Legislative proposals would nudge, aid municipalities toward infill development
Infill development advocates argue vacant office buildings, vacant land, and even parking lots are underutilized. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current)
Tens of thousands of square feet of vacant lots and commercial properties sit empty in the Las Vegas and Reno metro areas. Proposed legislation attempts to help tackle the state's housing crisis by establishing a process to rezone them as residential.
State lawmakers are considering multiple proposals that would empower cities to more aggressively encourage infill development to address Nevada's shortage of affordable and available units.
Assembly Bill 241, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, is designed to spark development of more multi-family housing, and require counties to speed up the process to rezone land currently designated commercial use into residential or mixed use.
'Many commercial properties, particularly aging strip malls and vacant office buildings, are underutilized,' Jauregui said during the bill's hearing in March. 'Repurposing them for housing makes better use of existing infrastructure. Building homes closer to jobs, schools and public transit reduces commute times, lowers greenhouse gas emissions and decreases urban sprawl.'
The bill, which passed the Assembly on a party line vote earlier this month, is directed toward the state's most populous counties, Clark and Washoe, and would give them until Oct. 1, 2026 to adopt an ordinance that allows for a more expedited rezoning process.
Under the legislation, if a buyer purchases a commercial property and wants to build multi-family housing on it instead, they could seek swift approval rather than go through a lengthy rezoning process, Jauregui said.
A recent analysis by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern and the regional planning collaborative known as Southern Nevada Strong identified 78,285 acres as 'vacant or underutilized land,' most of it — 85% — vacant.
The bill is scheduled to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee.
The legislation's supporters included theNevada Conservation Leaguethe Nevada State Apartment Association.
However, the Nevada Association of Counties along with Clark and Washoe County opposed the legislation.
'There are some commercial areas where multi-family or mixed-use (zoning) may not be appropriate,' said Ashley Kennedy, a lobbyist with Clark County, adding the county wants to retain 'the ability at the local level to determine' when to quickly rezone without state legislation mandating it.
Kennedy said that the county supports infill development and hasn't denied any application for a multi-family project since 2022.
She added that during that timeframe there were 39 applications for multi-family projects approved, and 21 of those applications were in commercially zoned areas.'
Cadence Matijevich, a lobbyist with Washoe County, warned the bill would produce 'unintended consequences' and could 'upset the balance of land use in our community' by requiring some commercial projects to be rezoned as residential.
'Nevada cannot afford to let outdated zoning laws and people who oppose density continue to be the reason we are stalling housing production,' Jauregui said.
Efforts to promote infill development come as state lawmakers, some members of Nevada's Congressional delegation and Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo have pushed for stepped up sales of federal land development.
Assembly Joint Resolution 10, also sponsored by Jauregui, would ask the federal government to pass the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, commonly referred to as the Clark County Lands Bill.
The bill passed the Assembly 36-6 April 17. Six Democrats Assemblymembers, Natha Anderson, Venicia Considine, Tanya Flanagan, Selena La Rue Hatch, Cinthia Moore, and Howard Watts, voted against the resolution.
Democratic Rep. Dina Titus recently took issue with state lawmakers voting for the resolution and denounced the federal bill, saying nothing in the legislation mandates that any of the land must be dedicated to affordable housing. The bill would only make land available 'to developers to build more homes that average Nevadans cannot afford,' Titus said.
AB 241 isn't the only bill that could lead to more infill development.
Senate Bill 28, legislation being brought by the City of Las Vegas, would create 'tax increment areas' in which a portion of future property tax revenue would be used to pay interest on bonds used to finance affordable housing development as well as public transit.
Much of the city's development over the next 25 years 'will consist of infill and redevelopment within existing neighborhoods, Seth Floyd, Director of Community Development for the City of Las Vegas, told the Senate Government Affairs Committee during a hearing on the bill in lawmakers during the bill's hearing in March.'
SB 28 passed the Senate 17-4 on April 17. Republican Sens. Carrie Ann Buck, Robin Titus, Ira Hansen and John Ellison voted against the bill.
Lawmakers are also considering allocating general fund dollars to aid housing development, including $250 million proposed by Lombardo.
