Utah Planners' Corner

What a View...For Me!

2006-11-27T07:47:00.000-08:00

Gotten rather busy with work and family being around for Thanksgiving, etc., so I haven't blogged much lately. I did take some time on Thanksgiving morning to go and hike the land that has been at the center of the dispute between the City of North Salt Lake and Salt Lake City and County (see stories here and here). As much tramping around the hills as I do, I have not hiked this area (not in recent memory, anyway. I did tramp some of this area years and years ago when I was an intern with Davis County, long before Eaglewood Golf Course and all its surrounding development were ever even thought of.)

No question, this is a great area. The views are fantastic! Given the rapid pace of development in Davis County and all along the Wasatch Front, it is nice to have some areas that stay undeveloped. But...but, to some degree, it does strike me as more of the Gangplank syndrome (you know, "I'm aboard, now hoist up the gangplank and don't let anyone else on board!") There are large, beautiful homes on this benchland in both North Salt Lake and in Salt Lake City. I suspect much of the drive to keep the remaining benchland undeveloped comes from these homeowners -- a great way to have some (almost) private places to run and walk your dog (both of which I saw while I was tramping the area on Thanksgiving.)

Now let's turn the pancake again -- I understand this land was acquired years ago by North Salt Lake City either for its water rights or for watershed protection. If that was the case, then why not keep such publicly owned land undeveloped?

It cuts both ways on this one. It's just interesting to see a couple of governmental entities fighting each other over powers that each would absolutely die for if the shoe were on the other foot.

Connection Land Use and Transportation

2006-11-19T13:38:00.000-08:00

Stories in the DesNews and the Trib this weekend about the Wasatch Vision 2040 plan, developed by Envision Utah as the first step in updating the regional long-range transportation plans for the Wasatch Front Regional Council and the Mountainlands Association of Governments. The plan updates this time around are attempting to make solid connections between the cause-and-effect relationship of land use patterns and what the subsequent transportation system will need to be. It makes intuitive sense that judicious land use and help reduce the size and scope of transportation systems that may be needed, if we can find ways to keep people close to home for work and daily needs.

A couple of the more interesting websites (of the many that are now out there) about this connection between land use and transportation can be found here and here.

The difficult part will be in convincing independent self-governing communities that they may need to make some modifications to the way they allow development, to help in the overall regional picture. It's just a lot easier to let somebody else allow for that higher density development, or that mixed-use area with dwellings near offices and services. The report from Envision Utah is meant to serve as a guide to the kinds of actions communities can take to get us closer to the better picture -- but it will take a concerted education effort to even make communities aware of these options.

"Where There is No Vision, The People Perish"

2006-11-14T18:05:00.000-08:00

Interesting story on the New West website, about the most recent attempt in Oregon to reinvigorate the public about planning and vision. Many were concerned that it had been more than a generation since the remarkable public support of the 1970's when Oregon's unique planning system was conceived and implemented. Since that time, the vision got lost in the mechanics of day-to-day work and the poorly explained reasoning behind land use decisions.

Oregon planners, through the Oregon APA chapter, attempted for several years to get a new, broad-based visioning effort going, but it too has become mired in technical details rather than taking a new, sweeping look at statewide visions and goals. The ultimate repudiation happened in 2004, when voters passed Measure 37, halting and even reversing much of what earlier Oregonians had been trying to accomplish.

Where are we at in Utah? Do we have broad-based visioning and support? Envision Utah has surely done much to help us get there, but it has been ten years. Time to reinvigorate and re-establish that vision. Some of that effort is currently underway in Washington County with the Vision Dixie effort, something that deserves support and encouragement.

Pay to Learn

2006-11-12T19:24:00.000-08:00

Story last week in the DesNews about the efforts of school districts, some cities and citizens to get the state legislature to authorize impact fees for schools.

I have long thought if cities, counties and special districts can use impact fees to help build necessary new infrastructure, schools should be allowed the same. But given the atmosphere we've been in over the past couple of years regarding development issues in the legislature, it may be suicide to bring those fees up now. Impact fees have been subject to a lot of displeasure and threats by certain legislators, at one point a few years ago nearly losing them. The fees were saved when certain accomodations were made, with the implicit understanding that they would be left alone. So to have them brought up now again may endanger the fees the fees in general. We'll have to see, as this effort is not being led by local governments but by the school districts.

Envision Utah founding chair Robert Grow has raised another interesting issue with regard to school impact fees: by allowing them to be implemented, are we sending the message that paying for education is up to all those new people, that long-time residents have only a minimal role in helping to provide education? Some interesting implications and thoughts here.

Hi, Ho, SkyBridge!

2006-11-09T07:27:00.000-08:00

Stories in this morning's Trib and DesNews about the proposed skybridge for the City Creek Center. Taubman says it is critical to their project, and I can see that that may be the case to tie the upper levels of the development together. However, there is a long-standing aversion to skybridges in the Salt Lake psyche, partly because of our desire to protect the views of the mountains. We also have much wider streets than many of the downtowns that have them, which adds to that desire.

I actually opined on skybridges over a year ago, which I think is still relevant to the current discussion. See that commentary here.

I tend to agree with the quote by Bob Bliss in one of the news stories, what's the rush? We have time to work through this issue, the plans for the City Creek Center are still have not been presented in detail. Let's work through this and get most everyone on the same track.

Property Rights Measures Fail - Except for Arizona

2006-11-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of yesterday's elections, I took a quick look around the western states that had Measure 37 clones on their ballots this November. It seems that all have failed, except in Arizona.

The most-watched one was in Washington state, where a strong property-rights movement worked hard to emulate the actions of their sister state Oregon. The Seattle Times reports, however, that the measure was soundly defeated, losing by a landslide in all the Puget Sound counties, and even trailing in the more conservative eastern Washington counties. The measure was pushed primarily by the Washington Farm Bureau, but previous allies such as the realtors, builders and timber companies stayed away from this proposal.

Prop 90 in California was headed to defeat, with more than 52% of the vote going against it, and even in super-conservative Idaho, Proposition 2 failed.

Arizona, however, appears to have passed Proposition 207, which in addition to limitations on eminent domain for economic development purposes, requires landowners to be paid of land-use decisions affect the value of their property.

Voila -- Suburban Centers!

2006-11-06T18:20:00.000-08:00

With the emphasis recently on the new development of downtown SLC and the Downtown Rising project, I felt a little out of sync in discussion the "centerization" of the suburbs -- see some of the recent blog postings.

But now, here comes a story in today's Trib about the attempted creation of "downtowns" in some of the suburban communities. No question it's hard to create from scratch, and it may not always succeed, but the attempt is underway. The emphasis still seems to be heavily on retail, however, with office and job centers as kind of an afterthought. We have the same issue going in Davis County with Farmington Station. We need to get those jobs in there to make them more truly viable "urban" centers.

Downtown Rising and Transportation

2006-11-03T18:16:00.000-08:00

A good opinion piece in the DesNews this morning by my good friend Ralph Becker about the current efforts underway to reimagine and revitalize downtown Salt Lake. This is a critical part of keeping our metro area vital and attractive. While downtown no longer functions as THE location for all important business and economic activity, as downtowns all over the world once were, it is still important as an activity center and "heart and soul" for the region. The last thing in the world we should allow is for the downtown to become as some others have, where the metro area essentially become a donut -- lots of stuff happening around the edges, but a big hole in the middle.

Along with the focus on downtown, much of the region is also in the midst of a campaign for transportation improvement, with lots of talk about expanding the transit system. I just attended this morning an open house by UTA marking 50% completion of the FrontRunner commuter rail system construction from Ogden to Salt Lake City. We are anxiously looking forward to having this great service up and running soon!

Anthony Downs, senior fellow with the Brookings Institute, put much of this kind of discussion in context a couple of years ago when he addressed the Partnership for Downtown Baltimore. Many of the things he said there are relevant to our situation, I think.

Downs said, "Downtown is still a major employment center for office workers, government workers, and health care workers, and the retailers and service workers who serve the former. The largest office complex (in the state) is located here... . A lot of people who work here do not want to commute from a distance so they form a market for downtown housing.

"Downtown has the greatest aggregation of business services in the ... region; hence it can provide a better setting for many types of business than any suburban location, even though many suburban locations are getting larger and more urbanized, with many more retail and office complexes competitive with downtown.

"Now I would like to discuss some basic realities about transportation relevant to downtown.

"...traffic congestion is rising in intensity all over the world, and is likely to keep on doing so. This trend is caused partly be increasing population and prosperity, which enable more households to own more vehicles.

"By any reckoning, most commuters use private vehicles. ... There is a widespread belief that a bigger off-road transit system will surely reduce traffic congestion because it will take all its passengers off the highways during peak periods. But that is not necessarily the case. Your (Baltimore's) present light rail system has 25,000 unlinked passenger trips on a typical weekday. Even if all are commuter trips, then 12,500 commuters are using the light rail system daily. That is only 1.25% of all the region's commuters.

"There may be good reasons to build more transit capacity, such as improving mobility for people without access to cars. But expanding transit capacity will not significantly reduce peak-hour traffic congestion on any major roads that are already congested. It is no accident that most of the U.S. cities with the biggest transit systems also have very intensive traffic congestion. Both transit useage and congestion intensity are highly correlated with city and regional population density -- the greater the density, the worse the congestion.

"I am NOT saying that your desire to spend a lot of money on more transit is a waste of time, or should be scrapped. But I think it needs to be considered within a larger framework of thinking about transportation downtown and beyond."

Read the rest, there's some interesting and thought-provoking stuff here.

Desire for Open Space -- A Trojan Horse?

2006-10-31T17:59:00.000-08:00

The DesNews this morning ran a story on the Dan Jones poll commissioned by the Utah League of Cities and Towns asking people what their most pressing local concerns were, and their opinions on this topics. Some of this was discussed at the League annual conference in September. Growth and the way it is handled are among the top concerns among community residents. At the League conference, Dan Jones even went so far as to say that the issue of how growth is handled would be the top issue of next year's municipal elections.

What I find particularly interesting is the strong support for open space preservation. On the surface, this seems like a great result, something many have been working for for some time. But as I looked at the overall survey results, it is summed up in how one of the questions was asked -- should open space be preserved to resist further development?

While I think people are generally sincere in their desire to see open space preserved, there is another motivation at work here -- that is, if we preserve open space (particularly the pieces near my house), then we've stopped new development, or at least shifted it to someplace else.

If we are truly desirous of seeing the pattern of suburban development change, then we should also be supporting the intensification of density so that the same number of dwellings will still be built in a given area, just that more of the area will be in open space. Otherwise, don't we risk just pushing development even farther out because the land that would have had new homes built on it is now unavailable? But I don't see our citizens supportive of increasing densities near their homes -- if anything, their opposition has become even stronger.

If the public doesn't want to come up with the money to pay for all that extra open space (though right now it seems they are willing to do so -- we'll see what happens with the measures that are on the ballot in Utah this November), then what better way than to incentivize developers by giving them increased density for setting aside open land?

Just a little something to keep in mind as there are more calls for preservation of open space.

Expand Transportation Options

2006-10-29T05:42:00.000-08:00

Another opinion piece is in the papers this morning supporting the passage of the transportation propositions that are on the ballot this November in Salt Lake and Utah counties. In my mind, there is no question that these questions should pass to help us expand our transportation systems and give more travel options to commuters.

As I've said in the past, I believe that the transportation sytem is the "skeleton" of a metropolitan area, on which we hang the substance of its character (the kinds of homes and businesses that make it up). The Wasatch Front metropolitan area is somewhat unique in that it is long and relatively skinny -- we have natural urban growth boundaries with the mountains to our east and the Great Salt Lake/desert to our west. Such a configuration allows transit to work particularly well, because much of our daily commerce moves along in narrow corridors.

The downside, however, is the complex pattern of commuting that has developed in recent years. The latest edition of on-going studies of our commuting patterns by Alan Pisarski points out that the dominant commute these days is not suburbs to central city, but suburb to suburb. I see evidence of this by just looking at the commuters who live in my neighborhood in Kaysville. Only a couple of them travel to downtown Salt Lake City -- most go to a great variety of destinations: LakePark, International Center, Draper, University of Utah, one even drives to Orem every day.

I asked the Wasatch Front Regional Council staff if they had good figures on what percentage of Davis County commuters goes to downtown Salt Lake each day -- their answer was about 10-15%. Our transit system, however, is primarily focused on getting people to and from downtown Salt Lake.

I have long maintained that even with the best and most extensive transit system, it will accomodate only around 10% of the commute, because that is the most it does in other metro areas. And yet, even with that fairly paltry number, I feel that it is needed, for a couple of reasons.

First, in sizeable metro areas around the world today, there has to be another way to get around other than by car because it just isn't possible for many to drive, and because it gives everyone options. If I have to go in to Salt Lake on a given day, and if I hear on the traffic report that there is a bad accident blocking I-15, or its a bad weather day, I have no option right now other than to drive (or take the express bus, which will also have to sit in traffic). We need options to keep our population appropriately mobile.

Second, I believe it is an indication of the relative strength and vitality of a metro area to have a good transit system. It is a factor in economic development, so to speak. It says to the world, "Salt Lake City is a world-class player, it has an extensive transit system." It's just one of those things that business people seem to look at when they contemplate making investments in different areas.

So vote for the transportation questions on the ballot right now. We need it, it is necessary, but just keep in mind, it won't be a panacea.

I'm Baaack! Let's Talk...Kotkin!

2006-10-25T19:14:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess I might finally get back in the saddle and fire up this old blog again. When my home computer blew up, it took me a while to get a new one (I tried to get the old one fixed for a while, before finally giving it up). Then, I just lost the desire to pick it up again! It is rather demanding trying to keep up a blog, finding things to blog about, thinking what to say, etc. I know, whine whine whine, but hey, it's good therapy!

So what's got be ready to go again is a piece in MetropolisMag by Joel Kotkin on the "suburban village" concept that he's talked about before, and that I rather like (this will get my old friends, the Peak Oil guys, going again, I'm sure).

Kotkin derides "traditional" suburban development as unsustainable and wasteful, but he also recognizes that packing more density into existing urban cores isn't going to a) appeal to the vast majority, or b) provide enough housing for the expected 100 million additional people expected in the U.S. in the next forty or so years.

He advocates a series of suburban centers or villages, which makes a lot of sense to me. Find ways to densify and centralize in the suburbs and create an "archipelago" of new development. In our own area, this seems to be where Kennecott Land is heading with the long term plans for the west Salt Lake Valley and Oquirrh foothills.

This approach works well when you have a large blank slate to work with, like Kennecott land has. But how do you make this happen in someplace like southwest Salt Lake County, or west Utah County, where the land is not in the hands of one large owner, or under the control of one political entity?

Also, the idea that people will live and work in a particular center or village is a nice thought, but looking at how we live our lives today, it is more likely that we will live in one village and work in another, greatly complicating commute patterns and making effective transit difficult or impossible.

We need to keep exploring new ideas and work things out.

Great to be back, I think. We'll see if blogging is a release, or becomes a taskmaster again.

How Big is a Region?

2006-09-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

I attended the legislative committee meeting yesterday in which the proposed transportation sales tax was discussed. The bill eventually passed during the special session of the legislature later that day (see DesNews and Trib stories), which I think is a good thing, as it will give voters the option to increase funding for transportation needs, including transit! My gosh, the legislature actually took a positive stand on transit (albeit also combined with road projects).

The thing that I am finding interesting, though, is that this bill pushes the decision making about what to fund to the county level. It does require that the funds go to projects "of regional significance," and that they must be on the regional (or statewide) transportation plans, but the actual decision making is at the county level. The same kind of move was made last year with passage of the car registration fee increase, which is optional to the counties, and decisions on where to spend it is made on a countywide level, through Councils of Government.

This same trend is showing up elsewhere, as the Wasatch Front Regional Council recently decided to run their region-wide long range plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan (the 5-year project funding list) through the County COGs first.

I have been the administrator of the Davis County COG for some ten years now, and have long believed that some of the most effective (often, the ONLY) regional planning that we do is at the county level. These recent events simply serve to reinforce that notion. What we can't forget is that the Salt Lake Metro region is more than just 6 or 7 separate, independent counties - we need to make sure there are good mechanisms in place to coordinate between counties as well. Wasatch Front Regional Council is one way to do this for transportation, but there must be others for issues in addition to transportation.

Coming Attractions for 2007

2006-09-17T12:18:00.000-07:00

First, I apologize for the spotty nature of my blog entries as of late. My home computer, which I took in to be fixed a week ago, was declared terminal by the techs at my local computer shop, and I am now in the process of looking for a new one. So I haven't had a consistent home base to work from, which makes blogging rather difficult. I work from where I can, but until my home computer issue is resolved, I guess it's going to continue to be hit and miss.

Now, as to the topic for this blog, I attended the Friday morning business session at the League of Cities and Towns annual conference, where Dan Jones and staff presented highlights from their recently conducted survey about public perceptions of local government. Some very interesting items were noted by Mr. Jones.

Most notable was the strong increase in citizens saying that growth and "overdevelopment" were among their chief issues of concern. Also, of public services provided by local goverenment that were identified by citizens, among the lowest rating in satisfaction was planning & zoning.

Dan stated that these indicators lead him to believe that growth, and the desire to stop or control growth, will be THE BIG topic for the municipal elections in 2007. He also said that poll respondents have been listing preservation of opens space as one of their top concerns, an item which wasn't even on radar screens in polling in previous years. Some of this seems to be connected to the desire to stop growth.

Utah, in my experience, has avoided much of the "stop growth at any cost" fever that seems to have swept many other states in recent years, but these poll results indicate that maybe the honeymoon is coming to an end.

Given what has happened in the last couple of years with developer-led charges in the state legislature for "liberalized" growth controls, we may be headed for a heck of a train wreck in the next year. This could be interesting to watch, if many of us planners weren't right in the middle of the whole darn affair.

More to come on this.

Hoist Up the Gangplank!

2006-09-12T18:08:00.000-07:00

Arrgghh! My home computer went down several days ago, and I've had it in for repairs, and I haven't been able to blog easily (it's just too much effort to go to one of my kids' computers or something), and it's been such a target-rich environment out there! Finally I've figured out a way, and I must comment on an amazing juxtaposition of two opinion pieces that appeared on the editorial pages of the two main Salt Lake dailies in the last few days.

First, the piece by Bruce Wilson, retired CIO of Universal Studios who moved to Washington, Utah (just north of St. George), which appeared in the Trib on Sunday. Mr. Wilson laments the rapid pace of growth in Washington County, and figures that much of it is happening because local officials welcome and invite it. "Such growth could not occur unless many residents were rolling out the red carpet and inviting one and all to move to Washington County. ... The welcoming committee is headed by elected and appointed county and city officials."

"But why do they think that rolling out the welcome mat instead of putting up the stop sign is a good thing for Washington County?" he says.

The solution, according to Mr. Wilson? "Growth in southwestern Utah needs to be managed by tough minds, not soft hearts. Washington County will not be able to soft-heartedly satisfy the demand without destroying everything that made it so attractive in the first place."

Hmmm, interesting. Lots of thoughts come to mind on those comments, the primary one being, we call that the "gangplank syndrome." That is, "I'm aboard, now hoist up the gangplank and don't let anyone else in."

Now consider a piece by Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, that actually appeared the Thursday before in the DesNews. Mr. Sowell's column is titled, "Left talks equality but practices elitism."

