logo
Utah lawmakers say no to ‘preemption,' halt 2 housing bills aimed allowing smaller homes

Utah lawmakers say no to ‘preemption,' halt 2 housing bills aimed allowing smaller homes

Yahoo13-02-2025

New homes are under construction in Spanish Fork on Tuesday, July 16, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Tackling Utah's stubborn housing affordability crisis continues to be a stated top priority for state leaders — but at the same time lawmakers still resist taking broad, aggressive action to more widely allow smaller housing types.
Met with pushback from local governments fearing loss of local control, Utah lawmakers aren't opting to flex their power over cities when it comes to zoning — at least not yet.
Two bills sponsored by Rep. Ray Ward, R-Bountiful, that would have required cities to more widely allow smaller homes didn't survive their first legislative obstacle, stalling in the House Political Subdivisions Committee last week.
The bills, which have likely hit a dead end at least for the 2025 legislative session, included:
HB88, which would have required urban cities to allow accessory dwelling units — also known as ADUs, mother-in-law apartments or granny flats — in residential zones.
HB90, which would have required urban cities to allow single-family homes to be built on lot sizes as small as 6,000 square feet, making it a 'permitted use' in residential zones.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
They were short and simple bills with far-reaching impacts. To Ward, they would break down barriers for housing construction, help the state increase its lacking housing supply, and therefore help bring down the state's high housing costs.
But to the bills' critics — including those representing city governments — they would wrest control away from local officials, limit their ability to plan their communities, and risk runaway development that could jeopardize neighborhoods.
Ward's bills aren't the only pieces of legislation being considered by the 2025 Utah Legislature, but they were among the first to fail, signaling lawmakers are more interested in the same gentle approach they've been taking in recent years.
Rather than advancing legislation with sweeping implications, lawmakers appear poised to continue taking incremental bites at the housing policy apple, focused more on incentives and partnerships with local leaders and developers rather than aggressive or controversial action.
One bill, HB37, is still waiting for its first committee hearing, but it contains a slate of measures studied and supported by the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee that are more likely to find traction from the larger Legislature.
Utah lawmakers' next big housing bill is taking shape. Here's what it includes — so far
That bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, would allow — not force — cities and counties to implement a 'density overlay' in a 'housing-eligible zone' of their choice. In other words, the bill would give city leaders another tool in their planning toolbelt to zone for certain, higher-density housing types in areas that are already classified for residential use.
To Ward, Utah lawmakers have a simple choice to make. Either start making moves to more widely allow smaller home types, or continue facing a housing crisis.
'In my opinion, if we want to slow the rise of the average cost of homes, there's no other solution than to allowing the building of more homes, the building of smaller homes, and as land becomes more expensive, to allow more homes to be built on smaller pieces of land,' Ward told lawmakers on the House Political Subdivisions Committee on Friday.
Though he acknowledged other lawmakers believe his approach is too heavy handed, Ward said the Utah Legislature should step in to tackle the problem despite cries of overreach over local control because 'zoning ordinances are part of the problem.'
'We have a city in our state that will not let you build a home at all, unless you build a three-car garage, or in some very limited circumstances, they will let you build a home with a two-car garage,' Ward said.
He didn't name the city, but he quoted from West Valley City's ordinance that states 'a three-car garage is required, except that a two-car garage is permissible when there is a 20-foot side yard setback adjacent to the garage and either the two-car garage is side loaded or the basement of the dwelling with at least a three-quarter basement is finished.' The ordinance also goes on to require minimum interior dimensions of 20 feet by 30 feet for a three-car garage.
'So that is to say the garage must be 600 square feet,' Ward said. 'In the 1950s, we built entire houses that were 600 square feet, and now in that city we won't let you build a house at all unless your garage is that size.'
Cox: There are 'broken incentive structures' worsening Utah's housing crisis
Ward cited a letter he said was from a retired developer who blamed rising building permit costs on 'unnecessary city requirements.'
He referenced Minneapolis as a city that's already taken action to allow smaller homes with fewer requirements, and how that can keep costs down.
Starting in 2009, Minneapolis adopted a series of policy changes that reduced then eliminated minimum parking requirements, allowed ADUs, and lowered minimum lot size requirements in residential zones, among others. According to a report from Pew Charitable Trusts, those land reforms helped pave the way for more apartments and kept rents in that city flat, even as the rest of Minnesota saw housing costs increase.
Ray also pointed to Montana, Florida, and Portland, Oregon as areas that have loosened zoning requirements and cleared the way for a variety of smaller housing types.
Ray said his bill, HB88, 'isn't tricky.' He said it would simply 'broadly allow' ADUs — whether they're internal, like basement apartments, or external — in lots in urban areas where there are existing single-family homes.
Ward said homeowners rarely have the means to build an ADU, so he argued his bill would likely only bring 'one or two per neighborhood at a time.' However, he said allowing even one ADU will benefit multiple families.
'Overall, this bill would add a small amount of smaller homes on a small footprint of land to our existing housing stock,' Ward said. 'It would be a small step toward bringing down the average cost of housing, which we need to find some ways to do that.'
Utah's new housing experiment
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's housing adviser Steve Waldrip spoke in favor of Ward's bill, calling it a 'pretty light touch' and yet one piece of a complex puzzle lawmakers could address to deal with Utah's 'multi-faceted' housing crisis.
'Housing is extremely regulated in our society, and … we have the issue we have because of the system we've created,' Waldrip said. 'Now we've given, frankly, outsized influence to those who live in their current neighborhoods versus those who could live there. And that's a tough balance.'
