Utah’s Housing Crisis and Governor’s Proposal

As the housing situation in Utah deteriorates, Governor Spencer Cox is putting forth a bold plan. He aims to take away some urban planning powers from cities, advocating for increased density in housing through state authority.

During a recent event celebrating affordable housing innovations, Cox declared he would tackle affordability challenges more decisively. His mantra was straightforward: “Supply, supply, supply.”

This approach might seem unexpected, especially for a state that has long favored its suburban charm, open land, and homeownership aspirations. Yet, as data shows, the median home price is nearing $600,000. Alarmingly, only about 9% of those without homes can afford to become homeowners. This suggests that the dream of owning a home is slipping away.

If implemented, Cox’s plan could mark a significant shift in Utah’s approach to housing, joining a national trend where state governments are stepping in when local authorities resist zoning changes.

Proponents argue this is the only viable option to address the housing deficit, while detractors fear it could disrupt Utah’s unique character.

Statewide Zoning Overhaul

Cox’s proposal includes a contentious strategy: statewide zoning preemption. This would enable the state to override local zoning rules, promoting denser housing and smaller lot sizes even in areas where residents oppose such changes.

You might wonder why density is being prioritized in a state with ample space. While expanding into new land seems straightforward, it’s actually quite complex.

Encouraging development on untouched land can lead to urban sprawl—a rapid, unregulated spread of low-density developments that can consume farmlands and greenery. This kind of growth carries a hefty price tag.

Research from 2015 highlighted that unintended sprawl costs America nearly $1 trillion annually, with infrastructure needs adding exorbitant expenses per person. And that’s not even considering vehicle ownership costs and health issues stemming from decreased walkability.

Furthermore, increasing residential areas at the edges of wildlands raises the risk of wildfires, placing more homes and lives in harm’s way. This connection to growing exposure is something experts are beginning to recognize.

Therefore, building upward rather than outward seems more prudent. The challenge lies in outdated zoning laws, which heavily restrict land use—about 75% of city land is designated for single-family homes, effectively blocking duplexes or smaller, affordable units. This trend is contributing to Utah’s deepening affordability issues.

As it stands, the state is projected to face a housing shortage of 50,000 units in the next decade, with home prices sitting at a staggering five times the median income, which many economists classify as “grossly unaffordable.”

These conflicting pressures have compelled Cox to prioritize housing in his agenda.

While he acknowledges the possibility of strong state intervention, he indicates that he hopes to avoid it. “Is preemption still an option? Yes, and it needs to be,” he stated, reflecting the delicate balance he’s trying to strike.

The move has not been welcomed by everyone. Many in Utah emphasize the importance of local governance, especially in a state that prides itself on community-focused, low-government ideals.

Supporters of the plan argue it reflects the true spirit of local governance, advocating for the removal of bureaucratic barriers that limit housing development.

Resistance to Change

Despite the urgent need for solutions, there’s notable pushback against these proposals. Similar plans nationwide have faced strong resistance based on local concerns about identity and community values, and Utah is no exception.

Local Republican leaders have taken a firm stance against the proposal, highlighting it as a potential infringement on local autonomy. They argue that housing prices are dictated by broader market forces, suggesting state-level interventions might not solve the core issues.

According to one local official, increasing density could impose additional strain on already burdened systems. It’s a valid concern that resonates with many residents.

The Efficacy of Zoning Changes

This raises an important question: would changing zoning rules significantly lower home prices? It’s an appealing argument—more housing leads to lower costs. But opponents point out that factors like interest rates and labor shortages play a crucial role, perhaps even overshadowing the supply side.

Yet, some initial findings indicate that supply does matter. For instance, in Salt Lake City, a recent influx of rental units helped reduce rents by 0.2%. It’s a modest dip, but it defies the trend seen in many parts of the country.

When looking at housing affordability in Utah, it’s positioned 29th in the nation, suggesting a real need for constructive changes—incremental zoning updates could have a substantial impact.

Reforming Zoning Policies

Utah’s proposal isn’t happening in a vacuum. The national conversation around zoning reform is heating up, with leaders across the spectrum seeking ways to manage housing costs effectively.

California’s SB 9 law, which facilitates subdividing single-family lots to allow duplexes, exemplifies this trend. However, the execution has proven challenging due to construction-related issues, holding back progress.

For example, Sacramento managed to approve only a fraction of the housing permits needed to meet future construction goals. Other cities, burdened with their respective crises, also lag in meeting requirements.

For advocates of systemic zoning reform, the question remains whether Cox’s approach can successfully tackle housing shortages. The potential risk of stagnation exists; even with strong proposals, local resistance, supply chain issues, and political complexities might hinder meaningful progress.