Sowell writes, "Monterey County in California is a classic example, though by no means is unique. A recent story in the Wall Street Journal quoted residents of that coastal community as saying how much they liked its lifestyle and ambiance -- as a justification of laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone with less money to live there. First of all, laws forbid building anything on three-quarters of the land in that county. Existing residents who support such laws don't own that land, but they can politically keep others from living on it, which is the whole point of much rhapsodizing about "preserving" this and "saving" that. Land prices skyrocket when the supply of land is artifically and drastically reduced (and demand remains strong), which means that housing prices become astronomical."

Now there is a lot that Mr. Wilson in Washington, Utah, says that strikes a chord within us all -- all that growth changes the very things we like about the community and makes it not so desireable any more. That is what has been part of the challenge in planning. But to simple shut the doors and not allow anyone else in?

Lots to think about in these two editorials. Read 'em and weep, friends.

Accomodating Density

2006-09-06T20:28:00.000-07:00

Jim Wooten, associate editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, writes an interesting opinion piece about the appropriateness of density, given recent trends and statistics about traffic congestion in the Atlanta metro area.

Wooten says that while higher density development seems to be the "in" thing in urban planning these days, it may not be the smartest thing to do. "Every impetus economic and political is to create high-density development," he writes. "But unless that density feeds a concentrated employment center -- the nearly extinct downtowns of yesteryear, for example -- it's nothing more than high-volume, congestion-worsening traffic clutter."

Wooten cites the recent report released by the Census Bureau showing that several parts of the Atlanta area have some of the worst congestion and longest commute times in the nation. "One could argue that, once built, high-rise dwellings and high-employment centers would spring up. That has not been Atlanta's experience with rapid rail in the decades since the east-west line opened. And with the possible exception of the Lindbergh station, MARTA hasn't driven density around stations on the north-south line, either."

But Wooten is not entirely anti-density. He just argues that it should be placed where it can be accomodated. "The practical remedy is to ratchet down density in all but the places where roads exist to carry it. Just as water withdrawal permits exist, so too should jurisdictions be assigned traffic-addition permits for every major highway based on the road's carrying capacity. If cities and counties want to add traffic, they should be required to jointly fund new capacity."

Some interesting food for thought here. I'm reminded about the studies that show Los Angeles to be one of the densest metro areas in the nation, and also one with the worst traffic congestion. Higher density doesn't automatically mean more efficient transportation. As Wooten points out in his piece, and as we all know from experience, in today's world, people travel all over the metropolitan region for a variety of purposes. Finding ways to efficiently accomodate that kind of travel demand is difficult.

Two for One

2006-09-04T15:06:00.000-07:00

Just read an interesting story by Ray Ring that appeared in the High Country News on July 24, about the drive by certain anti-government types to promote Measure 37-like laws in states all around the country by confusing (some would say pairing) them with the strong anti-Kelo fervor. It is something I have also thought to be the case, where the "evils" of eminent domain are intermingled with land use regulations in general and a strong case is made against both.

Ring, quoting John Echeverria, head of the Environmental Law and Policy Institute at Georgetown University, writes, "'The Kelo case is presented as a caricature in the news.' ... We talked about some of the horror stories, where governments use eminent domain in questionable ways. But those are few and far between. What's really going on, Echeverria said, is that, 'The property-rights advocates have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda.'

"Libertarians and property-rights activists believe that a huge array of common government regulations on real estate, such as zoning or subdivision limits, 'take' away property value. Therefore, they say, the government should compensate the owner, or back off. The extreme view of 'regulatory takings' is really at the core of this campaign -- not eminent domain."

With efforts underway in a number of states to get similar Measure 37 laws in front of voters or before state legislatures, Ring tracks down who is responsible for funding most of these organized efforts. He writes, "One key figure is the chairman of the board of Americans for Limited Government, Howie Rich. A real estate mogul based in New York City, Rich...(is) famour in libertarian circles for funding initiatives in the 1990s that imposed term limits on congessional delegations in 23 states... . This year, Rich says he has funneled nearly $200,000 through a group called Montanans in Action to back the Montana initiative... . Records in other states show that Rich has put $1.5 million into the California regulatory-takings initiative, $230,000 into the Idaho one, and $25,000 into the Arizona version.

"On the phone, Rich was confident of the rightness of his cause. 'I believe in the American Dream. ... I believe in free markets. I believe that ... government has been growing at an excessive rate, at the federal level and in many states. I'm happy to support local activists who are working to protect property rights in a whole bunch of states.'"

Rich notes, "While each initiative has its own sales pitch, they all deliberately tuck the notion inside the unrelated eminent domain controversy. The Los Angeles-based libertarian Reason Foundation mapped the strategy in a 64-page paper published in April, titled Statewide Regulatory Takings Reform: Exporting Oregon's Measure 37 to Other States. It recommends pushing 'Kelo-plus' initiatives, combining eminent domain reform with regulatory takings, to capitalize on 'the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling...'"

So far, we've been lucky in Utah that we are not dealing with our own Measure 37-inspired effort, though we are about the only state in the West that is not. How did we escape? Probably because last year's SB170 was such a multi-pronged assualt on land use law, and it was home-cooked. We'll see if it stays that way.

The thing that is so disturbing to me is how easily people fall for these measures. I just recently saw a story in The Oregonian about a group of people in southwest Oregon had signed petitions and voted for Measure 37, but now that a property owner had applied for a Measure 37 exemption which would put a lot more development in the neighborhood, the same citizens had submitted a petition opposing the proposal. And this was not an isolated incident.

We live in a world of sound bites. Very few people take the time to examine closely what it is they are being asked to support. It seems to be the sign of the times!

More on Dealing with Traffic

2006-08-31T18:47:00.000-07:00

A story in this morning's DesNews about increasing congestion and where Utah is at -- we're more congested than we were, we will get a lot more congested in future years (more so than what New York and LA are now). The story cites as one source a study by the Reason Foundation which touts building new highways as a viable way to reduce congestion. The Reason Foundation generally takes what some would call the conservative, hard-line approach to planning-related issues, and this sort of falls in that vein, as most urban planner types are all about transit, walkability, and demand reduction through better land use coordination with transportation.

The study points this out in one section, noting that many metro area long range transportation plans do not even include congestion reduction as one of their primary goals, and in some cases the plans indicate that building new road capacity is the last thing on their priority list.

The Reason study contests the old maxim that "we cannot build our way out of congestion." Often, Reason commentaries are very critical of transit, particularly rail transit, but this study says virtually nothing about it.

In a region growing as rapidly as ours, there is no way we can survive without building new road capacity. The question becomes how much can we afford, and what else should we be doing (like transit).

Again, I go back to my "hero" Anthony Downs, who for a variety of well-thought out reasons, believes that we will always be stuck with congestion from here on out, so just learn to live with it. One thing to consider, according to Downs: congestion is a characteristic of growing and vibrant economies. Places that are stagnating generally don't have this problem, so maybe it's a good sign!

The Chink in the Armor?

2006-08-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

Interesting little entry on the Utah Taxpayers Association blog, which on the surface seems to me to be an about face on what they normally espouse. The entry is about Stockholm, Sweden charging drivers to drive into downtown during peak times. Now this is a government-imposed solution that costs people more, and thus I say this seems to be the opposite of what a group like the taxpayers association strives for (reducing what government "charges" to provide services).

But there are two reasons I think this is being embraced by the organization. One, it was touted as a "free-market" solution in a Wall Street Journal editorial, which automatically (to some groups and viewpoints) means it is the "right" way to go. The other is that the Taxpayers Association, according to its position on transportation/transit, encourages the implementation of congestion pricing on state highways.

Now the obvious response for me to make to this entry is one which a commentor on the blog entry has already noted, so I'll just quote it here. It says, in part, "For pricing incentives to work, people need an alternative to driving into the city. Obviously, carpooling and working nontraditional schedules could help reduce peak congestion, too. ... Personally, I think we're going to need more transit to make congestion pricing actually produce a decline in traffic. Also, if Utah starts leveling congestion fees, it's going to make your tax and fee burden ranking go even higher. How (do) you react to that?"

Either way, costs go up for commuters. Pick your poison!

Salt Lake's Downtown to Become a Phoenix?

2006-08-28T18:04:00.000-07:00

No, not Phoenix, Arizona. The mythical bird phoenix, rising from the ashes!

Quite the insert in today's daily newspapers, titled Downtown on the Rise. It is the latest update on where things are at in the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce's recent initiative on downtown Salt Lake City. You can see the details of all that is in the insert by going to the Downtown Rising website.

A really impressive effort. There is no question in my mind about the need for a viable, vibrant core central city, if for no other reason than to give a metro area a sense of identity and history. The actual function of that core, however, is something that is a little tougher to nail down. Once the primary location for high-end jobs, today's metro downtowns serve a variety of functions. The trick is to keep them from becoming abandonded and run down, as some have been. I don't see that happening in Salt Lake City, but still, it needs to find a solid role.

An interesting contrast in how two downtowns have fared in their transformations are the stories of Worcester, Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, as detailed in a story in the Boston Globe last year. There may be some lessons there for us.

The story notes, for example, that Providence resisted the urban renewal projects of the 60's and 70's, resulting in a better base of stately buildings and historic streetscapes, while Worcester wiped out a section of downtown and replaced it with a concrete monolith of a shopping mall that has now failed and needs to be "renewed" again.

Providence was also more successful in engaging its universities in civic life, which Worcester has failed to do, to the detriment of both.

Lots of interesting parallels for us here in Salt Lake, with some lessons about the roads not taken.

If Mom Says No, Go Ask Dad...

2006-08-25T06:54:00.000-07:00

Interesting story in Wednesday's Provo Daily Herald about a brewing dispute between Mapleton and Spanish Fork over the annexation of some 1,000 acres. Seems the owner approached Mapleton to discuss possible development plans, and didn't like the answer -- so, off to the neighboring community to work out a better deal.

The area is apparently in Mapleton's annexation plan, and the two cities have an annually renewable agreement between them to honor each other's annexation plans. But Spanish Forks hints that they may just wait until the first of the year, when the agreement expires, and then consider the annexation.

When your city is the only game in town, it's easy to set annexation goals and policies and stick to them, but when "competing" cities are viable alternatives, it can lend itself to the kind of thing that is happening in Utah County. And whether the development is in your city or not, the impact on the character of the area will be there regardless. So should you annex to control, refuse to annex until you get an agreement with the landowners as to what should be developed, and what are relationships like between the competing cities?

All questions that I may have to address when I present a session at the upcoming Utah League of Cities and Towns conference on whether to annex or not to annex. Can't say that I know the answers to those questions...

Oh, Give Me A Home Where I Never Need Roam...

2006-08-22T15:31:00.000-07:00

One of the many interesting things that I picked up during my "sabbatical" was a story in the Seattle Times about the difficulty in getting people to live close to work, or trying to plan things that way.

For some time I have listened to planners talk about the "jobs-housing balance," that if we can just get houses to be built near work centers (or vice-versa), then the need for commuting would be dramatically reduced. While at a certain level this almost seems intuitive, the more I observed, the more I came to realize that this just wouldn't work at all.

For one thing, people change jobs pretty frequently in the U.S., but they don't seem to change where they live quite so much, particularly if they just change jobs in the same general metro area. So while someone may buy a house near their job at one point in time, often within a few years they have changed jobs and they don't live so close to work anymore. By then, they've gotten to like the neighborhood, made friends in the area, the kids like the school, and they don't want to move -- so, the drive to work just gets longer. I have a couple of families in my own neighborhood in Kaysville where the primary wage earners drive to Draper and even to Orem each day! I have asked them, why don't you move to avoid the drive, and they say, "It's not so bad, and we really like the neighborhood and don't want to move!"

Also, many households these days are comprised to two primary wage earners, and rarely are both workers employed in the same place. So the solution is, live near work for one and let the other drive, or compromise and live somewhere near the middle between the two and require both to drive moderate distances.

Now I can anticipate what many of you will say -- the rising cost of gasoline is going to change all that. Well, maybe, to some extent over the long term. But I don't think we're there yet. One of my good friends who is a planner and believes in this concept, just took a new job that is considerably further away from where he had been working. Is he planning to move? I don't think so -- he's just getting to the point where his kids are moving through high school, and I don't think they want to leave. Reality!

It's About Schools This Year

2006-08-20T10:36:00.000-07:00

Well, by popular demand (or else driven by my idiotic propensity to get myself in trouble), I'm back in the blogosphere! It's been a nice vacation, but it's hard to stay silent as so many juicy issues (soccer stadium, downtown Salt Lake, charter schools, etc.) go rolling by.

Actually, here's what happened. My wife, daughter and I took off on July 5 for a wonderful 2-week vacation to Scotland and Ireland (more interesting observations on what those cities and urban environments are like maybe in a future blog entry). When we returned, any of you who have gone on an extended vacation know what it's like to return to your desk and see all the piled-up work that awaits! Then, a few days later, we were off again to my wife's family reunion in Idaho, which she was in charge of -- which meant I spent lots of time helping her get ready and organized for that one.

By then, I had not blogged for nearly a month. Now for those of you who haven't tried this, to keep up a blog is a fairly intense exercise -- looking for interesting stuff to blog about, getting the time to write, etc. I began to think it had been rather nice not having to try to keep up a near-daily effort, and thought, well, nobody will notice much anyway so let's just let it go.

Well, I have heard from so many people asking me what happened to my blog, why I wasn't blogging anymore, how they enjoyed reading it (though very few comment!). Nearly every day, I ran into people asking me about it, including many I had never met before or didn't know. I started to think that maybe I should get things going again, I guess people do read and find it interesting, if not useful.

I saw many topics float by that gave me that urge again to comment, but I kept delaying. Finally, today, the DesNews lead editorial gave me the final push to get me back online, so here I am.

The editorial follows a story earlier in the week where the West Jordan city council discussed and adopted a resolution urging the state legislature to change state law to allow impact fees to be charged for new school construction. The editorial correctly points out the prohibition enacted a few years ago in response to a school impact fee arrangement implemented by Park City. The charge against such fees was led by Sen. Al Mansell, the long-time lead warrior against impact fees, likely for the reasons pointed out in the editorial.

As the opinion piece points out, if fees are allowed for water and sewer systems and parks and so on, why shouldn't they also be allowed for new school construction? No question, there needs to be the recognition of what extensive impact fee totals can do to the price of housing, but the impact of rising taxes (primarily property taxes) and the resistance to them must also be considered.

Given the recent furor over charter schools, it looks like one of the big issues in the upcoming legislative session will be growth and schools. What could be more emotional to our citizens than land use and education? Combining the two together should make for an interesting session!

Potboiler in the Southwest

2006-07-03T15:24:00.000-07:00

Plenty of action taking place in the southwest -- part of Salt Lake County, that is.

A story in the DesNews talks about the desire of the residents of far southwest Salt Lake County (beyond Herriman, near Butterfield and Rose Canyons) to keep out development by creating a township. Mixed "blessings," those townships. Sort of just delays the inevitable, I think. It's darn hard to maintain that spread-out, rural feel when you are directly adjacent to a rapidly growing metropolitan area. It's much easier to accomplish someplace where there isn't so much growth pressure. Is it all about meeting the desires of the current residents, or is it a form of burying heads in the sand and failing to acknowledge what will be? It's an all-to-typical story.

Another DesNews story about the vote that took place last Tuesday in Bluffdale on the referendum that was part of the reason landowners petitioned for (and won) the right to separate themselves from the city. The vote was close, but did uphold the action of the (then) council to create the "special development zone." It's pretty much a moot point now, because the owners won their case in district court to have the property de-annexed. An appeal before the state supreme court may change things, however, but we shall see. Don't think there would be much question that the current council would rescind the zone, but it's a rather politically-charged topic right now, it's hard to say what would happen. Interesting, though, to see what actually happened with the referendum vote.

It's What Inside That Counts

2006-07-01T07:49:00.000-07:00

Interesting development in California this week, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. The secretary of state's office announced it had qualified signatures and cleared for placing on the ballot this November an initiative petition called the "Protect Our Homes Act," which would ostensibly require government to occupy property acquired by eminent domain themselves, or contract it out for public use.

Nothing really new or surprising here, as this appears to be one of many such petitions circulation around the country in response to the U.S. Supreme Courts Kelo ruling on eminent domain for economic development purposes.

What is more insidious is what else the petition contains, that is essentially "buried" in the more obvious anti-Kelo language. The Act also would require governments to compensate landowners if new regulations not directly related to public safety hurt a property's value. This is more in line with the language of Measure 37 in Oregon, but not in as direct a manner.

The thinking must be that most people will support the anti-Kelo provisions, and will either not notice or not mind the additional language that will implement Measure 37-like actions in California.

Wow. Watch your back, folks, the silly season (election time) seems to run year round now.

Now That's a Plan!

2006-06-30T05:54:00.000-07:00

Salt Lake County is currently working on a plan for the "west bench" -- the west side of the Salt Lake Valley and the foothills of the Oquirrh Mountains. It is essentially the area owned by Kennecott Land.

What a plan! It anticipates the eventual homes and communities for over 500,000 people. There isn't a city in this state that I think is planning for that number of people. The only plan comparable to that number that I can think of in Utah were some of the earlier Salt Lake County plans that were developed in the 1960s and 70s, but in those instances they were more regional in nature, as the area was covered by several municipalities that all had their own plans for the portion that would be in their communities.

Is it even practical to plan for such a large area and number? The plan covers all sorts of things, ranging from community centers to schools to recreation areas. We are constantly reminded of Daniel Burnham's call in the late 1800s to "make no small plans," but can plans on such a scale really have any meaning and efficacy? The guest opinion piece in this month's Planning magazine by a planning professor at the University of Illinois (I can't link to it yet -- it won't be available on the web until next month) suggests that lots of "smaller" plans work better than one large one, and there is some validity in that view, in my mind.

The one difference with the grand West Bench plan is that virtually all of the land is held by one owner who is planning it as well, and has started development. This may make it more likely that the "vision" of a grand plan can be acheived. But even then, it will take many years for an areas of this size to build out, and in all likelihood the plan will change several times before then as conditions change and new ideas come about.

Still, it's got to be one heck of a ride for the Salt Lake County planners and residents who are working on it. Good luck, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the process.

It's All Just So Simple...

2006-06-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

A recent letter to the editor in the DesNews from Steve Blackham of Salt Lake City got my dander up a little bit again, because I think so many of us oversimplify the issues that are before us -- in this case about the topic of suburbanization and what to do about it.

Though I've given the link, let me just quote Mr. Blackham's letter here in full:

"For years now, people have been flocking to suburbia, displacing cheap farmland and open space and clogging up transportation corridors meant for interstate travel, all for their benefit of obtaining supposedly 'cheap' housing. This has been possible because of low energy cost to power their commute and subsidies from the general public to build their infrastructure.

"Now gasoline is $3 per gallon and will soon be $5 to $6 per gallon. Their suburban 'bargain' has become a fool's paradise. They are screaming bloody murder, and politicians are running around frantically to try to satisfy them.

"Officials are proposing a general property tax to fund these transportation projects and are asking the urban Salt Lake City neighborhoods to subsidize their suburban neighbors at a ratio of roughly three to one. Urban neighborhoods are already paying more for their fair share. Suburbia needs to face up to its obligations and carry its own load."

OK, let's take some of the arguments that Mr. Blackham makes and look at them a little more closely.

First, he's right in that people have been fleeing to suburbia for years now. In fact, that has been happening since the days of the trolley cars. With most of the jobs in the urban core as well as the tenements and crowded conditions, as soon as there become a means for people to get out to nicer conditions, they did so. Shocking.

What, however, would things be like if everyone were prevented (how would you do that?) from moving out to the suburbs and instead were required to live in the urban core? What would the environment in that core be like? What about the price of housing?