Based on income-to-home price ratio, Utah ranks as the third-most expensive housing market in the country, Waldrip said.
'That's why we have to do things now to create more access,' he said, calling it a 'supply problem. … We don't have enough places for people to live, and frankly this last year we just fell another 5,000 to 7,000 units behind.'
Waldrip said he doesn't believe Ward's bill would cause 'neighborhoods to collapse or anything like that,' but rather it would help families create more affordable housing options for themselves. He also added other cities, including Farmington, have already passed similar ordinances.
'Cities are doing this already. This would just enable it to happen at a broader scale all across the state,' Waldrip said.
Ward's HB88, however, met pushback from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, an organization that represents city governments. The League's president, Draper Mayor Troy Walker, said 'we oppose this bill completely.'
'We believe in partnership and not preemption,' Walker said. 'And this bill is 100% preemption. It takes away our land use authority on the ADUs.'
Walker argued cities are, in their own ways, allowing ADUs while balancing issues like infrastructure or safety concerns specific to city needs. 'This mandate of anywhere, anyplace, preempts our land use authority and drops these units in … without consideration that neighborhoods and people expect from their local government.'
Lawmakers eye housing audit that says Utah needs 28K new homes a year to keep up with growth
Walker also argued lawmakers should focus on home ownership, not rentals, and ADUs 'don't change the ownership game. They increase rentals, which we don't need more of.'
However, Brooks Gibbs, of Bountiful, urged lawmakers to support Ward's bill. He said when he built his ADU several years ago, it was a 'lifesaver' after he was laid off. Since then, Brooks said he's helped other Utahns build ADUs on their properties, and he said he's seen how it not only serves as a housing solution, but also helps provide income for families struggling with a wide range of issues.
'Either it's aging parents, it's kids that don't have a place to go to, it's health issues,' he said, describing a friend of his who was diagnosed with breast cancer and added an ADU to house her caregiver. 'When she passed away, the home went to her son, who couldn't afford a home.'
Ultimately, however, lawmakers sitting on the House committee opted not to give Ward's bill a chance on the House floor, voting 7-1 to hold it.
Rep. Gay Lynn Bennion, D-Cottonwood Heights, was among those that voted against Ward's bill — but with a warning that if Utah doesn't begin to see progress on its housing crisis soon, more drastic measures may be needed. Specifically, Bennion said cities must address not-in-my-backyard attitudes, which often can discourage higher density housing development.
'I can see that this is hurtful to our cities, to mandate this,' she said. 'However, I want to let our cities know that we need to begin overcoming NIMBYism. I see it in my city. I see my friends who are open-minded and progressive and ready to have higher density — until it's in their backyard. And I see this over and over.'
Bennion said 'it's time' for Utah to 'get this solved within the next year.'
'I'm ready to give it one more year,' she said. 'And if we can't find a way to increase the speed of which we're developing housing, then I'm going to have to vote for a bill like this.'
Ward urged lawmakers not to let his bill stall. He said the Utah Legislature has spent years passing a whole slate of legislation chewing around the edges of the issue rather than tackling it head on.
'We have done dozens of other things instead of the one thing,' he said. 'If there's any line that allows more housing to be built on a widespread, statewide, or in this case urban-wide basis, that thing, of allowing more of it, is preemption.'
Lawmakers, he said, should decide housing is 'important enough that we're just going to allow it to be done, because the benefit from it for our communities, families and kids is important.'
If the Utah Legislature continues to err on the side of cooperation with cities rather than preemption, 'to me, I expect that we'll kind of stay on the same track that we've been on.'
The debate over Ward's HB90 — which would require cities to allow smaller lot sizes as a permitted use — had similar themes, and it failed for the same reasons.
While Ward said critics of his bill argue it would only result in more subdivision and not necessarily more affordable homes, he said to him that would still be a success because it would simply help clear the way for more houses, regardless of whether they're affordable or not. That's because, he said, Utah simply needs more supply.
'The thing that I think will solve the problem is if we allow more housing so supply and demand can come into balance,' he said. 'It will be a success if we allow more smaller housing, and it will be a success if we allow more housing to be built on smaller lots.'
Simply put, Ward said his bill could mean the difference between having one acre for one family, or one acre for seven families.
Walker also spoke against that bill, again saying it was a matter of preempting local control. He also said cities like his own, Draper, are already moving toward higher density and smaller lots.
'All we've done is get smaller, all across the board,' Walker said. 'We have apartments. We have townhomes … we are doing it.'
What cities don't want, Walker said, is 'mandates.'
'We want to do our job, be partners, not be preempted,' Walker said.
Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, motioned to hold Ward's bill, saying lawmakers have to be 'incredibly careful' not to infringe on cities' ability to plan for their own growth and maintain existing 'quality of life.' She also said it's important for city leaders to be able to manage what their cities can and can't handle infrastructure-wise, including water and sewer lines.
Ward again urged lawmakers against abandoning his bill.
'Other areas that allow broader building still do manage to build more homes and smaller homes without those other things going wrong,' he said.
Utah, Ward said, is at a crossroads. He said the state can either 'find some way to allow more homes to be built for our children if we want them to still be here' or live with the expensive consequences.
'We don't have to do anything now, or later, really,' Ward said. 'There will still be people who can afford the homes. … If we don't make there be more smaller stock, the only people who can afford the homes will be the ones that can sell a $3 million house in California (and) buy a $1 million house here, while our kids have to go somewhere else.'
Knowing his bill was about to hit a dead end, Ward said he hopes at some point his colleagues will come around to his point of view.
'I hope if not today,' he said, 'then at some point, we can find a way to make that happen.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one
Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one