Any proposal seeking to allocate any funding could face serious setbacks after the Economic Forum meets Thursday, when it will set final budget limits that legislators and the governor must meet when they approve a budget for the upcoming biennium.
Uncertainty and anxiety driven by Donald Trump's trade war and the resulting fallout have prompted widespread projections of not only a slowing economy, with many observers projecting the chance of a recession has increased substantially in recent weeks.
Assembly Bill 366, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, would appropriate $25 million from the state general fund to supportive housing initiatives throughout the state. The Nevada Housing Division would determine the projects eligible to receive those dollars.
Permanent supportive housing projects are subsidized for populations with significantly low or no income, such as folks experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, and comes with case management and wrap-around support services.
Brooke Page, the Nevada director of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said funding supportive housing for unhoused people is more cost effective than the alternative.
The organization conducted an analysis for Northern Nevada last year that found eight days in the emergency room, three months in jail, and one year in supportive housing with rental assistance and warp around services all cost the same. Page said.
'It makes more sense to house people, ensure they have the services they need to improve their mental health, their physical health, and gain access to employment than it does to continue to allow people to cycle in and out of high-cost systems,' she said.
Not only do developers struggle to find financing for supportive housing, funding for operational support and tenant services is also limited.
State lawmakers in 2023 allocated $30 million from the state's general fund to permanent supportive housing projects.
AB 366 seeks to strengthen the program..
During its first hearing in March, Monroe-Moreno said though the state 'doesn't have any money' allocating funds for permanent supportive housing was a priority Lombardo also identified during his budget proposal, she said.
The bill has not advanced out of its first house but is exempt from legislative deadlines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats can't just meet the moment. They have to want it.
In the last few days, Democrats were gifted two moments that crystallized massive vulnerabilities for the GOP. Their response showed they still don't know how to use them to their advantage. First, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa dismissed concerns from her constituents at a town hall that proposed Medicaid cuts could cause people to lose eligibility and even die. 'Well, we are all going to die,' she said blithely. Then, video emerged of Department of Homeland Security police handcuffing one of Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler's aides in his Manhattan office, which is in the same building as an immigration courthouse. Both moments shorthanded a broader concern: Ernst's blunt words revealed the indifference of congressional Republicans to the suffering their spending cuts will cause, while the handcuffing was an inadvertent metaphor for the Trump administration's manhandling of the Constitution. These are the kinds of moments that break through, spilling over from the Beltway to the barbershop, the normally nonpolitical spaces where elections are won or lost. But when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., addressed how the party will hold the Trump administration accountable for the needless intrusion of law enforcement into a congressional office, he said on CNN's 'State of the Union': 'We will make that decision in a time, place and manner of our choosing.' With remarks like that, he might as well send a Hallmark card asking President Donald Trump politely to stop. Comments like this are partly to blame for why many feel elected Democrats in Washington don't have their finger on the pulse of their constituents. And if folks don't feel it, they don't believe it. What we need instead is a sustained campaign-like drumbeat from the opposition. Not once a month. Not after a crisis has passed. Daily. For the record, Jeffries later pivoted from his lukewarm nonresponse about Nadler to telling NBC News on Tuesday: 'We are in a 'more is more' environment. These aren't ordinary times, and they require an extraordinary response. House Democrats are rising to the occasion to meet the moment.' Democrats in Washington, please take note: 'More is more' is a key philosophy of the party's statewide and local efforts, and it has been working. While some in Washington are stuck in what I can only describe as a never-ending paper statement loop, the real leadership in the Democratic Party is happening elsewhere — in statehouses, community halls and movement spaces across this country. And it's long past time we give credit where it's due. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the national group focused on electing Democrats to state legislatures, just launched an initiative called State of Play. Through this series, it's giving the mic to local leaders — state senators, delegates and representatives — to talk about how the chaos in D.C. is landing in their communities. Some of these folks are in the minority in red states, but they're still pushing, still fighting. This is what showing up looks like. Let's also remember: We aren't coming off a losing cycle in states throughout the country. Vice President Kamala Harris didn't win Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada or Arizona, but Democratic Senate candidates in each of those battlegrounds emerged victorious. They notched major wins in legislatures. More recently, Keishan Scott has defeated his Republican rival in a landslide win for a seat in the South Carolina House of Representatives — it was a massive overperformance. Democrat John Ewing won the Omaha, Nebraska, mayoral race against three-term Republican incumbent Jean Stothert. In April, Susan Crawford won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, allowing liberals to maintain their narrow majority on the battleground state's highest court — and defying Elon Musk after he spent millions of dollars to oppose her. These victories weren't a fluke — they were earned through organizing, persistence and community trust. And the organizing continues. The State of the People power tour — backed by grassroots activists and community organizers who have consistently been in the trenches — is making its way across the country from Jackson, Mississippi, to Los Angeles. They're not waiting for the next election. They're doing the work. Similarly, the Rev. William Barber II stood outside the Capitol on Monday, calling out the cruelty of the Republican budget and fighting for the poor and the working-class. But not one elected Democrat came outside to stand beside him. That moment mattered. Because as one of my mentors reminded me this week: 'You can't just be ready to meet the moment — you have to want the moment.' Too many Democrats, especially in Washington, seem to be waiting to be called off the bench. But this isn't a scrimmage. You either show up — visibly, consistently — or you forfeit the game. For more thought-provoking insights from Michael Steele, Alicia Menendez and Symone Sanders-Townsend, watch 'The Weeknight' every Monday-Friday at 7 p.m. ET on MSNBC. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We are choosing a bleak future for Wisconsin children
Children at the Growing Tree child care in New Glarus. Wisconsin is one of only six states that doesn't put any money into early childhood education. (Photo by Kate Rindy) Children are born into this world innocent. They did not choose their parents. They did not choose to be born into poverty. They do not get to choose if a parent is addicted to drugs or alcohol. Children do not get a choice to be born into an environment of neglect. Children do not choose to grow up in a home with violence. Children do not get a choice to be abused or assaulted. Children do not choose to be born with a disability. Children do not get to choose if they can access medical care. Children do not get a choice on whether they are even wanted or loved. Adults do have choices. In Wisconsin, we have chosen to have a state where children are the largest demographic living in poverty. We have chosen to allow some children to live with constant hunger. We have chosen not to support children with disabilities. We are still choosing not to create systems to support children who have experienced adversity like abuse and neglect. We made the choice to create an education system based on the income of the people living in the community. We choose to allow children to be uncared for. We as a community have made these choices deliberately and without shame. Consequently, we have chosen for those children to be less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to fail at a job, have poor health (which is connected to stress in the early years) and to be statistically more likely to be placed in the prison system. We, as a state, have chosen to prioritize funding for prisons and spend nothing on early care and education, one of only six states that don't invest a penny in early childhood programs, even though we know that when children have access to quality early education that they are more likely to graduate high school, have higher incomes, be healthier, and are less likely to enter the prison system. We have chosen to remove health care options for children by not expanding Badgercare. We are soon to be the only state that does not provide postpartum Medicaid, risking the lives of new mothers and increasing the likelihood that children will have to grow up without them. We have decided that children with disabilities will receive services not based on their actual needs, but based on the budget for special education, which our state keeps at the barest minimum. We have chosen to make the word 'welfare' into a bad word. Welfare by definition is the health, happiness and fortunes of a person or group. And we have chosen to deny the health, happiness and fortune of children in our state. Referring to a bipartisan push for Medicaid expansion to cover postpartum care, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said he 'cannot imagine supporting an expansion of welfare.' Why is providing welfare to support the health and wellbeing of children or anyone for that matter a negative concept? Why are we so afraid that if we support people in need that it somehow takes away from us? For example, why would providing children with free lunches at school be a bad thing to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to medical care regardless of whether their parents can afford it or not be bad to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to quality care and education in their early years, regardless of their parents' income, be a bad thing? Why would ensuring that children with disabilities have access to the services they need be bad? Why is it wrong to have systems in our state that ensure we are doing everything we can to give all children the best opportunities to grow, thrive and become productive members of our communities? Rep. Vos and Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Marklein (R-Spring Green), and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) all disagree with creating and funding policies that support our children. Time and time again, they