Where would the work for these people be? Would that also continue to be concentrated in the urban core? My, that would make for an interesting environment. Los Angeles, interestingly enough, is one of the most densely populated urban regions in the country -- is congestion for travel there any less because of it? On the contrary, it is much greater (partly, I do concede, because they haven't put the investment into transit that would help that situation - but wait, one of the objections of Mr. Blackham is that we are proposing more investment in transit to make things work better).

What do we do now, "force" everyone back into urban neighborhoods? Again, what would happen to the price of housing in those areas? How would everyone get to their jobs out in Sandy and Lake Park and Hill Air Force Base -- wouldn't the commute just be in the opposite direction then?

I don't do this to make fun of Mr. Blackham and his views -- their are some valid points in the issues he raises. But, as in most topics we deal with these days in our sound bite world, there is much more complexity and subtlety to them than we realize or seem to be able to take the time to recognize.

But, hey, at least someone is paying attention to this topic!

Are We a Region, or Just a Bunch of Little Towns?

2006-06-22T18:45:00.000-07:00

The DesNews reported this morning that the funding proposal to advance transit was given short shrift in the Utah Senate caucus yesterday. Talking to Lane Beattie, Salt Lake Chamber President, yesterday at the Davis COG meeting where he came to present the funding proposal, he indicated that the issue was brought up for a vote in the Senate caucus without being on the agenda or even any warning that they were going to be discussing and voting on it. LaVarr Webb also commented on this turn of events on his Utah Policy Daily website.

It's fine for legislators, mayors and others to have their own opinions on proposals and ideas that are put before them for consideration and discussion, but they should get due consideration before they are just dismissed out of hand. No question, this is an "outside the box" kind of proposal, but dealing with the need for our transportation infrastructure is going to take that kind of thinking to deal with the transportation crises we face. Maybe there are other ideas out there, but they need to be flushed out with a full discussion, and soon! UPDATE: See Friday morning DesNews editorial on this topic.

Something that I am starting to hear as part of the reaction to the Chamber's funding proposal is, "Why should we tax ourselves for something that we won't have right directly in our town? Most of that money is going to go elsewhere to build those transit improvements, so why should we support it?" These kinds of arguments are in the same vein as those made by people who say, "Why should we vote in favor of the school bond? Our kids are all grown, and we aren't going to be putting any more kids through the education system."

Well, did you ever think of your grandkids? Did you ever think about who is going to be making those payments into the retirement system to keep those checks coming to you once you've quit working and want to go fishing?

Same thing applies to our regional transportation system -- the key word here is "regional." It all inter-relates. Sure, we may not have a TRAX line or commuter rail station right in our home town, but we still travel throughout the region, usually on a daily basis. I get frustrated all the time when I try to travel to Salt Lake or (heaven forbid) try to get to Provo during commute times. Doesn't it benefit it us all, wherever we live, to have a system that works throughout the region? Not every community gets a freeway exit either, but we seem to support the building of the highway because we can see its benefit!

Come on, folks, we need to think and work together to provide a regional system, not just look at bringing home the bacon to each individual community. If we start acting like that, we're sunk. Does the term "Balkanization" mean anything? Is that the model we want to follow?

It's Transportation, Stupid!

2006-06-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign yesterday to increase funding for transit -- see stories about it in the DesNews and the Trib. And in the coming weeks, the chamber-initiated group called 2015 Transportation Alliance will also unveil proposals for increased funding for roads.

It is interesting to me to see the business community lead such a push for transit. Not that long ago, transit was a dirty word, something most politicians and business leaders stayed away from. I've always thought that the transportation system is the "skeleton" on which we build our regional character, a la the writings of Alex Marshall -- see my previous blog entries on that topic here and here.

Now the issue comes down to the brass tacks -- how to actually make things happen. In this case, it will take a substantial change in the way we invest in and build our transportation system, and amazingly the chamber is pushing forward to lead this effort. But, as with all such matter where money is involved, there will be a lot of disagreement and debate, because someone else will want that money to do other things, or spend it differently. That's what politics is all about, allocating who gets what, and thus effective planning is tied to politics.

Take a look at the 2015 Transportation Alliance website for more information. Lane Beattie will be coming to the Davis County COG meeting tonight to talk about this to the Davis County mayors and county commissioners.

The Great Bi-Polar Sprawl Debate

2006-06-19T19:37:00.000-07:00

Outstanding commentary in the San Francisco Chronicle by John King reviewing the book This Land: The Battle Over Sprawl and the Future of America, by Anthony Flint. Whether you agree with the review or not, King expresses the same thoughts that I have about how the sprawl debate is too often conducted -- extreme, polarized positions from which the proponents lob salvos at each other.

"That's what is refreshing about This Land -- and frustrating about the general level of debate about our nation's changing landscape," King writes. "We've reduced the blueprint for how we live to a handful of absolutes: Suburbs should sprawl in all directions or housing tracts should be banned. Zoning should be abolished, or the color of windowsills should be proscribed by law."

I experienced much the same thing a couple of years ago in the battle over the Legacy Parkway. Those opposed to its construction gave absolutely no quarter -- there was no middle ground, construction of the road would be the great Satan, resulting in complete destruction of the environment and would unleash extreme and unlimited sprawl. This approach virtually forced you to take the opposite extreme position in an effort to achieve some kind of balance of views.

"I'm not really worried about sprawl. The question is, are there going to be alternatives," Flint says. "We can build suburban neighborhoods where people still have their car, but they won't need to drive it as much. ... It's a nuanced argument."

I'm right there with him!

Commuter Rail Revitalizes?

2006-06-18T10:41:00.000-07:00

I attended the ceremony Friday at the Farmington Station site, where U.S. Transportation Secretary Norm Maneta announced the full-funding agreement for FrontRunner, UTA's commuter rail project from Pleasant View to Salt Lake City (see here and here for stories.) It was a fun event, showing the support that exists for the project. No question in my mind that we need commuter rail, light rail, and additonal highway capactiy to handle future demand. All will be needed.

However, the hype about commuter rail stations being the focus for new development or revitalization is, I suspect, more hope than reality. Visit some of the commuter rail lines currently in operation around the country -- there's not a lot of development that really can be attributed to the station. Unlike light rail stations, where trains come and go several times an hour all day long, commuter rail stations are much more intermittent. They do not produce the steady stream of riders trickling through the station as is seen in light rail stations.

Look closely at the plans for the Farmington Station development -- there is easily as much parking as you would find in any similar new commercial development like Jordan Landing, probably more because of the parking that is needed to accomodate riders coming to catch the commuter train. The station itself is a key design component, a marketing feature, and something that will indeed result in several hundred people coming through the area each day, which will help. But to make the proposed development succeed, several thousand people need to come each day, and most of them will come by car to shop or eat or see a movie, not because of the commuter rail.

The outlook is even weaker for someplace like "downtown" Clearfield, where city officials are pinning their hopes for revitalization on moving the commuter rail station from its proposed large vacant site to their old downtown. The characteristics of commuter rail make such hoped-for renewal not very likely.

There seems to be some evidence pointing to the viability of enhanced housing development near commuter rail stations, but commercial use is elusive. In a story about the need to encourage transit oriented development in the Boston metro area, the following is noted: "'In selected areas, [TOD] works well. But the major focus of commuter rail is to take people from the suburbs into Boston, where the employment is,' said Dennis DiZoglio, director of planning for the MBTA. 'For most stations outside the core, it's parking lots, so people can get on trains and go into Boston. They are not usually located in a center of commerce or where there are a lot of jobs. Most people come in from the surrounding area, and are not looking at a reverse commute.' Local wishes have must have priority as well, DiZoglio said. Most outlying towns associate stations with traffic and parking problems, and prefer locations outside the town center."

Charters -- The Gift That Keeps on Giving

2006-06-14T20:16:00.000-07:00

I wondered how long it would take to involve the Property Rights Ombudsman in the Alpine charter school controversy. The Daily Herald reports this morning that Craig Call has indeed been brought into it, under the provisions in the bill passed this year's legislative session for an advisory opinion.

"A state ombudsman is now weighing the question of whether the charter school's single-building site plan was vested before the (Alpine) moratorium began, meaning the new ordinance (setting standards for charter schools) would not apply to the site plan," the story said.

The way charter schools are locating and conducting themselves is raising a lot of eyebrows. I talked with staff at North Salt Lake today, and they told me about a charter school that has started constuction west of Redwood Road on a dead-end street, across from a sewage treatment plant, surrounded by a new industrial development, and just to the west of the Legacy Parkway alignment, where heavy construction will be taking place for the next couple of years putting in an overpass for the Legacy. This is an ideal location for a school? North Salt Lake officials say they are frustrated in that they cannot apparently do anything to prevent the school from going in at that location.

The stories are racking up, and will surely come back to roost in the near future.

Unfair Housing Suit?

2006-06-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

The Federal District Court for Utah ruled recently on the lawsuit filed against Summit County by the law firm of Hutchings, Baird and Jones charging violation of fair housing laws because of the county's policy on zoning. Stories in the DesNews and the Trib summarize the action.

Neil Lindberg, legal committee chair for Utah APA, wrote this brief summary of the case.

"The Federal District Court for Utah has dismissed Anderson Development's proposed class-action lawsuit against Summit County. The suit, which got considerable press coverage when it was filed, alleged housing discrimination in unincorporated Summit County and violation of LUDMA's moderate income housing rules.

"Anderson submitted several 'property plats' to the county but expressly did not request the county to process its submission. Instead letters were submitted which claimed the county's development code was legally defective and unenforceable. The county responded that it had no choice but to enforce the adopted zoning law and offered assistance in understanding the county's planning process. Instead of seeking assistance, however, Anderson filed the complaint alleging the county code violated constitutional and statutory rules and asked the court to invalidate the county's 1998 development code... .

"The court ruled Anderson and other plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit because 'they have not alleged and cannot prove that the county has utilized the zoning ordinance or other challenged policies to deny andy specific project containing housing which would allegedly benefit [them].' In addition, the court said 'plaintiffs have not demonstrated that it is likely that any alleged housing discrimination injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. They cannot identify any particular housing project that will be built, nor any personal housing benefit they will receive if the court granted their requested relief... .

"Without standing to litigate their claims, the court dismissed the case. A related state court case is still pending."

It Could Be Worse

2006-06-11T09:55:00.000-07:00

You hear so many complaints from some in the development community about how bad planning and development approval is in Utah. But they could be in California.

According to California Planning & Development Report, a number of "interesting" measures were approved in voting on June 6 in that state. Note the following:

Voters in the City of Santa Paula rejected a proposed 2,155-unit 800-acre housing project. The City Council had approved the project last year, but rescinded that approval and placed the matter on the ballot when opponents pushed a referendum. In April, Santa Paula voters rejected a different housing and country club development proposal elsewhere in town.

In San Francisco, voters overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have permitted development of nursing homes as conditional uses on land zoned for public use.

Residents of the City of Yorba Linda approved a controversial initiative that requires general plan amendments, rezonings, specific plans and development agreements to be decided by voters. The initiative also establishes a height limit of 35 feet.

Some sanity did reign, however.

City of Apple Valley voters backed a referendum that amends a 1999 ballot measure prohibiting rezonings without voter approval. The new measure gives the City Council the final say on general plan amendments and zoning.

Voters in the City of Morgan Hill repealed a 1987 voter-approved zoning limitation that prohibited grocery stores a the Cochrane Plaza Shopping Center.

And, most notable for its similarity to Oregon's Measure 37, Napa County voters widely rejected the Fair Pay for Public Benefit Act, a property rights initiative that would have required the county to compensate a property owner "who suffers an established decrease in value of that property due to the impact of a new Napa County land use restriction."

Now, what was it about planning and zoning in Utah that was so bad?

More on Charters

2006-06-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

Another story in yesterday's Trib on the charter school dust-up in Alpine. Not much new, just threats of lawsuits now, though Alpine did take kind of a unique approach to stopping the charter school construction, at least temporarily, by placing a two-month moratorium on the construction of all buildings 20,000 sf or larger. Really a good question as to whether that can apply to a use that is permitted in all zones by state code.

However, I do need to correct an attribution made to Glenn Way in the story, which says that state law makes charter schools permitted uses in all zones. "He (Way) says the city legally can do nothing to prevent or halt construction (of the charter school.)" As noted in a previous entry, that is not quite right. There are certain issues the city can set standards for, and that may be the purpose of the moratorium, to allow the city to adopt such standards.

Want to bet whether this topic comes up again in the next legislative session?

Making Tracks, Making Places

2006-06-09T07:07:00.000-07:00

Pretty good column in this month's Governing magazine by Alex Marshall on the relationship between land use and transportation. He tells the story of proposed construction of a new bridge across Chesapeake Bay from Baltimore to the DelMarVa peninsula, and how such a new transportation link would likely change the character of the communities on that isolated eastern shore. Most importantly, he describes how officials failed to recognize or understand how such an action would have such a result.

In the current update of the long range transportation plan for the Wasatch Front and Mountainlands regions, there is a greater recognition of this concept than ever before. In part because of the visioning effort undertaken by Envision Utah, the new LRT plan will be better coordinated with land use (both as cause and as effect).

The longer we live, the more we learn.

Follow the Money...

2006-06-07T21:08:00.000-07:00

We always suspected as much... now there's proof. A story in this month's issue of Governing magazine says the Utah legislature has the greatest concentration of realtors among its members of any legislature in the nation. Some pretty frank comments from their chief lobbyist, Chris Kyler, are included as well.

Some quotes from the story:

"...(W)hat do Realtors dream about doing next? If they live in Utah, they may be dreaming of a career in politics. Chris Kyler, CEO of the Utah Association of Realtors, sounds quite animated as he counts off the many members of his organization who hold high office in the state. 'I've got people who are on county commissions, mayors, state senators,' Kyler says. 'Our lieutenant governor was president of our state association about 20 years ago. Our people are involved in the parties, too. We've got precinct chairs and vice chairs and county delegates throughout the state.'"

"No fewer than 22 people who make their living in real estate also serve as members of the Utah legislature. Not surprisingly, Utah has some of the toughest real estate laws in the country -- protecting both private property rights and the business interests of Realtors. When Realtors hope to get favorable legislation passed, they know there is one legislator in particular who will lend a friendly ear. Al Mansell was president of the Utah Senate until he dropped his leadership role to serve...as president of the National Association of Realtors.

"Utah might have the most Realtors serving as legislators, but there are Realtors in virtually every legislative district in the country -- and they make their presence felt."

"Ask lobbyists for the industry to name a time they failed to get their way and the only sound you hear may be a long pause. Chris Kyler has been with the Utah Association of Realtors during the state's last seven legislative sessions. 'Of the bills that we've opposed since 1999, we've been able to defeat 100 percent o them,' he says. 'We either defeated all of them or we amended them so that it made our position neutral.' The group's rate of success on bills it actively supported isn't quite as high, Kyler says, but it's still 'well over 90 percent for seven years running.'"

"Realtors are careful to mix assestions of clout with arguments about sound public policy. They invariably say they are representing not just their own industry but the property rights of homeowners in general, and that those are a fundamental tenet of American democracy. 'I don't have to be that skilled as an advocate,' Kyler says. 'I don't want to sound cocky, but I think the primary reason we win is that we're right."

"The association backs up that analysis with a lot of money. During the 2004 election cycle, the Utah Association of Realtors donated $226,930 to state-level political candidates and causes -- a figure matched almost dollar for dollar by individual Realtors and other people in the business. That made real estate the largest single donor to Utah politicians that year, except for political parties and self-financing candidates."

"Realtors have lost a few minor property-rights battles recently... . But Realtors are still mostly getting their way, whether in bills that affect them directly or broader fights over growth restrictions and other land-use policies."

Now how could that be?

Is It Real, or Is It...?

2006-06-06T17:45:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent publicity about the Salt Lake Chamber's downtown visioning and revitalization effort, it's interesting to read this piece in last week's Wall Street Journal called Fake Towns Rise, Offering Urban LIfe Without the Grit.

While I heartily support strengthening our metro area's urban center and keeping it a vital source of our regional identity, I also think that we will need to see more "urban villages," sort of downtowns lite, because of the size and complexity of the region and the increasing difficulty in getting around easily.

So the Journal's story focuses on the creation of such faux downtowns, in some ways complimentary and in other ways not. "Legacy Town Center (outside Dallas) is ... spurred by a demand for urban living scrubbed of the reality of city life. A careful mix of retail, residential and office space built with traditional materials such as stone and brick, Legacy looks like a city but has neither panhandlers nor potholes. Many residents rarely venture even to downtown Dallas, which has been trying to turn itself into the place to live for almost a decade. 'There's too much riffraff down there,' says Ron Pettit, a 36-year old contractor, as he snacks on brie and grapes at a table outside Bishop Road's Main Street Bakery and Bistro."

The challenge for the Wasatch Front, as it is for many other metro areas, is to make downtown someplace people want to be, at least for some things.

"Houston has poured some $4 billion into downtown stadiums, roads and light rail in the past decade. But 27 miles to the north, the Woodlands Town Center has sold out of newly constructed lofts and replica brownstones in the midst of an affluent planned community. 'The question is whether this demand for urban-style living -- density, transportation alternatives, proximity to work -- is broad enough to accomodate the resurgence of traditional downtowns,' says Bruce Katz, founder and director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution... ."

And that will be the trick for us as well. Can we build new urban villages in Sandy and Daybreak and Layton and Pleasant Grove and wherever, and also make downtown Salt Lake City succeed? Some careful thought and planning will be called for in this efffort.

For Whom the Road Tolls

2006-06-05T18:04:00.000-07:00

Lots of discussion lately about the future of toll roads along the Wasatch Front. It's gotten to the point where it is being somewhat touted as the "savior" of getting the transportation system built -- relying on the typical taxation model just won't cut it.

Well, any time something is put forward as being the "better" way to do things, watch out. A little work and common sense will tell you that there are indeed some benefits -- but there are down sides, too.

Take the series in the Denver Post last week on the collaboration of state transportation agencies with private investors to build and run new roads. Apparently, everything isn't just coming up roses for toll roads. A number of projects have come in over cost and underused, resulting in some serious financial issues. In the worst case, a couple of major investors (New York Life and John Hancock Life Insurance companies) foreclosed on a failed road in Texas, leaving the state and adjacent property owners holding an empty bag.

There are success stories, too -- the point is, we must go in to such future endeavors with our eyes wide open to what can happen (because it has happened in some places). Transportation for our regional future is a critical component. Buyer beware!

Planning Through Intimidation

2006-06-04T12:04:00.000-07:00

Item: In a recent article in the Washington Post's Sunday magazine about the debate over global warming, writer Joel Achenbach (author, with a wry sense of humor, of Why Things Are, a great book that helps make science understandable) notes, "Let us be honest about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything. Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. ... Human beings may be large of brain, but they are social animals, too, like wolves, and are prone to behave in packs. So when something ... comes up, the first thing people want to know is, whose side are you on? ... Are you with us or against us?"

Item: A federal judge ruled Friday that there is no evidence that Summit County used its zoning ordinances to discriminate against minorities and the disabled. Anderson Development, with the support of groups like the Utah NAACP chapter, Utah Coalition of La Raza, and the Disabled Rights Action Committee, filed suit against the county last year accusing Summit County officials of using zoning laws to block the development of affordable housing, forcing many low-income workers who work in Park City to commute from Salt Lake County.

As noted in previous blog entries, the goal of such a move seems laudable, but it also appears self-serving for a particular developer who isn't getting what he wants from local officials.