Contrary to what you may have read, there were two victims this week when a 5-year-old Phoenix girl was shot and killed in her south Phoenix home. Layla Ramos is dead, but she is not the only victim here. Her 9-year-old brother, who Phoenix police say fired the bullet that killed her, also is a victim — one who will have to live with this week's tragedy for the rest of his life. Of course, it wasn't his fault. It was the fault of his father, Irvin Ramos-Jimenez, 33, who shouldn't have even had a rifle, much less stored it in his son's bedroom. It was the fault — though not legally — of whomever sold him the AR-15-style rifle. In Arizona, you can sell your gun privately to any Tom, Dick or dirty Harry, no questions asked. And it's the fault of the Arizona Legislature, which refuses to pass a bill requiring universal background checks. Had the previous gun owner been required to check, he presumably would have learned that he was selling his rifle to a man who can't legally possess one. According to court records, Ramos-Jimenez, 33, told police he has a prior felony drug conviction for narcotics and can't legally possess a firearm. So, he bought one anyway through a private sale, for 'personal protection.' Then he stored it in his 9-year-old son's bedroom closet. Court records say he also had a handgun in his truck. Ramos-Jiminez was arrested after the June 3 death of his daughter, on suspicion of possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Let me count the ways our leaders could at least attempt to avoid such tragedy in the future. They could pass a bill requiring that every gun sale in Arizona be preceded by a background check, to determine whether the purchaser is legally allowed to own a firearm. They could pass a bill holding a seller liable if he or she doesn't do that background check and a little girl dies. They could pass a bill requiring gun owners to store their weapons responsibly, so that 9-year-old boys can't gain easy access and kill their sisters. So, what will the Arizona Legislature do to try to avoid the tragedy of another 5-year-old being put into a far-too-early grave? Or a 9-year-old put into what likely will be a self-imposed lifelong purgatory? Absolutely nothing. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Subscribe to today. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix shooting is no fault of the boy with the gun | Opinion

Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments
Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Kansas lawmakers release $36.2 million for state employee salary adjustments

Gov. Laura Kelly and bipartisan leaders of the Kansas Legislature voted to release $36.2 million to implement annual adjustments in the state employee pay plan and to compensate out-of-state agencies for helping in the March search for a man swept away in a flash flood. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from the Legislature's YouTube channel) TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly and the Kansas Legislative leadership unanimously voted to release $36.2 million to provide funding necessary to implement pay raises for state employees. The 2025 Legislature authorized $40 million for compensation adjustments under the state pay plan, but the Kansas Department of Administration said not all of that money would be needed to comply with mandated raises. The State Finance Council, which includes the governor, voted to release enough to implement the salary changes in conjunction with the new fiscal year. 'There will be a little bit of money that will go back during the next budget cycle to the state general fund,' said Adam Proffitt, secretary of the Department of Administration and the state budget director. Meanwhile, the bipartisan State Finance Council voted Friday without objection to allocate $45,000 to the Kansas Fire Marshal's Office to compensate emergency responders taking part in the March search for Lynn Gregory, 82, in southeast Kansas. Gregory had been driving a tractor attached to a trailer through a low-water crossing when the farm equipment was caught in a flash flood. He was swept downstream by the current. Marshal Mark Engholm said Kansas Search and Rescue task forces were deployed over a 14-day period in the effort to recover Gregory's body. An Oklahoma agency with cadaver dogs was deployed because search canines weren't available from Kansas, he said. 'It was a very difficult search because of the water level in the area,' Engholm said. 'Unfortunately, we couldn't find him.' The state council likewise agreed to dedicate $425,000 to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to update a state database known as KEIMS or Kansas Environmental Information Management System. Kate Gleeson, deputy director of environment at KDHE, said the online data system was designed to improve internal accessibility of regulatory records tied as well as broaden public access to the agency.

We deserve better than costly, wasteful carbon capture schemes
We deserve better than costly, wasteful carbon capture schemes

