, but I don’t know how that woudl work with the state code that Andy mentions above.
• Page 5 (exec sum) Page 8 (main plan): non-productive public land could use further clarification. Do you mean municipal-owned and/or state-owned land, excluding SITLA? There are also a few other federal land managers not listed (NPS, BOR, USFS, DOD)
• Page 4 (main plan): Goal 2 bullet 4 mentions, “Expanding both infill and greenfield development, while promoting efficient development patterns that preserve natural and agricultural lands, clean air, and water,” but I’m not sure any of the proposed tracking metrics would measure this.
• Page 14 (main plan): It mentions, “regional, local, private, and non-profit organizations providing additional housing support,” but all of the mentioned programs seem larger in scope. If smaller programs will be included in Phase II, an example of an interesting smaller scale program is Green River’s Epicenter program.
• Page 7 (appendix): The link for Tooele County Housing Authortiy is dead, here’s the correct one: https://housingtc.org/ — I didn’t check all of them, was just curious about that one since I live out there. 🙂

Thank you for all the hard work on this plan!

[Author]

Posts