The point of my linking these two stories together is, as Achenbach notes, there seems to be little middle ground in discussing real issues any longer -- there is often an immediate move to the extremes of positions, and the rock-throwing begins. In the Summit County case, instead of working with county officials to address a legitimate need, it becomes an immediate fight of extreme positions. It gets complicated, however, because of the involvement of an aggresive developer with a particular interest. At least the court recognized that in this case.

Redoing Downtown

2006-06-02T07:52:00.000-07:00

I attended a couple of the kick-off activities for the Salt Lake Chamber's Downtown Rising program on Wednesday. Lots of interesting ideas and discussion floating around about it. Both the DesNews and the Trib have stories about it, and the Trib has editorialized about it as well.

Downtown Salt Lake City is an important part of our metropolitan region's identity and vitality. In recent years, it seems like things have slowed down in downtown, but there are plenty of things planned that will help to revitalize and maintain the core's importance to the region.

I don't think the downtown will ever again be the retail hub of the region as it once was many years ago -- suburban malls and activity centers are too common and spread around to ever make that possible again. But there are other things that the core can be important for -- business headquarters and important regional business centers, headquarters of organizations and institutions, arts, tourism and conventions, celebrations (Olympics, First Night, etc.), and so on.

Just as an example, a story in the Boston Globe about a year ago about two nearby downtowns -- Providence and Worcester -- give some object lessons about the importance of maintain a center for regional identity and focus. "Although downtowns have lost importance as commercial centers, they remain focal points for cities, venues where activities and interests intersect, and ultimately create a sense of place," the story says. "I know of no great city, or even a good one that has a bad downtown," says John Mullin, director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Massachusetts in the story.

Robert Land, director of the Metropolitan Institute College of Architecture and Urban Studies in Virginia, was one of the speakers at the Downtown Rising kick-off. He did talk about how many metro areas now are moving towards having a series of "mini-downtowns" scattered throughout a region as activity centers and focal points for the suburbs. But the core, historic central downtown is always important for the region and its vitality, he said. It plays a different role today than what it did 25 or 50 years ago, and we have to clue into what that role should be.

Take a look at the Salt Lake Chamber's website which will give you some info and an opportunity to provide some input. This will be an interesting effort. More to come.

Downtown Do-Over

2006-05-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

Natalie Gouchner, vice president for policy and communications for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce (and former Gov. Leavitt staffer and a good friend), recently penned a great piece on the need for a new vision and plan for downtown Salt Lake City. As the core and identity of our metropolitan area, keeping Salt Lake City healthy, viable and vital is important.

Natalie refers to some of the visioning and leadership efforts of the past, including the old Second Century Plan developed in the 1960's. This plan led to establishment of some of the city's current icons, like the Salt Palace, symphony hall, a farmers' market, and a pedestrian plaza on Main Street.

It will be particularly interesting now to talk about the role of downtown, given the booming nature of the suburbs and the location of retail and activity centers out to these areas -- what should downtown be, and how should it relate to the region?

More to come on this.

Living Close to Where You Work -- For A While, Anyway

2006-05-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

George Pyle, editorial writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, recently took on the transportation debate, first in his blog and then in the Trib opinion section, and the question of why more people don't just live closer to where they work. As many so often do, he blames it on our development patterns which isolate housing neighborhoods away from commercial and business areas.

This approach can work two ways, however. The way that Mr. Pyle seems to favor is having people live closer to downtown, or near transit lines (which are aimed primarily at downtown.) But, as some of the commenters on the blog point out, this approach generally leads to rapidly elevating housing costs in those areas, making it more difficult to do.

The other way to accomplish this laudible goal is to move jobs out to where people live, but many decry this as contributing to sprawl. Perhaps the answer is urban villages, but that's a topic for another entry.

One of the things that tends to be overlooked in discussions on this topic, however, is the nature of our working lives these days. While it is true that people change their place of residence relatively frequently thes days, I think they are more likely to change their jobs even more frequently. People seem to build their dream house, or find a place that they really like, and maybe it happens to be close to where they work when they buy it. But then one or the other or maybe both primary wage earners find different jobs which are now further away, but they don't want to move from that great house and neighborhood they now live in. So, in a short time, all those people living close to their work, are no longer living close to work but having to commute greater distances.

People just won't behave the way we think they should ... what do we do about that?

If Centerville Had Only Thought of This...

2006-05-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

Wow, now that takes guts (or lack of brains, which is what guts or courage is sometimes defined as!).

The small city of Hercules, California had developed a plan for a portion of its community (it's historice waterfront area) as a pedestrian-oriented village with high-end shops and homes. However, Wal-Mart acquired a 17-acre parcel in the middle of the area, and have been seeking to gain approval for a 100,000 square foot store.

Don't know if the city was precluded from denying a permit because of pre-existing regulations or what, but apparently the city felt the only way they could stop the large box plan was with a vote to begin condemnation proceedings to acquire Wal-Mart's property.

If Centerville had only thought of this earlier! But hey, Wal-Mart hasn't started building yet, so it's still not too late!

It Ain't Easy Being Dense.....

2006-05-25T07:26:00.000-07:00

Recent action by West Jordan City with regard to the planning of a largely undeveloped portion of their community goes to demonstrate what I've been saying for a long time -- it ain't easy actually doing what everyone (or at least some) think is the right thing to do.

One of the principles that has come out of the Envision Utah visioning effort was that we should be developing a little more densely than we have been, so that land is consumed at a slower rate, so that communities will be more compact and thereby more walkable and more easily served by transit.

West Jordan was even one of the communities that agreed to these principles when they were visited by Wasatch Front Regional Council staff, asking about their acceptance of these principles to help in guiding the update of the long range regional transportation plan.

So now, when it comes down to the brass tacks, the city says "Ummm, let's not do it quite so dense." Now I'm not just pointing a finger at West Jordan. I think the same will happen in most communities. When you're talking about general principles and philosopy, it's relatively easy to say they are good things and you're in favor of it. But when the action actually has to be taken....

Reminds me a little bit about my acceptance of good eating principles. I agree that it would be a good thing if I cut down on those sweets and desserts and ate more fresh fruits and vegetables. I know it, and I agree with it. But when you put that broccoli in front of me along with that piece of banana cream pie, well....

The "Politics" of Planning Philosophies

2006-05-23T06:55:00.000-07:00

I've been reading an interesting book lately, Politics Lost: How American Democracy was Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid, by Joe Klein, a political columnist for Time magazine and author of Primary Colors. Klein has followed politics for over 30 years and written about presidential campaigns, national affairs and politics in general for most of that time.

Klein's premise is that since about the mid 60's, political campaigns have been taken over by pollsters and consultants with the result that we get very few "real" candidates anymore -- they are packaged and managed and never allowed to say what they really think. He knocks both major political parties for doing some of the same things, and for some different things.

As I was reading what he had to say about why the Democratic party has lost its ability to win many significant elections lately, it began to resonant with me about some of the things I think we in the planning profession may be guilty of as well.

Klein writes, "There was an essential political conundrum that shaped the futility of liberalism in the television era. Democrats slouched toward public pessimism -- the middle class was always suffering silently, the poor neglected, the environment degraded -- but they were philosophically optimistic: humankind was improvable, reform possible, government could help make things better. Republicans, by contrast, were publicly optimistic -- the United States was exceptional, the greatest country in the world, and anyone who said otherwise was unpatriotic -- but privately realistic and often pessimistic: people were who they were, the poor would always be with us and there was no sense trying to change them. These fundamental beliefs had significant implications when it came to running political campaigns.
In public, Reagan's 1984 'Morning in America' was countered by Congressman Richard Gephardt's 1988 'it's close to midnight and getting darker all the time.'"

"In retrospect, it seems clear that a primary cause of the Democratic Party's decline was its refusal to acknowledge legitimate public (feelings) about crime, welfare dependency, affirmative action, and forced busing to acheive integration."

To get the full depth of what Klein is saying, you really must read more of the book. But it struck me about how this seemed similar to some of the things I've been reading lately about approaches to the philosophies of urban planning.

For example, the ideas of James Kunstler seem to be getting a lot of play in planner circles about suburban growth. Here are some recent quotes from Kunstler's blog:

"For those of us positioned against the suburban juggernaut, 'growth' invokes the destruction of more landscape, the conversion of pastures and croplands into McHousing subdivisions, with a long menu of additional liabilities -- not least being a huge investment in a living arrangement with no future. One would think the 'homebuilders' could see this coming -- with oil edging toward $70 -- but the truth is that their companies are programmed for only one kind of behavior -- to keep building 3000 square foot McHouses 27 miles outside Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, et cetera."

"There are many ways of viewing this 'growth' predicament, and some strategies we can turn to in the face of it. An obvious one is to change our behavior, to stop acting as though our destructive, terminal, and futile activities were beneficial or indispensable. For instance, we could yield to the reality that the age of mass motoring will have to end. Instead of desperately seeking 'alternative fuels' to run our 100 million cars, we could make an effort to restore our railroads. Instead of a million McHousing starts out in the meadows and cornfields, we could repair our existing towns and cities. ... Anyway, we are going to need every meadow, cornfield, and pasture that we have, because as cheap energy wanes, we are going to be desperate to grow enough food to feed ourselves -- another reason to be wary of alt. fuels fantasies based on growing crops dedicated to gasoline substitutes."

You can read more at Kunstler's blog, but be aware that the name of it is a bit crude, "Clusterf--- Nation."

Many other planner-embraced writers sound similar notes about the "badness" of the suburbs and growth.

The chord these writings struck in me was just what Klein had said in his book, that these were pronouncements that had some philosophical truth, but were given by "slouching toward pessimism." This, remember, is the strategy of those who are generally the losers in our political system.

It also seems to be a lack of acknowledging what, as Klein wrote, the public feels or has concerns about.

Compare that with what writers like Robert Bruegmann (Sprawl: A Compact History) are saying: "(Sprawl) works because it satisfies a lot of needs. When people have been able to afford it, people move out of cities. We now have tens of millions of people who can do what only a small minority once could do. ... It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few. Privacy, mobility -- social and physical -- and choice."

Joel Kotkin, the originator of "The New Suburbanism," says, "We may continue to decry (the suburbs) and make fun of them... . But we have embraced the suburbs and made them our home. For most of us, they represent both our present and our future. Over the next quarter century, according to a Brookings Institution study, the nation will add 50 percent to the current stock of houses, offices and shops, and the great majority of that new building will take place in lower-density locations, not traditional inner cities."

Richard Carson, the former Executive Director of Portland METRO, says that one of the problems with the image of planners today is that we often try to push things that people do not want. Eventually we wind up being ignored as irrelevant, or actually spark a revolt, as when voters passed Measure 37 in Oregon (sound familiar, like what has happened in national elections?). "Many current government planning policies are being driven by a desire on the part of environmentalists and some sympathetic elected officials (and, I would add today, doomsdayers about oil supplies) to change the American automobile culture. The anti-automobile sales pitch is designed to radically change our lifestyles, limit our mobility by getting us out of the car, and to have us walk, ride a bike or use transit. ... I am not suggesting that we abandon the quest for a more multi-modal transportation system. However, we should build the system people want. It is clear most people prefer the automobile to mass transportation."

Now I hear the bells of Klein's writing that says Republicans are more optimistic in their public face, but more cynical (realisitic?) or pessimistic in their deeper philosophy -- people aren't really going to change.

We as planners don't really want to embrace either of these approaches, do we? Perhaps a Joel Kotkin hits the middle road when he acknowledges public desire for suburban style growth, but calls for ways to make it better rather than reject it outright. "This redefinition of suburbia into someplace more diverse, interesting and multifaceted represents one of the most revolutionary developments of our times. It provides us with an opportunity to stop complaining about sprawl and start learning how to make better the places that most of us have chosen as home."

Zoning for Roads?

2006-05-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

A recent situation in the town of Saratoga Springs points out some interesting ramifications about land use control. It seems that a property owner hoping to develop his land asked the city council for a rezone. However, UDOT had recently informed the city of its intent to eventually acquire land in the area for the future Mountain View transportation corridor. The city council, aware of this interest, eventually voted not to approve the rezone.

"'Utah has statewide transportation needs that will cost about $23 billion, and we are about $16.5 billion short of that amount,' said Geof Dupaix, a UDOT spokesman. 'Right now, there is no funding to build the Mountain View Corridor.'"

"'I'd love it if UDOT wanted to purchase my land,' said (property owner) Franc, 'but they haven't offered. I'm being penalized because UDOT may want my property eventually.'"

Some interesting points raised here. The general rule for planners is that we can stave off approval of land development for maybe up to a year, but eventually will need to approve an appropriate application unless the land can be bought. In this case, however, the landowner is asking for a rezone, which is a legislative action and assumes to use by right for the higher density development the applicant is asking for. Is it appropriate to not grant such a rezone request, primarily for the purpose of stopping a greater level of development in the path of a know future transportation route? It would be one thing if the land were already zoned for development, but not in this case.

It seems to me that I remember some court cases along these lines, saying something like that if the land around the subject property were being approved for development, and the primary purpose of the government is to prevent development so that its future acquisition cost will be lower, this is inappropriate and not allowed. This may well serve to be a cautionary tale.

But this particular case in Saratoga Springs is not that straight-forward. The area also lacks sufficient secondary water, and is another reason the council did not approve the proposed rezone. This alone may be an appropriate reason for denial. But it certainly should make planners stop and think about the rationale being used for approval or denial of rezones.

Transit, Transit -- Not Quite Everywhere!

2006-05-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

Kick-off meeting yesterday in SLC for a $600,000 study of transportation in downtown Salt Lake. As the core central city of our region, anything that can be done to make it more viable and attractive should be a good thing. Coming on top of the recent discussion about raising Salt Lake County property taxes for the extension of four TRAX lines, it seem that SL County is doing much to enhance its transit options.

While I do not begrudge the big county these efforts, I hope we do not forget or relegate needed transit for other areas of the region as well. There will only be so much money and effort that can be put into building new transit, and if it is all focused on SL, what happens to the rest of the region?

While we are getting commuter rail in Davis and Weber Counties, more transit will be needed in these areas as well. And let's not forget Utah County, but in this case, residents and elected officials still need to step up to the plate and make a commitment to transit funding at least equal to what the other three Wasatch Front counties are doing.

In the Legacy Parkway settlement late last year, one of the provisions was that there would be about $2 million provided for an Environmental Impact Statement for expanding transit into south Davis County. According to UDOT staff, this study will likely get underway this summer, and take about 18 months.

As funding and options are considered for areas in Salt Lake County, let's not forget other outlying areas as well. After all, these areas will need it as much or more so than the central county.

Friday update: Looks like Utah County is indeed working to figure out its transit future, as noted in this DesNews story.

Change in Growth Patterns Coming?

2006-05-17T07:22:00.000-07:00

Pretty good commentary on the Planetizen website by Anthony Flint, a writer with the Boston Globe and author of the recently released book This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America, about how our patterns of growth may finally start to change because of transportation -- the cost (with rising oil and gas prices) and the inconvenience (constant traffic congestion).

Talking about the consequences of the relentlessly rising energy costs, Flint then points out, "But the discussion always comes right up to the ultimate reason we use so much energy -- our physical environment and how we live -- and then backs away."

"Yes, more people are interested in taking transit or walking more. But millions are in no position to do that. There's no transit to take and there's nothing to walk to. ... The good news is, new forms of development that require less driving and more efficient use of energy are teed up and ready to go.

"The real estate industry has picked up on the desire for shorter commutes and a better sense of community. Frustration with long commutes -- and not getting home for the 5:30 Little League game -- has been a big motivation. Now energy prices ... are clearly becoming the tipping point for a great redirection away from sprawl.

"Across the country, innovative policymakers are also ready to level the playing field in terms of government regulations and infrastructure investments... . What needs to be done is clear, and really isn't all that controversial: change zoning to allow mixed-use development in town centers..., cut tape for urban infill development, ... shift investment to transit."

"Today, establishing alternative development patterns isn't going to hinge on saving farmland or protecting endangered species or preserving historic sites. It's going to come down to convenience, quality of life, and the pocketbook. ... Now more than ever, we shouldn't shy away from talking about the physical environment as the single biggest component of our energy woes. Quite the contrary -- this is the moment to be seized by urban planners and policymakers alike."

By friend and commenter, Google Peak Oi, will likely be pleased with this entry. I agree with Flint that high energy prices will change some of our patterns of development, if the persist long enough. But I also hear that energy prices will head back down in the near future as demand softens and production increases again due to price incentives. So we shall see!

Surpised Over Toll Road Opposition?

2006-05-15T18:40:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of debate in recent months over the idea of building toll roads in Utah. The line of UDOT and transportation planners is that this may be the only way we can build the roads we need soon enough, because we'll never get that amount of money through typical taxation.

Public concern with this idea has been voiced frequently, as evidenced by a recent story in the DesNews. Now comes a story that the truckers' association plans to mount a campaign against the idea.

Opposition to such ideas should not be surprising. While we dislike congestion, we seem to dislike paying more money for things even more.

Anthony Downs, senior fellow with the Brookings Institute and one of the foremost and most realistic experts on transportation, notes that the most effective solutions to congestion are ones the public will not accept. He says, "There are only four ways to cope with this problem without restructuring our society (so that everyone doesn't go to work at the same time each day).

"The first way to cope is to build enough roads so that everybody who wants to move at once can do so at high speed. But there are so many people involved we would have to turn each metropolitan area into one giant cement slab ... at enormous expense."

We could "expand off-road public transit so it takes enough people off the roads so that those left could move rapidly. But outside of New York City, very few Americans commute by transit. Only 4.7% did so in 2000, and if we remove those in NYC, it would be 3.5%. Why so few? Too many people live in low-density settlements that cannot be efficiently served by transit."

We could "charge money for driving during peak hours and set the tolls so that enough people would be kept off the roads so those who used them could drive fast. ... But most Americans are against this method (see stories above!)

"The only remaining method of coping is forcing people to wait in line to use the roads during peak hours. That can be defined as traffic congestion. So that is what we have to do, and so do people in every other large metropolitan region in the world. Congestion is the only feasible solution to our basic mobility problems."

So get yourself some books on tape, or find a good friend to share drive-time with, or plan to use your cell-phone for some extra work time. That seems to be all we'll accept, at least for now.

More Fallout

2006-05-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

A little more research on the writings of Len Gilroy (see previous blog posting) turned up a paper he has recently published which tells how to export Oregon's Measure 37 to other states. It's a pretty extensive work that gives advice on how to essentially gut land use regulations. Gilroy, an AICP-certified planner, claims that his interest is to take land use regulation back to its "legitimate" role, which he says is "common law, nuisance-based tradition that characterized the first century after the nation's founding. The nuisance-based approach was primarily focused on preventing harm to the property rights of others and giving property owners wide latitude in determining the best use of their land."

Gilroy acknowledges that this cause has been helped by the Supreme Court's Kelo ruling, which was an eminent domain case. But the wide-spread reaction against the decision has helped energize property rights groups to overturn not only economic development-based eminent domain, but land use regulation in general. Gilroy advocates hooking the two issues together in what he calls a "Kelo-plus" strategy.

"The advantages of pursuing a 'Kelo-plus' measure are several. First, it offers a single vehicle to address both physical and regulatory takings at the same time, effectively 'killing two birds with one stone.' Second, it capitalizes on the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling to enhance the protection of private property rights. Finally, it affords a chance to educate the public that, while private property rights are certainly endangered by eminent domain abuse, these rights are also threatened in a greater and more frequent (but less visible) way by the excessive and unfair burdens that can be imposed by regulation.

"Given the overwhelming public backlash against teh U.S Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision on eminent domain and the attention it drew to the frailty of private property rights, it is reasonable to assume that a similar message in other states would also have a tremendous popular appeal."

