Latest news with #HB37
CNN
10-04-2025
- CNN
Why the firing squad may be making a comeback
South Carolina plans to execute Mikal Mahdi on Friday for the murder of a police officer, draping a hood over his head and firing three bullets into his heart. The choice to die by firing squad – rather than lethal injection or the electric chair – was Mahdi's own, his attorney said last month: 'Faced with barbaric and inhumane choices, Mikal Mahdi has chosen the lesser of three evils.' If it proceeds, Mahdi's execution would be the latest in a recent string of events that have put the spotlight on the firing squad as a handful of US death penalty states explore alternatives to lethal injection, by far the nation's dominant execution method. Mahdi's scheduled execution comes soon after the nation's first firing squad execution in 15 years, which South Carolina carried out on March 7. Five days later, Idaho's Republican governor signed into law HB 37, which will make Idaho the only state in the country with the firing squad as its primary execution method. There are a couple reasons why some states and death row inmates are turning to a method that might be seen as antiquated. First, the firing squad's reemergence is an outgrowth of states' troubles with lethal injection executions – including inadequate supplies of drugs, failed executions and legal challenges by inmates who claim their lethal injection protocols are torturous or risk violating Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. 'Lethal injection is how states execute – and also the reason they don't,' said Corinna Lain, a law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and author of the forthcoming book, 'Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection.' Second, compared to the alternatives, experts say the firing squad is generally thought to be easy, fast and effective, despite its overt violence, which has likely contributed to states' hesitancy to use it. Some have wondered aloud about this point in recent years, including US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In its 2015 ruling in Glossip v. Gross, the court upheld Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. But it also ruled inmates challenging an execution method needed to identify an alternative. Sotomayor, today the court's most senior liberal, noted in her dissent that inmates might turn to the firing squad to meet this requirement, writing there was 'evidence to suggest' it is 'significantly more reliable than other methods,' and there was 'some reason to think that it is relatively quick and painless.' 'Certainly, use of the firing squad could be seen as a devolution to a more primitive era,' Sotomayor wrote, noting the 'visible brutality' could lead inmates to also challenge the method on Eighth Amendment grounds. 'At least from a condemned inmate's perspective, however, such visible yet relatively painless violence may be vastly preferable to an excruciatingly painful death hidden behind a veneer of medication,' she said. The firing squad is among the country's oldest execution methods, according to Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School who studies the death penalty and execution methods. But it's been used rarely, with just over 140 inmates put to death using that method since 1608, per her research. By contrast, lethal injection has been used more than 1,400 times since its advent in 1982. The firing squad had been used even more sparingly since 1976, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment: Only four people have been executed by firing squad since then, including Brad Sigmon in South Carolina last month, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The other executions all occurred in Utah. Of the 27 states with the death penalty, only five authorize firing squad, and most include it as an option only if lethal injection is impossible, according to DPIC. All death penalty states – plus the US government and the US military – authorize lethal injection. Nine states authorize electrocution, and five authorize nitrogen hypoxia. 'With each development of a new technology of execution, the same promises are made: 'This method is safe, reliable and more humane than the alternative,'' said Austin Sarat, a professor of law and politics at Amherst College. The search for a method that checks these boxes culminated with lethal injection. But about 15 years ago, states began losing access to the drugs they needed, causing them to use different drug combinations or seek a different method altogether. Idaho struggled for years to obtain pentobarbital, the drug it needed for executions, Rep. Bruce Skaug, the Republican lawmaker who sponsored HB 37, told CNN. But when it did manage to get the drug, it failed at its first attempted lethal injection in 12 years: In February 2024, executioners were unable to set an IV line on inmate Thomas Creech, forcing officials to abort the execution. 'Because of that failure,' Skaug said, 'this year, we decided to bring firing squad to the number one option.' 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' Skaug said, telling CNN the victims of the nine people on Idaho's death row deserve justice. The firing squad will allow Idaho to avoid the challenges presented by lethal injection, Skaug said. Crucially, he does not anticipate the state will have issues sourcing firearms and ammunition it needs, he said. 'But really, personally, I find it more humane,' he said. 'It's sudden, it's quick. I'm told by experts that the convicted person is instantly unconscious, and so that's really a humane way of death.' Indeed, the firing squad 'is thought to cause nearly instant unconsciousness,' Dr. Jonathan Groner, emeritus professor of clinical surgery at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, previously told CNN. Firing bullets into a person's heart 'would instantly stop the blood flow to the brain, which, like a cardiac arrest, causes rapid loss of brain function,' he said. In 1938, officials performed an electrocardiogram on a Utah inmate who was put to death by firing squad. A doctor said it showed his heart stopped beating 15 seconds after the bullet was fired, though the inmate was declared dead more than two minutes later, according to Associated Press reporting at the time. An Associated Press reporter who witnessed Sigmon's firing squad execution in South Carolina last month said it was 'much quicker' than those he had seen using lethal injection and the electric chair. 