have voted down policies that would have provided support to children. They have continued to forgo our future by not investing in our children. Instead, they invest in the wealthiest in our state and invest in our punitive prison systems. They invest in large businesses with expensive lobbyists who demand tax breaks and deregulation. They invest in those most likely to donate to their campaigns. These grown-up white men cannot stand the idea of anyone, even a child, getting help from the state. If they had to pay for school lunch, they figure, so should everyone else. If they had to pay for their child's medical visit, then so should everyone else. If they had to pay for child care, then so should everyone else. They are incapable of seeing past their privileges. They cannot appreciate what it is like to be a child born into an environment that causes harm and the trajectory that puts the child on. However, they will certainly be there when that child becomes an adult and enters the prison system. They are more than willing to pay for incarceration and punishment. That's not just financially irresponsible — we spend about four times as much to keep someone in prison as we spend on education — it's inhumane, and it impoverishes our state and condemns children to unnecessary suffering and a bleak future. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
While Gov. JB Pritzker scored wins during legislative session, cellphone ban, other initiatives fell short
Entering a legislative session amid questions about whether he'd run for a third term, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker outlined an ambitious agenda that ended with mixed results. In a State of the State and budget address in February that will be remembered mainly for Pritzker invoking Nazi Germany to describe the new presidential administration, there was also a litany of policy initiatives — some of which passed and will now have a tangible impact on Illinoisans and others that went nowhere in the spring legislative session that just wrapped up. 'You don't get everything done in one year. I think the Senate president can back me up on that, and lots of people in the General Assembly,' Pritzker said Sunday at his end-of-session news conference in Springfield, flanked by Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park. 'Sometimes they spend two years, four years, six years trying to get something big done. I think we've been hyper-successful about getting things done in a shorter period of time than expected.' But Pritzker's mixed scorecard also revealed tensions between his agenda and those in the Legislative Black Caucus. More than once, Black caucus members balked at Pritzker's plans as they didn't see their wants and needs fully addressed during a legislative session that focused heavily on fiscal issues and a tight budget. Indeed, while the governor's backing puts political capital behind any policy proposal, that didn't mean it was guaranteed to pass through the sometimes splintered Democratic supermajorities in the state House and Senate. Here are some examples of where the governor accomplished what he set out to do — and a few places where he came up short. What Pritzker said: 'This session, I'll move forward with legislation requiring all school districts in Illinois to adopt a cellphone policy that bans the use of phones during classroom instruction. More focus on learning will bring even greater success for kids across our state.' Status: Did not pass. A coalition of Illinois House lawmakers blocked the measure when it came to the House late in the session over concerns about unequal disciplinary impacts, according to bill sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Michelle Mussman of Schaumburg. Concerns about enforcement disproportionately affecting Black and brown students became more pronounced as lawmakers reviewed the phone restriction alongside another bill limiting police from ticketing students for minor misbehavior, according to Mussman. Legislators were hesitant to pass a statewide school mandate while also debating a measure meant to scale back school discipline practices, she said. Rep. Curtis Tarver, a Chicago Democrat and a member of the Black caucus, told the Tribune in February he worried about the 'unintended consequences' of a phone ban, including inequitable enforcement. The legislation against ticketing and fines passed both chambers and now heads to Pritzker's desk for his signature. A Chicago Tribune and ProPublica investigation found school districts used local law enforcement to fine students, and Black students were twice as likely to be ticketed at school as their white peers, a pattern lawmakers aimed to end. Pritzker's cellphone policy will have to wait for another session when there's more time to work out the enforcement aspect, Mussman said. The measure would have required school districts to adopt guidelines prohibiting students from using wireless devices, such as cellphones and smartwatches, during instructional time, while providing secure and accessible storage for the devices, before the 2026-2027 school year. The legislation also included a few exceptions, such as permitting students to use phones in emergencies. In the end, negotiations around the measure came down to a 'dance' between ensuring local school boards had control over their own policies while also protecting students from 'inequitably applied' policies, Mussman said. Moreover, representatives were unsure how to implement guidance on 'how a phone might be returned if it was confiscated, or what to do if anything was lost or broken,' she added. Also not quite making the mark: Pritzker's push to expand so-called evidence-based funding for K-12 schools by $350 million. The final plan would boost funding by $307 million, cutting $43 million that