Gilroy then goes on to give strategies for moving Measure 37 clones along in other states. "In terms of messaging and making an impression on voters, one of the central lessons learned from the Measure 37 campaign was that it is essential to find a human face ... to associate with a regulatory takings measure. Instead of explaining the concept of regulatory takings to voters in the abstract, being able to highlight a visible 'victim' whose property rights have been taken from him via regulation offers...strategic benefits. ... In the campaign for Measure 37, the plight of 91-year old Multnomah County property owner Dorothy English demonstrated the threat posed by regulatory takings in a way that resonated strongly with voters. ... Enlish's message to voters in the Measure 37 campaign was simple and effective: ' I'm 91 years old, my husband is dead and I don't know how much longer I can fight...I've always been fighting the government, and I'm not going to stop.'"

Gilroy goes on to talk about forming strategic alliances with other groups. "Taxpayer advocacy groups can be a powerful ally in this regard, as they share a common goal of protecting individual and political freedoms and reducing the size and scope of government. ... Agricultural groups -- such as farm bureaus, cattlemen's and ranching associations, and granges -- are also natural allies that measure proponents can partner with to build public support, as they tend to believe strongly in the protection of property rights. ... Finally, homebuilder associations have a natural interest in property rights protection, usually hae large member bases, and are often quite active politically. However, it may be prudent to avoid having homebuilder groups directly lead the push for a regulatory takings measure in order to avoid opposition claims that homebuilders are less interested in protecting citizen's property rights than in reaping financial rewards that benefit their industry."

Looks like the "campaign" has begun.

Fallout from Measure 37

2006-05-09T18:08:00.000-07:00

According to Leonard Gilroy, a planner (has AICP certification!) and policy analyst with the Reason Institute, the property rights movement is swelling to a crescendo because of Oregon's Measure 37 and because of the backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo case.

Gilroy points to active measures that are underway in a number of states to provide property owners with compensation any time a regulation serves to reduce property value, inspired by Measure 37.

Funny how the discussion is always how land use regulations diminish property values which should be compensated. There is never any discussion by property rights advocates about doing anything if a land use regulation increases property value, which happens all the time as property is rezoned to allow for development. See my previous blog posting on this topic.

In any case, Utah was not one of the states mentioned by Gilroy, which surprised me a bit because of our experience with SB170 this last legislative session. Don't know if that means we just aren't on the same wavelength as the property rights groups, or if they didn't think this was a credible move. In any case, if Gilroy is right and there are so many serious actions underway in other states, the spillover may affect us here in the coming year.

And We Thought We Knew All About Sprawl...

2006-05-07T12:03:00.000-07:00

Sprawl. While there are lots of different definitions of what it is and explanations for how it happens, maybe we don't know as much as we think we do.

A recent story about a study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto gives some interesting and surprising results.

The study is based on complete aerial photography and satellite images of the entire United States from 1976 and 1992. The researchers used a variety of techniques to examine the extent of development of urbanized areas and the density of that development. They then looked at various factors to explain some of the differences.

Some of the interesting conclusions: "Overall, Boston is less scattered than Atlanta, but recent development in Boston has been more scattered than it has been in Atlanta. Miami, San Francisco and Los Angeles (!) were the most compact major cities, while Pittsburgh and Atlanta were the most scattered."

"Hilly places see more scattered development as people avoid the costs of building on hillsides -- but mountains act as barriers and lead to more compact development" (hence the idea that the Salt Lake metro area has natural urban growth boundaries).

But most surprising -- "roads do not seem to have any impact on the extent to which development is scattered, despite commonly held beliefs to the contrary. 'We looked at a lot of measures of road density -- miles of road per area, average distance to a road, distance to an interstate exit -- and we could find no relation between those measures and the scatteredness of development... ." Now that's a blow to the common wisdom!

So what are the factors that seem to be most responsible for low-density sprawl? "'The presence of aquifers is particularly important,' says Turner, 'and that seem to me to have policy implications. It looks as if controlling access to groundwater is an important way to control whether development spreads or not.'"

Also, "The number of municipalities in a metropolitan area...does not affect development patterns. ... However, the team also found that development near cities is less scattered if it occurs in a municipality than if it occurs in an unincorporated area of a county. This suggests that (in some areas) people may be moving out to just beyond municipal boundaries in order to avoid more stringent municipal regulations."

And we thought we knew the enemy!

Not All Carte Blanche for Charter Schools

2006-05-05T07:39:00.000-07:00

A bit of a ruckus kicked up again this last week over the charter school in Alpine, with stories in the papers and even making it on to the TV news. The fuss has apparently started up again because the school that was proposed earlier for Alpine was asked by the City Council to look for other sites, which they did. However, the new site is causing just as much a stir as the original site. One neighbor was on the KSL news in the evening saying there was nothing that could be done to stop the school under state law, anyway.

Well, in a way he's right, but not completely. Section 10-9a-305 of the code does say that in part 7(a) that "A charter school shall be considered a permitted use in all zoning districts within a municipality."

But the code also says, in part 4 that "a school district or charter school shall coordinate the siting of a new school with the municipality in which the school is to be located to avoid or mitigate existing and potential traffic hazards, ... and to maximize school, student and site safety."

Part 2(b) also says that "a municipality may subject a charter school to standards within each zone pertaining to setback, height, bulk and massing regulations, off-site parking, curb cut, traffic circulation, and construction staging." When an application is received, however, the city had better have these requirements in its code, because further on in that part, the code says "the only basis upon which a municipality may deny or withhold approval of a charter school's land use application is the charter school's failure to comply with a standard imposed under Subsection 2(b)(i)."

So the question is, does Alpine have any such standards in its ordinance? Has the charter school actually submitted a land use application to the city? If not, Alpine may have some time to get some standards in place (they had better be reasonable, however.)

See, it's not just carte blanche for charter schools, as many suppose. There are some things that can be required.

Man Bites Dog!

2006-05-03T18:03:00.000-07:00

It's been one of those bromides I've heard for so long, it is interesting to see it finally happen in a serious way.

Government is perpetually assailed by property owners who feel that they should be compensated when the value of their property is diminished by zoning or other land use regulation. However, there is hardly ever any mention of what should happen when the value of property is significantly increased by the same process. Some scholars have suggested that such windfall should be shared in some fashion.

Well, from that recent hotbed of property rights assertions, Oregon, comes news that the Portland Metro Council is considering some kind of "windfall profits tax" to help pay for the impacts of development and...(wait for it) the costs imposed by Measure 37, which requires government to pay landowners for the diminshed value of their property due to land use regulation.

A Metro committee, made up of (get this) mayors, realtors, tax officials and home builders, actually has recommended to the Metro Council that such a measure be considered for discussion and adoption. The action is partly in reaction to the passage of Measure 37 by voters in 2004.

While the head of Oregonians in Action, the group that pushed for passage of Measure 37, does not agree with the windfall profits tax idea, he did suggest that perhaps a fund using property or capital gains taxes paid by owners after their property is developed could be considered.

Truly a "man bites dog" kind of story!

Watch Out for Those Darned Unintended Consequences!

2006-05-02T07:11:00.000-07:00

Not that I am necessarily opposed to things like smart growth or concurrency requirements or growth boundaries or things like that, but I do worry when ideas like this are pushed as the solution to all problems.

Take, for example, the push for smart growth and a corollary, concurrency requirements. If you really think these through, they sort of have opposite effects. This was clearly brought to mind recently when I saw a story in the Baltimore Sun last week about a research study on the effects of the Maryland smart growth laws.

Maryland, as I'm sure you're all aware, has long been touted as the prime example for "smart growth," brought to national attention by the actions of former governor Glendening. However, a recent study by researchers at the University of Maryland has shown that the pairing of the basic smart growth idea of directing new development to developed areas where infrastructure already exists, and also having a concurrency requirement -- that is, infrastructure must be in place before new growth can be permitted -- has served to actually push development out into unregulated, rural areas.

David Flanigan, president of Elm Street Development, a Virginia-based housing developer, said of the results shown in the research study, "When they shut those areas down" to new development because of concurrency requirements due to crowded roads or schools, "people get in their cars and start driving" out to where they can build. "It's dumb growth."

Now this is possible in part because smart growth requirements are implemented on a county-by-county basis in Maryland (and in most other areas that are using a similar approach), which means that unregulated areas will be more attractive to developers. This result would argue, as one official in Maryland did, "is for officials to collaborate on regional planning four housing and the needed infrastructure at the same time." Not a bad thought, but given our aversion to anything but local control of land use, is this realistic? We may never know.

Big Push for Transit

2006-04-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

Lots in the news in recent days about accelerating the expansion of rail transit along the Wasatch Front. The Deseret News ran a major series of stories on it today (see also here and here.) Much of this is part of an effort by transportation pundits to raise the awareness of the need to increase transportation investment if we are to keep our region viable. This means not only roads, but transit as well.

The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is undertaking a substantial program to encourage increased investment in transportation, even calling for the raising of taxes to fund the TRAX expansion lines ahead of schedule. The Salt Lake County Council is moving in that direction as well, looking favorably toward putting the question of raising property taxes for TRAX expansion on the ballot this November.

While most of the recent action is taking place in Salt Lake County, there is also action in Davis and Weber Counties. The commuter rail line is currently under construction and due to be complete in 2008. The settlement of the Legacy Highway lawsuit late last year also included a provision that UDOT commit a couple of million dollars for feasibility and environmental studies for expansion of TRAX into south Davis County. This study, I understand, will get underway in earnest by fall of this year. Only Utah County, which has not yet committed for the additional one-quarter cent sales tax for transit as Salt Lake, Weber and Davis Counties did in 2000, is not seeing much action on rail transit (though there has been discussion about leasing the Union Pacific rail line to run a sort of commuter rail from Provo to Salt Lake when reconstruction of I-15 in Utah County begins in a few years.)

Is all this attention to expansion of rail transit worth it? Will it really help make our region a better place to live? One of the key items in Envision Utah's Quality Growth Strategy is expansion of transit. The idea is that making communities more open to walking and transit and lessening dependence on cars will improve quality of life.

Numerous studies show, however, that even substantial increases in transit capacity will do little to reduce traffic congestion. Anthony Downs, one of the most level-headed (in my opinion) writers on transportation policy, says that there is virtually nothing we can do that is acceptable to the public to reduce congestion substantially, even aggresively building additional transit. He does say that "improving and expanding the nation's public transit systems and upgrading their image are worthwhile goals that deserve significant effort and intensive promotion." Why?

If transit is not going to make much of a dent in regional mobility, what's the point?

In Davis County a few years ago, public officials undertook a concerted effort to prioritize our transporation needs. Legacy Highway came out number one, expansion of I-15 next, and expansion of transit third, with a number of other strategies following that. These were the big three, however. Why would we rank transit so high? Much had to to do with our recognition that once Legacy was built and I-15 expanded, there will be very little more we can do to add significantly to our road capacity because of land constraints (there just ain't gonna be any more room in the neck of the hourglass through Farmington/Centerville.) Transit will be needed to supplement that capacity. Also, transit is a good option to have available for people when they just plain don't want to, or can't, drive.

Look at most major metropolitan areas around the world that are vital and leaders in the world economy -- they virtually all have large transit systems. It's as Anthony Downs says, economic prosperity creates congestion because there is so much going on -- it's a sign of economic health. Transit is needed as a travel option in those regions. It's part of what we will need to do here in Zion if we are to become important players in the world economy, and keep up the quality of life for our residents, both present and future.

County Land Use and Radioactive Waste

2006-04-27T07:39:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of the call by Utah Policy Daily to "blog swarm" about radioactive waste storage today and tomorrow, I'm offering some information about what has been amended into the LUDMA in recent years regarding this issue.

In the counties section of the LUDMA, there is a requirement that counties, as part of their general plan, "include specific provisions related to any areas within ... a county, which are proposed for the siting of a storage facility or transfer facility for the placement of high-level nuclear waste or greater than class C radioactive waste ... ." There are a number of requirements for issues that must be considered, and then the code states, "A county may, in lieu of complying with Subsection (3)(a), adopt an ordinance indicating that all proposals for the siting of a storage facility ... wholly or partially within the county are rejected. A county may adopt the ordinance ... at any time."

Then, in a move to encourage counties to do so free from legal threat, Section 17-27a-409 states, "If a county is challenged in a court of law regarding its decision to deny siting of a storage or transfer facility for the placement of high-level nuclear waste... the state shall indemnify, defend, and hold the county harmless from any claims or damages, including court costs and attorney fees that are assessed as a result of the county's action... ."

Pretty strong statement in the state code about storage of nuclear waste. All as it relates to the land use process, as well.

The New "Pragmatism"

2006-04-26T07:34:00.000-07:00

A recent post on the Planetizen website by Joel Kotkin talks about "What Is the New Suburbanism." I've blogged on Kotkin's stuff before, in part because I think it is a pretty straightforward recognition of how the world is and how we can realistically tweak it and make it a little better.

Kotkin acknowledges the trend or "desire" of the majority of people to live a suburban lifestyle, and tries to find ways to improve the kinds of communities that are built. Along the way, he gets some pretty strong criticism from some who believe urban planning should be focused more toward turning inward to the central core and limiting "sprawl" outward.

Like in all things, there is some good in both viewpoints, but I tend to lean a little more toward Kotkin's ideas, maybe because I've spent my entire career as a planner working in suburban communities, but also because you just have to look at the numbers to know where the most growth is in most metropolitan areas. I don't believe it's due to some vast conspiracy of developers, oil industry and government to make that happen -- I really think most people like living in the suburbs. As with anything, there are some problems with it, and we need to find ways to solve those problems.

Short of some major catastrophe (what that would be, I don't know -- maybe Google Peak Oil who comments on this site a lot is right that if oil prices keep doing what they're doing, that will be the "catastrophe"), I don't see things changing all that much for a long time.

Monopoly: The Sprawl Version

2006-04-25T07:19:00.000-07:00

This has got to be one of the best planning-related cartoons I've seen in a long time. Pretty clever, captures all the elements of the knock on sprawl in one concise frame!

Redoing Subdivisions

2006-04-23T10:37:00.000-07:00

Last Wednesday, Neil Lindberg and I attended a meeting at the UAC Management Conference with most of the county recorders from around the state. The topic of the meeting was the changes made to land use law in the last legislative session. As we talked through the topic, it became painfully obvious that there are some real problems in the LUDMA and other codes related to subdivisions, which allows for (or even causes) some differences in practice in various county recorders' offices.

One of the most obvious that we spent some time talking about was the process for "exempt" subdivisions. While a plat is not required, just about everything else is, which raised the question of what's the point of even having the exemption? Some were also confusing exempt subdivisions (which is an optional process for local governments) with divisions of land that are defined as not being subdivisions.

And, of course, there was substantial discussion about who the enforcers of subdivision requirements are, with recorders making it clear again that they do not consider themselves that enforcer.

Two years ago when the effort was undertaken to redo the LUDMA and what eventually became SB60, the sections on subdivisions were left out because it just became too much to do all at once. After the discussion with the county recorders, and with others, it looks like something that needs to be done. We shall see what happens.

Paying More for TRAX

2006-04-20T17:41:00.000-07:00

The business community asking for higher taxes? Did you think you'd ever see the day? Apparently that is exactly what is happening, as the Salt Lake Chamber starts a campaign to find more money to pay for transportation improvements, most notably for TRAX expansions.

The story today in the Trib notes that Salt Lake Chamber President and CEO Lane Beattie says the planned transportation system needs to be built sooner, and is putting forward suggestions such as increased gas taxes on fuel, impact fees, property and sales tax increases and special district levies to get the job done.

While the story focuses in Salt Lake County, I talked with Lane Beattie today and he said their effort will really be throughout the Wasatch Front, and even statewide, as the transportation system is really a regional one, and workers and businessmen live throughout the region and need to get around, as well as the goods and services.

The Chamber plans to pursue this initiative aggressively, seeing it as vital investment in our infrastructure for sound future economic growth.

SATURDAY UPDATE: Today's editorial in the Trib supports the concept of accelerating construction of the four proposed TRAX expansions. Somehow we have to get on the radar an extension of TRAX into south Davis County, as well! At this point, there has only been a study for a future transit corridor. That study needs to move forward and be expanded.

More on Washington County Plan

2006-04-18T07:44:00.000-07:00

As the vision planning effort for Washington County is about to get underway, environmental groups are taking an active stand in opposition to the bill proposed by Sen. Bennett and Rep. Matheson for federal land use in the county. Both SUWA and the Utah Sierra Club proclaim that they are not happy with the bill, and ask people from around the country to express their opposition.

The Sierra Club does at least acknowledge the start of the local visioning plan, saying, "Some credit adheres to the impulse to plan for growth that everyone foresees. Unfortunately this proposed legislation would make growth-related problems in Washington County even worse. Bennett consulted with a fairly broad spectrum of land users and advocates, but the draft legislative language largely reflects the interests and preoccupations of the Washington County Commissioners."

To a degree, there does seem to be a little bit of a question about whether the cart is before the horse here, when a bill has been proposed before the proclaimed visioning process even gets started -- but by the same token, much has been made of the fact that a number of interest groups were brought together over an extended period of time to help craft the bill as it is. While the environmental groups claim they were never seriously invited to be part of that bill-crafting, the bill sponsors say that they were invited but did not like where things were headed so they quit coming.

The experience that environmental groups have in dealing with federal legislation is well-known and clear -- they know that process and how to influence it very well. How they will fare in a broader, Envision Utah-type visioning effort will be interesting to watch.

Reverse Legislation on Trails Acquisition?

2006-04-17T19:40:00.000-07:00

Recent story in the DesNews about the latest in the ongoing saga between Dr. Gibby and Mapleton City for acquisition of a right-of-way for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. This dispute was the reason a bill passed in the last legislative session taking away from state and local government the ability to acquire land for trails and recreational pathways.

The ironic fact is that the passage of the bill will have no effect on this particular situation, because it cannot be applied retroactively. So a change was made in the state code for one particular situation, which the bill won't do anything to help with, anyway.

So the question now becomes, should an attempt be mounted to get the law changed back in the next legislative session? No doubt, there is substantial sentiment to do so. Stay tuned, we'll see what happens.

Sutherland President Responds, Knocks "Quality Growth"

2006-04-16T10:40:00.000-07:00

Wow. Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero responds to criticism of Randal O'Toole's study on the costs of smart growth (see previous blog entry) with a rather strident opinion piece published in this morning's DesNews. Where to begin to respond?

Mr. Mero implies that a move toward quality growth strategies would circumvent the free-choice pattern of development we now have when he says, "Every totalitarian scheme is based on efficiency -- do what we say, when we say it, and you will have a tremendous quality of life." Well, how does Mr. Mero think the zoning and development regulations we currently have in place came about -- primarily through the free-market? In fact, part of the problem we have with development today is that government regulations are too strict -- do not allow the different styles of development that are advocated by quality growth and that some developers would like to pursue. There is nothing sacred or particularly free-market about the style of development that goes on today -- much of it was established by regulation a number of years ago. Part of the quality growth strategy is to loosen up regulation -- something Mr. Mero openly supports.

Aside from the "character assault" Mr. Mero engages in when he says things like "quality growth advocates persuade and then parade well-known community and business leaders to represent its public face. There is no socialist quite like a capitalist one...," he implies government collusion to "aggresively...pursue 'green' agendas." I would suggest Mr. Mero take a look at the kinds of things that are being actively advocated by organizations like the Urban Land Institute, which is made up predominantly of private-sector developers. The developments these folks are working on generally encompass things that are part of the quality growth "agenda," and they are calling for a loosening of regulations to allow them to happen.