'The time from the shots being fired to the time death was declared was a little over two minutes,' Jeffrey Collins said. Sarat's research also suggests states are unlikely to stray from their own protocols during a firing squad execution. Critics call this circumstance a 'botched execution.' For his 2014 book, 'Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty,' Sarat reviewed nearly 9,000 executions carried out in the United States between 1900 and 2010. While he documented only 34 firing squad executions, it was the only method to boast a zero percent 'botch rate' within that time frame. Of the other methods – including electrocution, lethal gas and hanging – lethal injection had the highest botch rate of more than 7%. Still, states have remained averse to the firing squad, a position that experts who spoke to CNN believe stems from its overt violence. Writing for USA Today, Bo King, an attorney for Sigmon, wrote about seeing blood flow from a 'fist-sized hole' over his client's stomach before hearing the explosions of the three rifles used in his execution last month, leaving the lawyer 'sick with rage.' In this way, the firing squad is lethal injection's 'exact opposite,' said Lain, the University of Richmond law professor. 'Ending life before the body is ready to end it requires violence,' Lain told CNN. 'And the chief benefit of lethal injection is it hides it. The chief downside of the firing squad is that it shows it explicitly. It shows what the death penalty is, which is the state shedding blood in your name.' 'I think it is an explicit debasement of our society. It is an embrace of brutality,' she said of the firing squad. 'But if there is a bright side, perhaps it is that it will start some very important conversations about the death penalty that have been long standing but suppressed, because lethal injection has internalized that violence.' This sentiment echoes Sotomayor, who in her Glossip v. Gross dissent alluded to the potential apprehension states might have in carrying out executions by firing squad. 'The States may well be reluctant to pull back the curtain for fear of how the rest of us might react to what we see,' she wrote. 'But we deserve to know the price of our collective comfort before we blindly allow a State to make condemned inmates pay it in our names.' Skaug, the lawmaker, believes Idahoans will not be made uneasy by the firing squad. They're familiar with firearms, he said – for war and self-defense, but also as tools. And those facing execution, he added, 'carried out violent acts against other people … horrifically violent acts.' 'So, a bit of violence with bullets to the heart does not bother us, those that want to see this carried out.'
CNN
10-04-2025
- CNN
Why the firing squad may be making a comeback
South Carolina plans to execute Mikal Mahdi on Friday for the murder of a police officer, draping a hood over his head and firing three bullets into his heart. The choice to die by firing squad – rather than lethal injection or the electric chair – was Mahdi's own, his attorney said last month: 'Faced with barbaric and inhumane choices, Mikal Mahdi has chosen the lesser of three evils.' If it proceeds, Mahdi's execution would be the latest in a recent string of events that have put the spotlight on the firing squad as a handful of US death penalty states explore alternatives to lethal injection, by far the nation's dominant execution method. Mahdi's scheduled execution comes soon after the nation's first firing squad execution in 15 years, which South Carolina carried out on March 7. Five days later, Idaho's Republican governor signed into law HB 37, which will make Idaho the only state in the country with the firing squad as its primary execution method. There are a couple reasons why some states and death row inmates are turning to a method that might be seen as antiquated. First, the firing squad's reemergence is an outgrowth of states' troubles with lethal injection executions – including inadequate supplies of drugs, failed executions and legal challenges by inmates who claim their lethal injection protocols are torturous or risk violating Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. 'Lethal injection is how states execute – and also the reason they don't,' said Corinna Lain, a law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and author of the forthcoming book, 'Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection.' Second, compared to the alternatives, experts say the firing squad is generally thought to be easy, fast and effective, despite its overt violence, which has likely contributed to states' hesitancy to use it. Some have wondered aloud about this point in recent years, including US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In its 2015 ruling in Glossip v. Gross, the court upheld Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. But it also ruled inmates challenging an execution method needed to identify an alternative. Sotomayor, today the court's most senior liberal, noted in her dissent that inmates might turn to the firing squad to meet this requirement, writing there was 'evidence to suggest' it is 'significantly more reliable than other methods,' and there was 'some reason to think that it is relatively quick and painless.' 'Certainly, use of the firing squad could be seen as a devolution to a more primitive era,' Sotomayor wrote, noting the 'visible brutality' could lead inmates to also challenge the method on Eighth Amendment grounds. 