usually would go to a grant program designed to help school districts with high property tax rates and low real estate values. What Pritzker said: 'I'm proposing that we allow community colleges to offer four-year baccalaureate degrees for in-demand career paths — like nursing, advanced manufacturing, early childhood education, and beyond.' And: 'I propose we pass the Public University Direct Admission Program Act introduced by Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford last year. It would allow students to know before they apply whether they qualify for admission to any or all of our state's public universities.' Status: One for two. The Pritzker-led initiative to let community colleges offer four-year degrees didn't make it to the finish line even after the sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tracy Katz Muhl of Northbrook, filed a significant amendment following months of negotiations. The bill was intended to create more paths for students to get affordable, accessible bachelor's degrees in areas that need more workers. However, it initially faced opposition from existing four-year schools that warned it could duplicate degree offerings. Toward the end of the session, Tarver told a Senate committee that the Black caucus had 'significant issues with the bill,' including how it would affect four-year institutions serving a high proportion of Black and minority students, such as Chicago State University. A proposal on direct university admissions, however, passed, meaning high school students and eligible community college students starting in the 2027-2028 school year will automatically be offered admission to public universities if they meet specific GPA standards. What Pritzker said: 'We're going to stop insurance companies from blocking access to mental health. We can do that by banning prior authorization for all behavioral health care. And for rural Illinois families and those who live far away from certain medical care, we'll require insurance reimbursement for reasonable travel costs associated with medical appointments' for some distances. Status: Passed. Building on sweeping health care legislation last year, the General Assembly this session voted on a bill to expand a ban on prior authorization for outpatient behavioral health care, meaning patients will no longer need permission from insurance companies before receiving mental health treatment in many more cases. The same legislation also puts insurers on the hook for travel costs in some instances where closer options aren't adequate. What Pritzker said: 'I'm introducing the Prescription Drug Affordability Act to rein in the unfair practices of PBMs.' Status: Passed. Critics often blame large so-called pharmacy benefit managers, such as CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group-owned Optum Rx, for inflating prescription drug costs while pushing independent pharmacies out of business, and Pritzker was largely successful this session in barring these practices, as a bill carrying language to restrict PBM costs passed the legislature with broad bipartisan support. The bill now heading to Pritzker's desk would prohibit PBMs from charging insurance companies more for drugs than they are paid by pharmacies and pocketing the difference; prohibit them from giving better reimbursement rates to pharmacies that the same company owns; and require them to pass along rebates negotiated with drugmakers to health plans and patients. Pritzker indicated Saturday that he would sign the measure, which would also require PBMs to submit annual reports on pricing and other practices to the Illinois Department of Insurance. The measure would charge PBMs an annual $15-per-patient fee, with the first $25 million collected going to a grant fund to support local pharmacies. Supporters of PBMs during the session argued Pritzker's plan was flawed, as they see PBMs as saving patients and employers money partly by negotiating with drugmakers. What Pritzker proposed: As part of the package of policies he announced in February, Pritzker said he'd push several other initiatives, including funding to remediate dilapidated state sites and an easier path for voters to reduce or eliminate local township governments. Status: State site funding passed; township idea stalled. Pritzker received his requested $500 million in state capital funds for two key programs on state sites, including $300 million to remake five or more largely abandoned properties, which would help develop properties 'sitting idle' in areas that are 'ripe' for economic growth, according to his budget proposals. The state's previous investments in site readiness have generated over $1.5 billion in private investment and the now-passed initiatives could attract more than $4.7 billion in investment, the governor's office said in February. Yet an effort to consolidate smaller townships across the state did not gain much traction as neither bill in the House nor the Senate made it out of committee. Pritzker's office said in February that many of the more than 1,400 townships operating across the state — which levy over $750 million in property taxes — provide services that are duplicative or could be managed more efficiently by municipalities or counties. Townships often provide maintenance and services for rural areas, such as road maintenance and transportation for seniors. Still, several Illinois townships have been tangled with corruption, such as the recent federal investigation of Dolton Mayor and Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard over improper spending of taxpayer dollars. The idea of consolidating townships has faltered for a century, partly due to opposition from politicians seeking to preserve their power, as well as concerns that downstate rural areas could lose their civic identity.