Mr. Mero says, "Has a Utah city or county council been involved with policies limiting the number of building permits because a community is growing too fast?" as part of his support for the idea that quality growth is meant primarily as a way to restrict development and growth. My own experience over the years has been that there have been attempts by a few local governments over the years to actually restrict the rate of growth, but in most cases communities try to find ways to accomodate it in the best way they can. And often such accomodation causes outcries from citizens that the elected officials are in the back pocket of the developers, letting them do whatever they want.

What is wrong with a community that is besieged by a sudden rapid surge in growth and that is unprepared for its infrastructure and community character to accomodate such growth, to call a short time out to get its act together before the flood gates are opened? Usually that is the case, as these towns impose temporary moriatoriums on growth so they can better respond. Most cities accomodate the "free-market" demand for growth, whether they are ready or not. Would Mr. Mero have communities accept such growth without any plan or preparation?

"A local government's interest in housing policy should focus on health and safety. The marketplace primarily should be relied upon to determine decisions about where we live and how we live," Mr. Mero says. Sometimes that health and safety concern means a community must limit or stop growth temporarily while its water facilities or sewage treatment capacity is expanded to accomodate that growth. And if development can be tweaked to reduce the cost of that overall infrastructure to all the taxpayers, is that bad?

My experience with quality growth, at least in Utah, is that it is primarily about influencing the style of development, not stopping it, and not causing it to be more expensive. Sometimes homes in those kinds of development are more expensive, but generally because those developments are more desireable and hence the price is bid up by the free market.

No doubt, Mr. Mero's column will likely generate some interesting discussion in the next few weeks.

A Broader Plan for Washington County

2006-04-13T19:26:00.000-07:00

Story in the DesNews Tuesday indicates that Washington County commissioners signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nature Conservancy, the Oquirrh Institute and Envision Utah to develop a vision plan for the fast-growing southwestern county.

This step is the logical follow-up to the bill announced earlier by Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson with regard to planning for the federal lands in the county.

With the St. George and Hurricane areas growing like they are, a "vision" of an alternative way to grow is sorely needed. Kudos to the local officials and groups involved, and good luck! It will be an adventure going through the process.

Alpine Council Chooses "Wisely"

2006-04-12T18:23:00.000-07:00

Story in the Daily Herald today about the Alpine City Council reversing the planning commission's decision to deny approval for a charter school. Attorney Dave Church helped them understand what they could legally do, given the parameters of the state code regarding charter schools and the role that they were playing in essentially an administrative action.

The Herald said, "city attorney David Church told council members again and again that the Planning Commission's decision had been illegal" because recent changes to the state code require local governments to allow charter schools in any zone. There is not a lot of discretion left for communities to exercise.

As happens in most emotionally charged matters like this one, residents "filled not only the council chambers but the entire hallway outside, express(ing) their displeasure by booing, hissing and repeatedly interrupting the meeting with catcalls and angry comments."

I don't know how we go about it, but somehow we must help citizens learn about and understand the distinction between administrative and legislative actions. We also need to help elected officials and planning commissioners understand, as was probably what was needed when the planning commission made the decision they did.

I generally think we do a disservice to the public when we advertise and hold "public hearings" on administrative matters, things like site plans and conditional use permits. While the public can bring forward information that perhaps the staff of the land use authority wasn't aware of, more often the public comes and expresses their "opinions" of "feelings" on the matter, which is not something that can be a basis for an administrative decision.

The solution for the residents of Alpine who do not want charter schools in their neighborhoods is to get the state law changed. Until that happens, there isn't much else that can be done. Kudos to Dave Church for his work.

More On the "Price" of Quality Growth

2006-04-11T18:23:00.000-07:00

Excellent opinion editorial in the DesNews this morning from Pamela Atkinson, Chair of the Coalition for Utah's Future, which sponsors Envision Utah. It was written in response to the recent press release by the Sutherland Institute about a study by Randal O'Toole (co-sponsored by several other conservative state organizations from around the country) citing the "costs" of smart growth (see the immediate previous blog entry, which is on this topic).

Pamela does an excellent job in describing the biggest flaw in the study as it relates to Utah, saying, "But the Sutherland study is not credible, objective research. The study went wrong when it compared Utah's quality growth efforts to mandatory 'smart growth' regulations -- such as urban growth boundaries, population growth caps, and open space mandates -- imposed in some communities outside Utah. The study concluded that these mandatory growth policies were increasing the housing costs in those areas. Then, incredibly, it made the leap that since Utah is pursuing quality growth principles, the same costs apply here.

"First of all, we are not aware of any mandatory growth regulations in Utah similar to those criticized in the report. Nor has Envision Utah ever advocated such policies. ... The irony is that current zoning regulations often prevent the sort of housing development that Envision Utah promotes, investors would like to build, and which would allow the free market to provide affordable housing options." Just the point in made before, proving that planners and local officials come under criticism from both the free-marketers and the smart-growthers.

Then Pamela states something I wholly agree with -- "The study also fails to adequately address the primary drivers of housing price acceleration -- population growth, strong economic activity, limited developable land and favorable quality of life -- all of which are operating in Utah to increase housing costs." At a level, I would argue, that far overshadows the kinds of factors the report blames for increasing costs. And all those factors are -- surprise! -- free market forces.

Damned If You Do, and Damned if you Don't...

2006-04-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

Story in this morning's Trib about a Sutherland Institute report saying that "smart growth" adds to the cost of housing in Utah. Interesting how this was presented, because I pulled the actual study itself off the web about a week ago. The study author is Randall O'Toole, a well-known conservative economist who is generally anti-planning and anti-government. The study was apparently funded in part by ten similar state-level organizations, including the Sutherland Institute here in Utah.

The Sutherland Institute's press release quotes Institute President Paul T. Mero saying, "Randal O'Toole has labored hard to make a simple point: government regulations significantly increase the cost of Utah homes. It turns out that so-called 'smart growth' planning isn't very smart after all."

So here's where the "Damned if you do..." part comes in. O'Toole and Sutherland are saying smart growth planning and regulation drives up the cost of housing. Yet critics of sprawl also say that sprawl is expensive and is caused by... government regulation! In this case, the regulation that maintains low-density, large lots, spread across the countryside. I guess government is to blame for it all, both ways.

Dan Lofgren, a long-time developer and also chair of the Utah Quality Growth Commission, says the kinds of restrictions O'Toole cites in his study as causing increases in housing costs are methods that are not generally employed in Utah, such as growth boundaries, extensive design requirements, and extensive acquisition of open space with tax funds. "If he can't point to the cause (in Utah), how can he point to the effect?" Lofgren said.

O'Toole's methodology for calcualting the smart growth penalty is also very subjective, at least from my standpoint. Take a look at the study itself and see what you think. Again, to me, the "truth," such as it is, lies somewhere in the middle between the two sides.

Take Care in Turning Down Charter School

2006-04-06T19:29:00.000-07:00

A couple of stories in the Trib and the Daily Herald in last couple of days about Alpine considering a permit for a charter school in their community caught my eye, particularly since I have been so involved in putting together presentations in the last week for a couple of planning & zoning workshops. The issue seems to revolve around a common problem -- what can reasonably be done in an administrative action (vs. a legislative one). Clearly, most residents, and even planning commissioners and councilmembers don't understand the distinction.

According to the Herald, the Planning Commission earlier this week considered and then turned down a site plan application for a charter school. I don't know what Alpine's ordinance requires, but public and charter schools, under state law, are permitted uses in all zones in a city or county. So really the only way to turn one down is to find some really egregious problem that they may create or that may be a danger for them.

Lots of public comment was given in the meeting in opposition to the school, most of it probably "public clamor;" in other words, a lot of opinion with no real evidence presented. In an adminstrative actions, decisions must be based on substantial evidence, not on simply supposition or opinion. Some factual basis for approving or denying an application must be given. As is common in meetings like this, it sounds like a lot of opinion was given, but not much in the way of facts. The stories do not say what information was given by staff about the application.

It looks like the denial was based at least in part something one of the planning commissioners quoted from the state code: "the school site shall not be located in an area where there is a history or high possibility of flooding." That could indeed be a requirement that could be the basis for turning down an application.

I have, however, been looking high and low in the state code for this statement, and have been unable to find it. Does anyone know where this is to be found? If it is not there, I fear that Alpine may be skating on thin ice with regard to their denial of the application.

Once again, we need to make sure our planning commissioner and elected officials clearly understand what they can and can't do in administrative actions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

And Now...For Something Completely Different

2006-04-04T07:03:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, its helpful to step back and listen to the pure feedback that comes when plain people are ticked about something and all their true feelings come out.

Such was the case yesterday after a massive traffic jam was caused early in the morning when a couple of Port-A-Potties fell off a truck on southbound I-15 in North Salt Lake.

On the KSL News website, comments are allowed on their stories. The story about the Port-A-Pottie back-up (pun intended!) generated, to date, 97 comments, that ranged the whole gamut from poor drivers to urban planning.

Some of the more fun and interesting comments:

"I just got to work after sitting in traffic for nearly two hours. This is just one more example of how Davis County is desperately in need of alternative routes into SLC."

"I work in SLC, and live in SLC, and it took me 2 min. to get to work. What a concept!" -- Jason

"Great idea, Jason...everyone that works downtown should move downtown. Just close up Davis County, Tooele County, and any suburbs south of 2100 South. The only people that live there will be the ones that work at the grocery store and gas stations out there...oh, but then they won't really need those grocery stores and gas stations because the people using them would already live downtown. Instead of building alternate roads, lets just build massive skyscrapers to house everyone in Utah within a 2 mile radius. Why didn't anyone think of that before!"

"Some times people HAVE to work in their company's corporate offices which just happen to be downtown. That's just the way it has to work. So let's all move Downtown. Where would you recommend we all live?"

"So you're saying Tooele and Davis county can't support their own population? So you demand transportation, retail and shopping that you cant afford in your hometown? Makes sense. For road rage."

"If everyone that commuted into SLC for work suddenly didn't have to, there is a great chance that you would be out of a job. You obviously haven't a clue as to how much money commuters bring into SLC every day, for without us. you would be paying a lot more in taxes..."

"I live in North Ogden and commute to Murray. I was an hour and 1/2 in the commute today. I choose not to live in SLC or SL County. We do not need Legacy, it will be outdated when built. We need to continue with and expand mass transit. We do not need more pavement. We need to get out of the box and think past the moment. I will be happy to let someone else do the driving."

"I too live in Ogden and choose to, and yes we need another freeway, because if you're on the bus, on I-15 you ain't movin' when it's closed. So whether you use transit or not you are stuck!!! Can you see the irony? One way in and one way out, when that way is closed, not even buses get thru!!"

"Not everyone can live in Salt Lake City, next to their place of employment. Salt Lake City does not have the capacity to house everyone who works downtown. Not to mention the cost of living in the city is outrageous. To get a decent priced house in Salt Lake County and work downtown still requires a commute. The real choice is whether someone wants to live in the suburbs of a huge city where getting anything done takes a ridiculous amount of time, or live in the suburb of a smaller city where there is room for everyone, even during peak hours."

"I would feel better if there were some redundant systems for getting into/out of Davis County. A West Davis highway ("Legacy" is a stupid name!), heavy commuter rail, and better bus service are all needed. The only other option is to keep people from moving here and having kids. I agree with you on one thing: Davis County drivers are pretty bad!"

"I don't think that it's only Davis County drivers that are bad, it's a state wide problem, drive to Provo/Orem area some time."

"I, too, live in Davis County. I am getting tired of this being a Salt Lake County versus Davis County issue. You people in Salt Lake County who feel that Davis County should basically go away, try walking (or driving in this case) in our shoes. ... Yes, we need another route, for occasions like this when the freeway does get shut down. Another route besides the little, rinky-dink Main Street, that CANNOT handle freeway-volume traffic. We also need more and better mass transit. I know that the more people that ride mass transit, the less cars will ultimately be on the freeway. ... I also echo the comments of people who choose not to live in the Salt Lake area. It may not be cost effective, or not everybody in the household works in Salt Lake. I grew up in Davis County, and prefer Davis County over the Salt Lake area. Does that mean I should be banned from seeking employment in Salt Lake? No. Does it mean I should have to give up everything, and have to buy a more expensive house...? No. Please quit demonizing us in Davis/Weber Counties for choosing where we want to live."

"I think the bottom line to the problem is the fact that there are simply too many people... each person having to have a car, a huge house, etc. Over-population is going to do the world in. 12 billion people are expected within our lifetime. So just be ready for things to get worse."

And there's lots more. It's always helpful to take a few minutes and listen to what the people we are planning for have to say. They're not as unknowledgable about this stuff as we sometimes think!

Suburbs: Good or Bad? The Debate Continues

2006-04-02T09:22:00.000-07:00

The growing debate about whether suburbs are good or bad (or maybe they just are, with some good and bad) continues with a couple reports in the last couple of weeks.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story on March 24 called "A New Wave of Scholars Challenges Common Assumptions about Sprawl and Urban Growth." Several different recent books and authors are reviewed, including Bruegmann's Sprawl: A Compact History, and a book about African-Americans in suburbia by Anrew Wiese.

The debate is summed up well in a passage from the article, which says, "Academic and popular attitudes have, on this subject, fed off one another. Since the 1970's and the rise of the environmental movement, a coalition of forces -- not just environmentalists but also planners and preservationists and concerned citizens -- has taken (Lewis) Mumford's image of American Beauty uniformity and linked it to the worst kind of sprawl in a powerful negative-spin campaign. ... Only a developer could love a landscape the (anti-suburbia) authors describe as 'soulless subdivisions, residential communities utterly lacking in communal life; strip shopping centers, big box chain stores, and artificially festive malls set within barren seas of parking; antiseptic office parks, ghost towns after 6 p.m., and mile upon mile of clogged collector roads, the only fabric tying our disassociated lives back together."

Bruegmann criticizes these suburban critics, saying, "To me, that's the problem with most writing about cities. People go out and say, 'Here's what I like.' And the corollary to that is usually, 'This is what cities ought to be.' Urban historians, he feels, have tended to share certain tastes common to a Northeastern city-dwelling elite, and so have been too hasty to dismiss vernacular aesthetics and choices."

"Critics like Yale's Ms. Hayden argue that Mr. Bruegmann places too much weight on the market and on individual choices while ignoring the impact of federal subsidies for highways and development and the role of so-called growth machines, lobbies made up of financiers and builders. She emphasizes that 'it's very important to know that there have been many subsidies for green-field development, ... which have subsidized one set of consumer choices and constrained others.'

"Mr. Bruegmann shrugs off those objections: 'I don't need to find great conspiracies or greedy developers to explain why suburbia happened. It happened in the United States, as it is happening around the globe, because many people, when offered a choice, have chosen to live at low densities, often in single-family houses.' Complaints like Ms. Hayden's, he says, are 'an excellent example of the kind of New Urban history practiced by Kenneth Jackson and other that I am trying to overturn.'"

Some interesting stuff, important because it helps to give a framework to the kind of planning we may be trying to do -- urban centered or suburban oriented. It's hard for some planners to plan to make suburbs better places if, in their hearts, they believe the "truth" is that we should be aiming to put most people back into the urban core. Given the levels of growth we are currrently experiencing and that are projected for the future, how could that ever be?

Another story in The Slatin Report on March 24, aptly named "The Sprawl Brawl," continues the discussion. More speifically, I was struck by this passage in the story:

"This comes as no surprise to Robert Bruegmann, in whose view urban dispersal is a natural and inevitable phenomenon as society become more affluent. Sprawl, he says, is largely the result of people in the middle class and, more recently, even the working class and immigrants getting what once was only available to the wealthy: a single family house in a neighborhood that is cleaner, greener and safer. What is more, this desire is universal. 'Polls consistently confirm that most Europeans, like most Americans, and indeed most people worldwide, would prefer to live in a single family house on their own piece of land rather than in apartment buildings,' Bruegmann wrote in his book. ... As Europeans became more affluent in the last decades of the twentieth century, the consequences of this desire became even more visible. European cities experiences a precipitous decline in population densities in the historic core, a quickening of the pace of suburban and exurban development, a sharp rise in automobile ownership and use, and the proliferation of subdivisions of single-family houses and surburban shopping centers. American tourists (including visiting planners) spend most of their time in historic city centers and are unaware that most Europeans, just like Americans, live in low-density auto-oriented suburbs and shop in shopping malls and big box stores."

This is pretty much true to my own experience. I was born in Germany not long after the end of World War II. My parents, who had joined the LDS Church, desired to leave the old homeland and come to Utah. They did so when I was only 6 months old. My mother had grown up in an apartment building in a medium-sized German city, while my father's home (and the place where I had been born) was more rural, on the outskirts of a small city. After living in a couple of small apartments near downtown Salt Lake, when their economic circumstances allowed, they bought a small home on a small lot in a tight, dense neighborhood just north of Liberty Park in Salt Lake City. Many of our families friends did the same or lived in the old brownstone apartments scattered around near downtown Salt Lake City.

Shortly after I graduated from high school, my parents had saved enough and improved enough that they then moved to their ideal -- a house on a one-acre lot in South Jordan. Here they had room to garden to their hearts content, and have room to build a large barn and workshop for my Dad. Interestingly enough, as our family friends also improved their economic condition, they took similar actions. It's hard for me to believe that this movement out of the city center to the suburbs was due to a "conspiracy" of developers and government officials to subsidize this kind of growth. For them, it was always their desire.

When I finally went back to Germany to visit the old "Vaterland" in 1990, I expected to see mostly a situation where most people lived in those wonderful urban neighborhoods in the old cities, with lots of public transit and neighborhood market places that my parents had told me about and I had read about. It was a very different situation I found.

My uncle, who had been living in the old family homestead where I had been born, had sold the house as suburbanization grew out to meet him. The house was to be removed because the city needed to build an overpass over the rail tracks at that location because of the increasing frequency of trains carrying commuters into Frankfurt. My uncle took his share of the money from the sale of the homestead, and built himself a wonderful new house in a new subdivision in a small community now a suburb of Frankfurt. There was a rail station a few blocks away, but everyone in the subdivision generally had two or three cars. The autobahns leading into Frankfurt were jammed with commuters every morning and evening, despite the fact that those frequent commuter trains were readily available at nearby stations.

I thought, "This looks just like back home! But they don't have the home mortgage subsidies and highway building programs that we have back home. In fact, transit is still big here. Why is this happening?" The conclusion I drew? Affluence and desire. As soon as people have the money, regardless of whether they live in Europe or America or wherever, they like the lifestyle offered in typical suburban neighborhoods.

I've rambled on long enough. I guess the point of all this is, we as planners need to recognize what people desire and how they want to live, not what we think or other "experts" think about how they ought to live, and make those situations as good as possible. Instead of constantly castigating suburban living (there is plenty about urban living that is not great, either), we should find ways to make it better.

Unintended Consequences

2006-03-29T19:46:00.000-08:00

As I've observed the state legislature over the years, I am always struck by how often even well-crafted and vetted bills wind up with unintended consequences. And if it happens often in something carefully written, what chance does something hastily put together at the last minute have? Such bills almost without exception contain something no one foresaw or intended.

So it really comes as no surprise to me that Measure 37 in Oregon is now discovered to have an unintended consequence. A story in last Sunday's Oregonian points out that many legal observers are saying that it is clear that the measure intends to give a property owners back the rights of development that existed at the time the owner purchased the property. So many long-time landowners are seeking approval for uses that are no longer currently permitted, but were legal at the time they acquired the property.