'At least from a condemned inmate's perspective, however, such visible yet relatively painless violence may be vastly preferable to an excruciatingly painful death hidden behind a veneer of medication,' she said. The firing squad is among the country's oldest execution methods, according to Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School who studies the death penalty and execution methods. But it's been used rarely, with just over 140 inmates put to death using that method since 1608, per her research. By contrast, lethal injection has been used more than 1,400 times since its advent in 1982. The firing squad had been used even more sparingly since 1976, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment: Only four people have been executed by firing squad since then, including Brad Sigmon in South Carolina last month, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The other executions all occurred in Utah. Of the 27 states with the death penalty, only five authorize firing squad, and most include it as an option only if lethal injection is impossible, according to DPIC. All death penalty states – plus the US government and the US military – authorize lethal injection. Nine states authorize electrocution, and five authorize nitrogen hypoxia. 'With each development of a new technology of execution, the same promises are made: 'This method is safe, reliable and more humane than the alternative,'' said Austin Sarat, a professor of law and politics at Amherst College. The search for a method that checks these boxes culminated with lethal injection. But about 15 years ago, states began losing access to the drugs they needed, causing them to use different drug combinations or seek a different method altogether. Idaho struggled for years to obtain pentobarbital, the drug it needed for executions, Rep. Bruce Skaug, the Republican lawmaker who sponsored HB 37, told CNN. But when it did manage to get the drug, it failed at its first attempted lethal injection in 12 years: In February 2024, executioners were unable to set an IV line on inmate Thomas Creech, forcing officials to abort the execution. 'Because of that failure,' Skaug said, 'this year, we decided to bring firing squad to the number one option.' 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' Skaug said, telling CNN the victims of the nine people on Idaho's death row deserve justice. The firing squad will allow Idaho to avoid the challenges presented by lethal injection, Skaug said. Crucially, he does not anticipate the state will have issues sourcing firearms and ammunition it needs, he said. 'But really, personally, I find it more humane,' he said. 'It's sudden, it's quick. I'm told by experts that the convicted person is instantly unconscious, and so that's really a humane way of death.' Indeed, the firing squad 'is thought to cause nearly instant unconsciousness,' Dr. Jonathan Groner, emeritus professor of clinical surgery at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, previously told CNN. Firing bullets into a person's heart 'would instantly stop the blood flow to the brain, which, like a cardiac arrest, causes rapid loss of brain function,' he said. In 1938, officials performed an electrocardiogram on a Utah inmate who was put to death by firing squad. A doctor said it showed his heart stopped beating 15 seconds after the bullet was fired, though the inmate was declared dead more than two minutes later, according to Associated Press reporting at the time. An Associated Press reporter who witnessed Sigmon's firing squad execution in South Carolina last month said it was 'much quicker' than those he had seen using lethal injection and the electric chair. 'The time from the shots being fired to the time death was declared was a little over two minutes,' Jeffrey Collins said. Sarat's research also suggests states are unlikely to stray from their own protocols during a firing squad execution. Critics call this circumstance a 'botched execution.' For his 2014 book, 'Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty,' Sarat reviewed nearly 9,000 executions carried out in the United States between 1900 and 2010. While he documented only 34 firing squad executions, it was the only method to boast a zero percent 'botch rate' within that time frame. Of the other methods – including electrocution, lethal gas and hanging – lethal injection had the highest botch rate of more than 7%. Still, states have remained averse to the firing squad, a position that experts who spoke to CNN believe stems from its overt violence. Writing for USA Today, Bo King, an attorney for Sigmon, wrote about seeing blood flow from a 'fist-sized hole' over his client's stomach before hearing the explosions of the three rifles used in his execution last month, leaving the lawyer 'sick with rage.' In this way, the firing squad is lethal injection's 'exact opposite,' said Lain, the University of Richmond law professor. 'Ending life before the body is ready to end it requires violence,' Lain told CNN. 'And the chief benefit of lethal injection is it hides it. The chief downside of the firing squad is that it shows it explicitly. It shows what the death penalty is, which is the state shedding blood in your name.' 'I think it is an explicit debasement of our society. It is an embrace of brutality,' she said of the firing squad. 'But if there is a bright side, perhaps it is that it will start some very important conversations about the death penalty that have been long standing but suppressed, because lethal injection has internalized that violence.' This sentiment echoes Sotomayor, who in her Glossip v. Gross dissent alluded to the potential apprehension states might have in carrying out executions by firing squad. 'The States may well be reluctant to pull back the curtain for fear of how the rest of us might react to what we see,' she wrote. 'But we deserve to know the price of our collective comfort before we blindly allow a State to make condemned inmates pay it in our names.' Skaug, the lawmaker, believes Idahoans will not be made uneasy by the firing squad. They're familiar with firearms, he said – for war and self-defense, but also as tools. And those facing execution, he added, 'carried out violent acts against other people … horrifically violent acts.' 'So, a bit of violence with bullets to the heart does not bother us, those that want to see this carried out.'
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah lawmakers say no to ‘preemption,' halt 2 housing bills aimed allowing smaller homes
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