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

We deserve better than costly, wasteful carbon capture schemes

An anti-carbon pipeline sign is set up along the road near Canton. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) Across the Northern Great Plains, opposition to carbon capture projects is growing — nowhere more so than in South Dakota, where lawmakers recently blocked carbon capture companies from using eminent domain. The backlash to these projects is driven by concerns about the impact on farmers and ranchers, public safety, private property rights, and the billions in taxpayer dollars being funneled into unproven technology. Let's be clear: oil and gas and ethanol companies want to use public subsidies to bury millions of tons of pollution underground — threatening South Dakota's land, water and communities. To protect our communities and prevent waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds, we deserve better than carbon capture schemes. That's why one of us is working to protect taxpayers from wasting billions on subsidies for a technology that has never been proven to deliver net reductions in carbon emissions. In fact, it may actually result in public health and safety liabilities for nearby communities. The other is organizing to defend rural communities from the false promises and harmful impacts of carbon capture and storage. We agree: Carbon capture and storage should not be propped up at the expense of federal taxpayers and South Dakotans. South Dakota regulators deny carbon pipeline permit again, but company vows to reapply In recent years, we've watched Summit Carbon Solutions try to win support for a multi-state carbon dioxide pipeline — and when that failed, attempt to force it through using eminent domain. That's a process meant for public benefit, not private industry. After the Legislature blocked carbon capture companies from using it, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission required Summit to reapply for a permit — another major setback for the company's risky proposal. At Dakota Rural Action, we organize people, build leadership, and foster partnerships that protect our environmental resources and strengthen our communities. We advocate for resilient agriculture, clean air and water, and energy systems that work for all South Dakotans — now and for generations to come. At Taxpayers for Common Sense, we advocate for a federal government that uses resources wisely and serves the people, not special interests. Our research shows that tens of billions in taxpayer dollars have already gone to grants, loans and tax credits for carbon capture — often with little to show for it. After more than a decade and billions spent, carbon capture has consistently failed to deliver any meaningful emissions reduction. In 2023, U.S. CCS facilities captured just 22 million tons of CO2 annually — only about 0.4% of national emissions. Not only is CCS ineffective at capturing emissions at scale, CCS projects also expand oil and gas infrastructure, prolonging oil and gas dependence — often at the risk of private property rights, as CCS pipeline infrastructure grows. CCS also poses significant threats to local communities, as the transportation and storage of carbon risk poisoning the air and groundwater. What's more, carbon capture technology remains prohibitively expensive and is unlikely to be deployed at scale without breaking the bank for taxpayers. Independent analyses confirm what we've seen time and again: major carbon capture projects routinely fail or fall short — due to cost overruns, delays and inability to secure private investment. Instead, projects must rely on federal handouts at taxpayers' expense, often without producing any benefits. As the federal government continues to pour funding into carbon capture technology, its programs have been subject to mismanagement, waste and fraud. For example, in an analysis of 11 carbon capture projects funded by the Department of Energy — awarded a combined $1.1 billion — the Government Accountability Office found that three were actually completed, partially due to the lack of economic viability of coal CCS projects but also due to DOE's own mismanagement. The carbon capture tax credit, known as 45Q, also has a history of abuse. In 2020, the Treasury Department's inspector general reported that $894 million worth of the credits were claimed without complying with reporting requirements. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The oil and gas industry supports carbon capture because it protects their profits. And throughout the Midwest, they have partnered with the ethanol industry to tap into a steady and, thanks to taxpayer-backed subsidies, profitable source of carbon emissions. Not only can companies benefit from the lucrative 45Q tax credit for every ton of carbon they produce and then capture, they can use the captured carbon to extract more oil and generate more revenue, by injecting the carbon into depleted reservoirs to stimulate more production. Despite this track record, out-of-state corporations have secured even more federal support. With the help of aggressive lobbying, they won billions in new subsidies and expanded tax breaks, then moved to push projects into South Dakota communities, prioritizing profits over people. Despite a well-documented history of tax fraud and project failures, Congress continued to expand CCS in recent years, providing over $12 billion for research and demonstration projects and expanding the 45Q tax credit, which is now expected to cost taxpayers over $36 billion over the next decade. The reality is simple: Carbon capture has become a conduit for shifting public dollars into corporate bank accounts with no real results to show for it. South Dakotans deserve better. Real clean energy solutions start with protecting what already works — our native prairies — and not schemes that waste public resources.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store