However, if the owner then sells the property, the new owner can only seek approval for the level of development that current regulations permit.

"There's no evidence transferability was contemplated,' says Kevin Neely, spokesman for the attorney general's office. Leaders at Oregonians in Action, the group that wrote Measure 37, say ability to sell land for development is part of an owner's right.

"Oregonians on both sides are struggling with the new legal and political landscape. There are folks such as George Forsman, who won Measure 37 approval early on. Last summer, he was trading stories with fellow claimants in a crowded Clackamas County hearing room. 'I can't sell the land,' he told a woman in the next row of chairs. 'Oh, my gosh,' she exclaimed, waiting for her turn before the county commissioners. Forsman shook his head. 'Not with this restriction on it.' Forsman says he might sell his 40-acre orange grove in Florida so he can afford to develop the Oregon land himself. But he knows most claimants don't have that option, so he'd like to spearhead a class-action lawsuit."

Nothing is ever as clear as you might think it is, especially when dealing with the writing of new laws.

How Far to Take Opposition to a Plan?

2006-03-29T07:40:00.000-08:00

Story in this morning's Trib about how the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and SUWA really dislike the land use plan for Washington County unveiled last week by Sen. Bennett and Rep. Matheson. As the story say, "(the) three environmental groups have determined that they don't like the proposed Washington County land-use bill... (a)nd that might be putting it mildly."

I have no problem with anyone not liking what is proposed in general plans or other land-use planning efforts. From what I understand, the Washington County proposal is going to go through a process of public comments and input before it is finalized. Great. That's the place for groups and individuals to express their views and try to persuade others about their viewpoints.

What I wonder is how far these environmental groups will take their views. If their opinions are not accepted or broadly incorporated into the proposal, will they then take the extreme position of challenging in court? That seems to be what they are setting up for. If they do, does that mean their opinions and viewpoints are the only "correct" ones? If everyone were to take such an attitude about their viewpoints, nothing would ever be accomplished. Most plans are the product of a number of different ideas and viewpoints which are blended into a plan, which often represents "some of yours and some of mine," not just all your or all my way.

Be interesting to watch what happens with this.

What Commercial Developers Are Thinking

2006-03-28T17:07:00.000-08:00

This month's Utah Business magazine includes some interesting comments from commercial realtors in the magazine's Industry Outlook on commercial real estate (this link will require you to do a free registration to get to the story, but it's worth it). Telling comments from them about how they see the business recruitment process, particularly in Salt Lake City. Devon Glenn of the Boyer Company says Mayor Rocky Anderson "doesn't do what the mayor of Ogden is trying to do. He doesn't do what the other mayors are trying to do." Bill Martin of Commerce CRG says, "The mayor of Draper lands Ikea and gives them the world. But the mayor of Salt Lake doesn't recruit." Lots of other interesting tidbits in this interview.

When they discuss the lack of affordable housing, much of blame from these gentlemen goes to local governments. Bruce Tucker of Prudential CRES says, "A lot of communities have to address the vertical issues. St. George is a perfect example. ... There are multiple developers who would love to come to St. George and do an affordable housing project, but you can't go vertical. You can't make that work. Utah County has the same issue."

Bruce Bingham of Hamilton Partners asks, "Do you think Utah's property rights are deteriorating slower or faster than the rest of the country?" Responds Steve Bogden of Coldwell Banker Commercial, "...we have two areas that are recent examples where I think we have some major challenges. One is in the building with the dome up there. The commercial real estate industry, including developers, brokers, title companies and mortgage companies, have formed a coalition. We are lobbying the legislature at the Capitol regarding redevelopment and the redevelopment process, because there have been cases of abuse. But when they saw that abuse, they killed the issue, instead of trying to help change the process."

Interesting perspective, a little different than what I would have thought, given how the real estate and developer industry has been represented on the Hill.

Fascinating stuff. Give it a read, it will give you a new perspective on what major commercial developers are thinking.

Time for Planning In Washington County Is Now!

2006-03-26T06:07:00.000-08:00

Lots of attention being paid to Washington County as of late. It started with the acknowledgement that this county is among the five fastest growing counties in the nation. Anyone who has been to St. George and surroundings in the last few years could readily attest to this -- the place looks like a part of the Wasatch Front, only with red rock surroundings (and nicer golf courses!)

Next the announcement (see also here) of a broad-based plan for public lands in Washington County. It's nice to finally see a positive, pro-active approach to dealing with the largest landholder in many areas of the state, where growth and the status of the federal lands often come into conflict. A few years ago, the state tried funding development of county general plans so that the residents of the county could have a formal say in the planning for the public lands in that county. While there was some modest success with that approach, it seems what was just unveiled in Washington County (based on plans done recently in two Nevada counties) is a much better way to go.

This morning's DesNews (be sure to click on related stories listed in the left-hand sidebar) focuses considerable attention on growth in Washington County.

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, however, after taking a look at the proposal, doesn't like it. That's fine, because from what I read the plan is not yet finalized, with public meetings scheduled to receive more input. SUWA warns, though, that they are prepared to fight the plan. This, I have come to learn, usually means that if they don't get just what they think it should be (forget about no one else getting exactly everything they want, either), then it's off to court!

What all this tells me is that it is high time for some coordinated, broad-based planning for the Washington County region. I think planners there have been trying hard, but as has been the case for years on the Wasatch Front, planners generally are so overwhelmed with just keeping up with the exploding development process, there isn't much time left over to do the broader visioning and planning.

The federal lands plan recently unveiled is probably a good example of how some of this broader visioning and planning can and should occur. A similar process should take place now for all lands in Washington County.

It is my understanding that leaders in southwest Utah have been considering making use of the Envision Utah process that was used along the Wasatch Front nearly ten years ago. I would encourage folks there to move ahead with this idea. It is not the plans and principles that would be simply taken down to the St. George area -- it is the process that Envision Utah used with such great success that would be helpful. Recall the numerous public workshops where thousands of residents and leaders sat at tables with chips representing growth, and everyone expressing their thoughts on how growth should occur. This then led to scenarios and eventually the expression of desired growth principles.

Washington County could develop their own "vision" of how they want to grow using the Envision Utah process. Why shouldn't people in our own backyard do so, when this tool is now being used to great success in many other areas of the country?

Go for it, Washington County. It sounds like an idea whose time has come for you -- plan before what attracted you to red rock country in the first place is all gone.

Salt Lake, Davis Counties to Be Proactive on Corridor Preservation

2006-03-22T20:20:00.000-08:00

Last year's legislature passed a bill (SB8) which gives counties the option of increasing auto registration fees and use the money for corridor of critical transportation corridors in that county.

So far, only two counties are considering adopting the fee and moving ahead -- Salt Lake and Davis. With the rapid growth rates in our state and the relative dearth of funding to accomplish all that is needed to build the planned future transportation system, development can easily overwhelm the areas where future corridors are needed, as legal constraints prevent local and state governments from banning development for more than a year or so. And with land prices escalating as rapidly as they are recently, the cost for acquiring and preserving corridors goes up exponentially.

Though it seems like a tax increase to implement the fee, in reality it is the "one donut now, or two donuts tomorrow" parable -- ask someone to do a task, and offer them one donut right now in payment, or two donuts tomorrow. By buying right-of-way for corridors now, in the long run taxpayers are saved a lot of money by acquiring the property before the values increase dramatically or it is developed and homes and businesses must be removed.

The actions are described in more detail in stories in the Trib (see here, here and here) and in the Davis County Clipper. Also a story in the DesNews. The Standard-Examiner editorializes in favor of the action, and Utah Policy Daily also praises such action.

It is truly a long-view planning action to take action to preserve corridors. It can be used for both highways and transit, so it is truly an integrated transportation tool.

Gov Fails to Veto Eminent Domain Bill

2006-03-21T21:13:00.000-08:00

Gov. Huntsman failed tonight to veto SB117, a bill which includes a provision that prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire land for trails and recreational paths. About the only option left now is to mount an effort to have the law changed back next legislative session, and that, my friends, won't be a slam dunk.

Odds and Ends

2006-03-21T07:24:00.000-08:00

Just a couple of quick notes.

Story in this morning's Trib which notes Bluffdale's expected filing of an appeal to the state Supreme Court of the ruling in the disconnection case. Judge Quinn has put his ruling on hold until the appeal can be settled. Resolution of this case may take some time.

On a different note, the Trib also has a story this morning on bills the Gov has neither signed nor vetoed, including SB117, which contains the prohibition on use of eminent domain for acquisition of property for trails and recreational paths. No word on how the Gov is leaning at this time. Deadline for action is today.

Pen Out for Trails!

2006-03-19T08:21:00.000-08:00

As highlighted in a story in this morning's DesNews, Gov. Huntsman has until Tuesday to sign or veto bills passed during the 2006 legislative session. One he has not acted on yet is SB117, dealing with eminent domain. The original bill itself was one which most did not have any real problems with. However, in the last days of the session, Rep. Aaron Tilton was successful in getting the language of his HB292 amended in when SB117 was up for consideration on the House floor (the amendment was offered by Rep. Dave Ure!).

HB292 would have prohibited the use of eminet domain for acquisition of land for trails and recreational paths (except for those adjacent to a street or roadway -- a provision to keep the Legacy Parkway from getting into trouble again). Rep. Tilton sponsored the bill as a way to help Dr. Wendell Gibby of Mapleton, who was in the middle of a complicated legal dispute with Mapleton City over an existing right-of-way across his hillside property which the city wanted to formalize as part of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

HB292 failed to gain approval in three separate House committee meetings. It was then amended into another bill dealing with different parts of the eminent domain law. This is a tactic frequently used in the U.S. Congress, but one that virtually never succeeds in the Utah legislature. But it did this time. It is hard to argue that legislators did not know what they were doing when they approved this amendment, particularly in the Senate, but there does seem to be some element of "slipping it by" because a couple of House members I have talked with seemed surprised that it had succeeded and didn't recall voting on it.

This is a bill the Governor should veto. It's primary motivation was to help out one particular property owner in a dispute with his city, but the particulars of that case seem muddy at best. Ironically, it is not likely that this bill will help much in that case, because the dispute is already well down the "path" in the courts, and this new law will not be applied retroactively.

It does seem that this bill came about, in part, because of the controversy generated in the past few months because of the U.S. Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling in Kelo. But, other than the one particular dispute in Mapleton, what overriding reason was there to remove this tool of government?

No question, eminent domain is rarely invoked by local government when dealing with parks and recreation facilities, particularly with trails. But it is an important resource to have. Many property owners are willing to grant easements or rights-of-way for trails, but often they ask for the benefit of doing so under the "threat of eminet domain," which then gives them advantages under federal tax laws to reinvest their capital gains. This seems like a fair concession to help compensate them for their willingness to provide such wonderful community resources. But under SB117, this advantage will no longer be possible.

In some cases, eminent domain may be necessary to complete a long and extensive process. Salt Lake City Attorney Lynn Pace recited the story of how the city worked with community and trails groups long and hard over a period of years to build the Bonneville Shoreline Trail around the foothills of that city. One final piece of trail segment remained to complete the system, but the out-of-state property owners failed to respond to numerous inquiries and requests from the city. It wasn't that they were opposed (or even in favor) of the trail -- they just simply did not respond at all. Finally, the city filed an eminent domain action, which ultimately forced the resolution (successfully, as it turned out).

Now that tool will be gone. Use your pen, Governor, and veto the bill. It is a relatively minor tool, but one that can be well-used at appropriate times.

Signs of Things to Come

2006-03-17T21:48:00.000-08:00

Story in this morning's DesNews is about possible continued efforts in the state legislature by the developer community to change land use statutes.

Neil Lindberg and I have been doing kind of a tag team presentation on what happened in this year's legislative session on land use law, and why, and what we might expect in the next year. As the story recounts, Neil made a presentation Thursday to the Wasatch Front's Regional Growth Committee, saying what we both believe, that there will be continued efforts to move the line that distinguishes between legislative and administrative land use actions.

Michael Hutchings, principle in a law firm that has filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of developers over land use applications before local governments, essentially confirmed that suspicion when he said, "...the substitute (bills) to SB170 were compromises that fell short of what developers really want. ... They...want zoning requests to be approved unless cities and counties can show in court or before the state ombudsman that projects would be harmful." That would be an attempt to move that legislative-administrative line.

"Property owners and lawmakers plan to spend the next few months talking to representatives from the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Utah Association of Counties to try to reach some kind of agreement, in preparation for any new bills that may enter the battlefield." Let's hope the lesson was learned with SB170 that such an approach needs to be taken, rather than just dropping the bomb as was done at the beginning of the last session.

Planners Played with Erector Sets as Kids?

2006-03-16T20:46:00.000-08:00

Interesting interview by the Australian Broadcast Company interviewer Michael Duffy with Joel Kotkin, the proponent of "New Suburbanism." Duffy apparently had Richard Florida (Rise of the Creative Class) on earlier, and Kotkin takes on the notions expressed by Florida.

"No, (Florida's) completely wrong," Kotkin says. "I think Richard's theories had a kind of currency with the dot-com boom. ... The reality is quite the opposite. Take a look at San Francisco; San Francisco was at the height of the dot-com boom, the laws of economics had been revoked, and yet what do we see today? San Francisco's lost roughly 4% of its population, 10% of its jobs, the Bay Area has the largest domestic out migration of any area in the country. ... Where have the tech jobs been going? They've always been in the suburbs, I've always thought the Richard made a very unfair characterization by saying that tech growth is where the hip cools are. I've covered Silicone Valley for 25 years. Silicone Valley is basically a bunch of nerds; they don't care about Burmese restaurants unless they happen to be Burmese."

Some interesting stuff here. Particularly when he talks about planners. Duffy asks Kotkin why urban planners in general seem to be opposed to the idea that suburbs are important places, why they tend to focus on "hip cool urban downtowns." Kotkin responds, "There's an authoritarian streak in urban planners. They love Paris..., how they wanted to create this perfect urban environment and they did a pretty good job, but France has basically been a dictatorship, a top-down dictatorship for most of its history, and the reality is that even in France the middle class is moving to the outer ring of Paris anyway. But I think it has to do with the culture of planners; they want to control things. You always get the sense these were people who played with erector sets when they were kids..."

Huh? I thought that was civil engineers. I played more with block towns and train sets and the like -- I didn't have the patience for erector sets!

Kotkin does blast academics and intellectuals who disdain the suburbs in favor of urban centers, saying they ignore what are the most sought-after, desireable places to most people -- the fast-growing suburbs.

A recent example of that urban bias is a column by John Barber this week in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Titled "There's No Escaping Our Suburban Mistake," Barber writes, "For the sake of suburbanites alone, the end of suburbia would be a blessing. But that's not happening. ... It may be, however, that the suburbia we all love to hate is simply no longer historical, something that will change and perhaps improve in time, but anthropological: a big mistake made permanent."

The truth, I suspect as is true with so many polarized viewpoints, lies somewhere in the middle between the two.

The General Plan is "Everything?"

2006-03-14T19:42:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the legislative session and the debris of SB170, as discussion panels and meetings to recap what happened take place, one thing is becoming more and more apparent: much of what occurred is due to the distinction (or lack of distinction) between legislative and administrative acts.

Legislative actions are those in which policy is debated and set, which are given much greater deference by the courts. In Utah, legislative land use acts are considered to be things like adoption of a general plan (and any amendments); adoption of zoning and land use ordinances; and zoning of property, including rezones of individual parcels of property.

Administrative acts are those in which the standards of the adopted ordinances are being applied to an individual application. Included in this catergory are things such as conditional use permits, site plan reviews, subdivision plats, etc. Much stricter standards of conduct are applied here by the courts -- the review body, if they intend to turn an application down, must have very good evidence and findings that standards are not met.

The location of this line varies from state to state -- Utah has a relatively broad area of legislative review. This can be frustrating to applicants, who would generally rather see their proposals reviewed under a strict set of standards. Much of what was written in SB170 was an attempt to narrow that area of legislative actions.

Sometimes, local elected officials and the public don't understand that line, either, resulting in inappropriate actions on items that clearly meet the administrative standards. I think this happens because elected officials sometimes think that as elected, policy-making councilpeople, they can say yes or no to anything. That just simply isn't the case.

A paper published in the BYU Law Review in 2004 discusses this distinction in detail. It is interesting reading, because one can see some of the moves attempted in SB170 directly in the law review article. The author, Todd W. Prall, argues that the line between the two should be drawn at the general plan stage. Prall writes, "The only decisions made by local governments that should be accorded legislative deference in the land use arena are those made to develop a large-scale and long-term comprehensive plan." He continues, "A single standard of review is a viable alternative to the traditional legislative/adjudicative division because it allows for proper legislative deference, creates a better atmosphere for local governments to engage in meaningful and effective large-scale planning, and properly protects due process. It promotes the proper use of a distinct comprehensive plan and illustrates a clear understanding of how separation of powers and delegation principles apply to local governments."

This, essentially, is what planners are taught in planning school -- everything should derive from a carefully crafted comprehensive plan. Zonings, rezones, land use ordinances, development review, all would then be administrative acts guided by the plan.

While this position is compelling from a logical standpoint, in practicality things don't work that way, in most places they never have. There are a number of reasons why things don't work as idealized. It would be a significant and renching change in the way things would be done.

Comments?

On Open Space and Bluffdale

2006-03-13T19:58:00.000-08:00

Just following up with a few odds and ends.

The DesNews ran story this morning on the Bluffdale disconnection case fallout. Not much new in this story -- just emphasizes that the developers are ready to move ahead, while the city prepares to appeal the case. There may not be a final resolution to this case for some time to come.

The Trib this morning ran a story about the failure of the state legislature to do much for the funding of open space preservation. The story points out that McAllister Critical Lands Fund was given only $1 million this year, a record surplus year, and that this was less than what was put into the fund last year. Also, the legislature refused to pass a bill that would have given some counties the option of holding a countywide vote to increase sales tax slightly for preservation of open space. Don't want anyone to try any new and forward-looking ideas, do we?

Are You Ready for Growth?

2006-03-12T09:04:00.000-08:00

A couple of stories in the papers recently which helped drive home the idea that all communities need to be ready for growth, even if they're small and out of the way, even if they don't think they can afford it.

Last Friday, the Provo Daily Herald ran a story about Cedar Fort, a small town out in far western Utah County where it has seemed that growth would never be an issue. However, last week, the Cedar Fort Town Council held a meeting to consider imposing a development moratorium so they could have time to update their development codes. "Meeting in a frigid room in the town's fire station, Mayor Howard Anderson started the meeting by saying the choice was not whether to approve a moratorim, but whether to include all or part of the town." But various attendees at the meeting, including the former mayor and the chair of the planning commission, convinced the town council to "keep their powder dry" and save the extreme measure of a moratorium for when it may be really needed.

The problem for the town, it appears, was magnified about three years ago, when "the town annexed 13,000 acres, quadrupling the town's size. There always has been some question about how the land is now zoned, Anderson said. The town's attorney, investigating the matter at the town's request, recently said the original annexation agreement zoned the property in two different ways, neither of which is legal according to city ordinances. 'We can't have a map saying one thing and a zone saying another,' Anderson told council members. 'That is illegal.'"

"Several council members and the mayor said their greatest fear is that a 'high-powered lawyer' would find a loophole in the town's ordinances that would force the city to consider a subdivision or slew of single-family homes before ordinances could be rewritten."

And what is the town doing to get those ordinances reworked? "About an hour into the meeting, the town planning and zoning chairman of three months, Bart Berry, arrived promising to work as quickly as possible to rewrite town ordinances. ... The town must be careful as it crafts ordinances to manage growth 'because this is going to affect us for the rest of our lives,' Berry said. 'What scares me is that in six months, we won't be any further along,' said Anderson, to which Berry seemed to grow angry. 'Howard, don't pin me down like that,' he said in an irritated voice. 'I gave you my word on it.' 'Then in 30 days we'll have zoning ordinances,' Anderson said calmly."

What I don't know from this story is if Cedar Fort officials are trying to do this on their own, or if they have any professional help involved. I hear in this story the echoes of what has happened in numerous other small communities on the edge of the growth wave, like Bluffdale a few years ago. You could see the wave heading for them, getting ready to slam into them. But their efforts to prepare, to get their plans and ordinances into shape were never adequately committed to, instead done in a piecemeal fashion. In the case of Bluffdale, if you read the recent court ruling on the Sorenson Development disconnection case, it has come back to bite them. Places like Cedar Fort may be cruising for the same.

In a related story in this morning's DesNews, a proposed cluster subdivision in Basin, Wyoming is causing similar concerns. An organic-cattle rancher is proposing to subdivide his 750-acre spread into an area with 137 tightly-clustered homes on lots as small as one-third of an acre, keeping the rest of the land undeveloped and in agricultural use.

"The county has essentially no zoning restrictions on much of its rural land, including Elliott's property... . 'There are no zoning controls in this area,' (county planner Jim) Waller said. 'This whole thing could be busted up into 150 five-acre lots. But as it is, he's only taking up 20 percent of the area for housing."

Again, an example of an area not ready for the growth that is coming. "The issues that came up...are hardly new to the West. But they are new to some in Big Horn County and reflect a growing trend of development reaching into isolated communities whose zoning regulations don't address such complex issues. 'We've never had any kind of proposal this big, ever,' said county planner Waller. 'Just to give you an idea, in the last 18 months, we approved only two major subdivisions. One was 10 lots on a 40-acre parcel, and the other was four lots on a six-acre parcel.'"

Everyone, large and small, needs to be ready, and needs to commit the resources to be ready.

Aftermath of the ULI Seminar

2006-03-08T07:25:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Utah ULI seminar on what happened in the legislative session regarding land use issues was quite interesting and timely. Joining me on the panel were Mike Ostermiller, CEO of the North Davis/Weber Association of Realtors; Jodi Hoffman, land use policy person for the Utah League of Cities and Towns; and Sen. Greg Bell. Craig Call, Utah Property Rights Ombudsman, moderated the panel and did an outstanding job.

Mike Ostermiller felt, I think, a little like the target in a room full of bowhunters, but in reality there were a number of developer/realtor people at the seminar as well as local planners and elected officials. Mike and Jodi presented very contrasting views of what SB170 was all about, while I focused mainly on the process that brought about SB60 last year, and our surprise and disappointment that something similar wasn't done with regard to SB170. Sen. Bell did an excellent job of painting the scene of what the landscape is like in the legislature right now ("they don't like local government much") and how strong leadership will be needed in the coming year to properly address land use issues.

Bottom line, most everyone felt that we haven't seen the end of moves to make more changes to land use laws at the state level. The question just will be what kinds of changes and how we will move forward on those.

The Deseret News ran a story this morning on the seminar. Interestingly, the story was not so much about what was discussed at the seminar itself, but focused more on fact that a number of legislators work in the real estate and development business or received campaign contributions from the realtors and homebuilders.

In the previous blog entry to this one, I listed a number of excellent questions Craig Call put forward for the panelists to potentially address. Unfortunately, we didn't get around to them. But I would like to encourage you to go back on take a look at the comments to that blog -- there is a very interesting and extensive response from a recently organized group called The Utah Alliance for Citizens Rights, whose stated purpose is to make sure the referendum power on land use issues stays as a viable option. Interesting comment.

What's the Future Hold?

2006-03-06T20:42:00.000-08:00

I'm scheduled to be one of four panelists tomorrow morning at Utah ULI's workshop on what happened regarding planning and land use issues in the 2006 Utah legislative session.

Craig Call, Utah Property Rights Ombudsman, will be the moderator. Craig sent us panelists a set of questions to think about and possibly respond to during the workshop that are excellent. I think I'll list Craig's questions here, and encourage readers to respond to those they have opinions on.

What issues do you see coming up again in 2007? Will there be added efforts during the interim to identify and craft consensus on more issues or will there be more open debate in the legislature this next time with no consensus worked out?

What do you recommend that property owners and local officials do to influence the process that could result in more changes in state law?

Do you feel that the provision of SB267 that states that land use applications will be processed in a reasonable time will have any beneficial effect? Does it say enough? Does it say too much?

No referendum bill passed this year. What is the future of this issue? What do you want the future to be?

Will there be legislation coming out of the Bluffdale and similar cases about disconnection and annexation to another community? What impact will this court case have?

Have SLAPP suits gone away? Will the opinion and later settlement in the Tobias case affect land use practice?

How much of what we have been going through in Utah relates to the US Supreme Court's decision in Kelo and the Oregon public vote on land use compensation through Measure 37? Will we see more fall-out from those watershed events in Utah?

What impact will the bill that creates opportunities for new school districts within existing districts have on land use planning and development?

Is there hope for small developers and homebuilders or are the rules simply too complex and the demands on development so great that only the large developments can do projects anymore? What are the trends?

What impact has the Wasatch Front Regional Council and Envision Utah had on these land use issues? Does "big picture" planning work? Is planning and land use regulation simply too fragmented?

What about corridor preservation? Have any counties adopted the vehicle registration fee increases that will supposedly provide funds to acquire future corridors?

What impact on land use development will Legacy have now that it is under construction? The Mountain View corridor?

How do the current and potential changes in land use statutes affect huge projects like Kennecott?

What do we see in the future for Summit and Wasatch Counties and the Wasatch Back? Is their experience with heightened regulation just the predictable future of other counties or is their situation too unique to apply to other counties?

Is the 2005-2006 legislatures pass "full employment for planners acts" by promoting less opportunity for local officials to avoid compliance with the statutes, ordinances and rules related to the processing of administrative land use applications? Will cities and counties that do not plan ahead be able to control their destinies without proper professional help, advance planning, and carefully-crafted ordinances?

What do you envision as the best possible result coming from changes in the ombudsman's office? What potential downside do you see? What can be done to maximize the chances that it could be beneficial in achieving your view of the appropriate planning process?

Do legislators understand development and land use regulation? What could be done to increase the level of understanding on Capitol Hill and thus the quality of legislation coming down?

Lessons from the Bluffdale Case

2006-03-05T09:07:00.000-08:00

As more information comes in about the Bluffdale disconnection case, there are plenty of lessons to be learned, or at least some cautionary tales to take heed of.

The website "Business Wire" posted a press release from Soreneson Development right after the judge's ruling was released, and there are some telling quotes there.

"'The judge's ruling is bittersweet for us,' said Don Wallace, vice president and COO of South Farm, one of the two largest owners who brought the lawsuit. 'For 13 years we've been struggling with Bluffdale over this issue. We can honestly say we tried as hard as we could to work with Bluffdale, but Bluffdale never approved anything on any of the 4,000 acres in question and has never provided services. So, it is time for us to move on.'

"'We are grateful for the wisdom of the judge's decision. We have complied with every single legal requirement of Bluffdale City, despite significant obstacles put in our way over the years,' said Dave Millheim, Development Associates partner. "We are sorry Bluffdale's back-tracking, foot-dragging and obstructionism forced us to go to court to implement our private property prerogatives and we look forward to working with the forward-thinking city of Herriman.'"

Whether you agree with the way Bluffdale City has handled this development request over time or not, the bottom line is the perception of the landowners and developers here, which I think has helped to drive the recent move toward SB170 in the state legislature and other similar discontent with the local development approval process. Lengthy plan development and application review processes tend to give a perception that the game is not being played fairly, and reaction is building.

Most telling for me is the actual language from Judge Quinn's ruling in the Bluffdale disconnection case. Pay particular attention to the judge's implied criticism of a planning process that never seemed to have the resources committed to it by the City to move it along in a timely manner.

"Given the magnitude of the (South Farm) project and the limited resources of the City, the planning process was time consuming. From South Farm's perspective, the progress was excruciatingly slow. In fact, the planning process that began during this time frame continues up through the time of the trial. Most of the plans remain either unfinished or unadopted.

"The particular elements of internal planning that needed to be finished before consideration of the South Farm Development, as well as the time estimates for completion of those elements, were moving targets that never seemed to be within reach.

"The City was, in fact, in good faith working toward completion of its planning process; however, there were clearly elements in the City that were hostile to Rosecrest-like developments within Bluffdale City. The Court accepts the reasonable inference that some foot-dragging was taking place -- whether intentionally or as a result of the natural human tendency to defer consideration of issues that are likely to be contentious. ...

"The City began immediate consideration of the application through its planning staff. Once again, because of the sheer size of the project and the limited resources of the City, the progress was unreasonably slow. ...

"The year following submission of the General Plan Application was characterized by dozens if not hundreds of meetings between South Farm and City staff, without any discernable progress towards submission of a proposed amendment for approval."

As the judge reviewed the requirements in the state code that must be met to approve a petition for disconnection, he spent considerable time and focus on the factor "that justice and equity require that the territory be disconnected from the municipality. (USC 10-2-502.7(3)(b)) The judge wrote,

"Having considered the evidence, the Court finds that justice and equity require disconnection for three reasons: undeveloped land has historically been considered appropriate for disconnection; Bluffdale City's zoning and planning process was characterized by unreasonable delays and changing standards; and Bluffdale's current political environment precludes an orderly development process. ...

"Bluffdale's zoning and planning process as applied to South Farm reflects unreasonable delay and arbitrarily changing standards. The Court has consistently ruled in this case that this is not a planning and zoning dispute. The Court cannot and would not disconnect property from Bluffdale City simply because it disagreed with a zoning decision made by the appropriate governmental authority. While justice and equity do not require any specific outcome from a planning and zoning process, they do require that the planning process be fair, expeditious and consistent. The Bluffdale process as applied to South Farm lacks those elements.

"South Farm was attempting to develop a substantial piece of property that happened to be about 50 percent in Bluffdale and 50 percent in Salt Lake County. The County portion of the property is not only developed, but is nearly built-out. The Bluffdale portion remains raw land. The primary explanation for the difference between the two parcels is the delay imposed by the Bluffdale planning process. For approximately four years, South Farm was not even permitted to submit a development plan because Bluffdale was not sufficiently far along in its own planning process to consider such a plan. This internal planning process never seemed to achieve critical mass and remains largely unfinished to this day. Justice and equity do not require a city to bend to a developer's will, but they do require a timely response. Where a city has struggled, as Bluffdale has, to get its planning house in order and the result has been inordinate delay in responding to development initiatives, justice and equity may require that the developer be permitted to pursue its goals in another jurisdiction. ...

"Bluffdale's current political environment precludes an orderly development process. The political environment in the City is a factor that in justice and equity favors disconnection. The proposed South Farm development has been an emotional and contentious issue since the first public meeting in October 1997. The divisions have escalated to the point that virtually any decision made by the City in favor of development is subject to a referendum. In this current climate, it is simply not possible to negotiate with the City. The City's administration has in effect become an agent with no authority, who can say no, but can never say yes, and provide a reliable decision not likely to be attacked by referendum. Leaving the property in the City will only prolong this dysfunctional and contentious process. The Court is not suggesting that citizen involvement or the referendum process is anything but salutary. It is, however, an unwieldy mechanism for making zoning decisions. That unwieldiness is a factor favoring disconnection in this case."

Quite an indictment by the judge on the planning process, as he sees it was carried out in one community. Lots of lessons for planners here, if we take heed.

Bluffdale, of course, disagrees with the conclusions of the judge. There are also several other factors that play into the disconnection decision that the judge addressed that may need future attention, like the definition of peninsula. Bluffdale City plans to appeal the ruling, so it may take a while before we have some definitive answers to these issues.

So Long, "Utopia!"

2006-03-03T06:41:00.000-08:00

To many, Oregon was considered to be the nirvana, the "utopia" of planning and orderly development. The state, and particularly the Portland metro area, were often held up as examples of how good planning could result in the best of places to live.

I have visited Portland and Oregon several times, and while I think much of the talk of Oregon as "planning utopia" was overdone (Portland still has run-down areas, traffic jams, lack of affordable housing, and other problems that beset "less enlightened" areas), I was struck with how dramatic the urban growth boundaries resulted in clear lines between developed and undeveloped areas.

But all that national and international notoriety may now slip away (or rather, be replaced by another type of notoriety) as Measure 37 takes effect.

Recent stories in The Oregonian point to this. "Advocates of Oregon-style planning were shocked voters passed the property rights law, said David Goldberg of [Smart Growth America.] 'People who visit Oregon come away in awe,' he said. 'It's really unmatched.'" says a story last week. "Measure 37 has provoked fierce debates over Oregonians' values since voters approved it in November 2004. Oregonians widely view it as a shift in the state's approach to planning, which has been to preserve the countryside for agriculture and concentrate people in cities," says another story yesterday.

It's interesting to see how land use actions are actually playing themselves out now, as well. Another Oregonian story notes that Measure 37 allows longtime landowners to apply for relief from land-use rules adopted after an owner acquires property. If a landowner can show that the value of the land has been harmed by the regulatory action after it was acquired, the government responsible for the rule is required to pay for the loss of value, or waive the land-use rule.

"In all cases approved so far in Clackamas County (Portland area), the rule was waived, an approach that's not about to change when the county's process ramps back up (following the Supreme Court ruling). 'Where would you get the rather astronomical sums to pay owners?' asks (Bill) Kennemer, (county board chairman)."

"All the while, landowners are calling. 'It's been plenty busy,' said Jennifer Hughs, Marion County senior planner. 'Mostly they want to know where they are in the process and what happens next.'

"At the same time, county commissioners want to consider changing a process that they think had become cumbersome. Measure 37 does not dictate a process for how counties consider claims, so Clackamas County officials established one: After landowners file their claim and pay a $750 application fee, the county has 180 days to review the application, notify neighbors, hold a public hearing and make a decision. Hearing held by commissioners became marathon affairs, county staff said -- three times a week, more than four hours at a time, 20 claims at a sitting.

"The public hearing process is important, Kennemer said, because Measure 37 provides very little protection for neighbors who might be affected by a claim. At least a hearing provided a public forum, he said. 'But that creates a workload and sets up a process that maybe is not the most efficient to operate.'"

And what does all this mean for the rest of us? "Measure 37 proponents will use (the) Supreme Court ruling for political leverage in Oregon, and as a selling point for look-a-like proposals in other states," one Oregonian story says. "For now, (Oregonians in Action leader David Hunicutt, author of Measure 37) is busy fielding congratulatory calls from property owners and counterparts across the country. Activists in at least a half-dozen states, including Washington, have modeled legislation or initiatives after Measure 37. One such person, Mark Nix, ... director of the South Carolina Landowners Association, drafted a bill for his state legislature with Hunnicutt's help."

Some say that SB170, introduced in this year's Utah legislative session, was a spin-off of Oregon's Measure 37. I personally don't think so -- I think it was something crafted independently by some of the developer community here in Utah because of perceived problems with the land use application approval process. But I do think there is now a very volatile atmosphere around, and if planners and local government officials are not careful in how development applications are handled, we could see more moves to something like Measure 37.

Protest at the Wrong Time

2006-03-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

Story in this morning's Trib about a petition signed by over 1,700 residents in Holladay to keep a Walgreen's out of the Village Center redevelopment area. Seems that there are already three other pharmacy/drug stores near the location, and residents object to another, especially one that is part of a national chain.

I haven't made myself completely familiar with the details of the proposal, but it sounds like it is one that is allowed by existing city ordinance, and thus something that residents really can do very little about at this point (help me out here, Paul).

The city hasn't made it easy for the applicant, making them go through, among other things, an extensive design review process. But, bottom line, it sounds like a use that is allowed by city ordinance and one that the applicant has properly applied for and gone through the process.

Now the residents want to stop it, and have a huge petition to make their view known. Unfortunately, citizens often don't understand that the time to protest was when the city was originally considering adopting the ordinances that would have allowed for such use in the first place. If the city were to turn the application down now on the basis that residents simply don't want it, there would be more than enough grounds for the applicant to sue and either be granted the use or be granted compensation. Residents simply don't seem to understand this, and think that a petition is valid grounds to overturn existing legal rights of others.

This situation reminds me a lot of the Wal-Mart in Centerville battle, which was the same type of situation. Because of the extensive resident opposition, the city review and approval process became very long and drawn out, but the applicant met all the hurdles thrown in its path, and had a legal right to proceed, much to the dismay (and misunderstanding) of many of the residents.

Making such distinctions more apparent to citizens and to elected officials is something that planners and staff must do a better job of.

McAllister Fund Gets Attention

2006-02-28T18:57:00.000-08:00

The LeRay McAllister Critical Land Preservation Fund was in the news Tuesday in a big way. Attention was given because of the proposed funding by the legislature. Initially proposed to be funded for $6 million this year, the latest legislative funding list shows it at $1 million.

Salt Lake businessman and former House Speaker Robert Garff presented an impassioned plea for support of the Fund in an opinion piece in the Deseret News. Writes Garff, "With our record $1 billion surplus, and a $9.6 billion state budget, surely $6 million can be found to fully fund projects that preserve our traditional farmlands, enhance our communities and protect our sources of drinking water."

When originally established, the McAllister Fund was to receive a regular source of income from some dedicated sources, amounting to somewhere near $6 million each year. But each year, the legislature has taken the money from those sources for other priorities and left the Fund woefully short. Garff notes "our neighboring states are investing millions in state and local funds for the protection of their lands and waters, including Nevada ($200 million), Colorado (over $200 million) and Arizona ($173 million). By contrast, on average, the Utah legislature has invested less than $2 million annually in the McAllister Fund."

The editorial in The Trib notes that "The McAllister Fund is just the kind of modest, fiscally conservative approach that Utahns are comfortable with. A $6 million effort every year for a couple of decades would add up to a lot. But like any savings program, you've got to contribute every year. Now's the time to start."

Anyone listening up there on the Hill?

More on Bluffdale Disconnection Ruling

2006-02-28T07:31:00.000-08:00

As expected, both the DesNews and the Trib have longer stories today about Judge Quinn's ruling in the Bluffdale disconnection case. And also as expected, I find myself squarely in the middle on this one. That's because I find myself agreeing in part with both sides.

Judge Quinn wrote in his ruling as I noted in the previous blog entry, and also said, "Bluffdale City's zoning and planning process was characterized by unreasonable delays and changing standards. Bluffdale's current political environment precludes an orderly development process."

This is the kind of stuff that has gotten local governments into trouble with developers and landowners in a number of other instances, and has been, at least in part, responsible for things like SB170 in this year's legislative session (of course, it doesn't hurt that you have 22 legislators who are involved in the real estate and development industry, including the House Speaker and former Senate President).

But local governments must work harder to ensure the land development process is fairer and more timely if we are to avoid future full-scale assualts on local planning and zoning authority.

But another contributor to the confusion in the mix has been the rise of citizen groups. Not that they are all negative, but Judge Quinn did sum up some problems with this approach when he wrote that the debate over appropriate land use in the community has "escalated to the point that virtually any decision made by the city in favor of the development is subject to a referendum. ... The court is not suggesting that citizen involvement or the referendum process is anything but salutary. It is, however, an unwieldy mechanism for making zoning decisions."

On the flip side, Bluffdale Mayor Claudia Anderson says in the Trib that the judge "should never have held a trial because the dispute was a zoning decision. Just because the developers don't like how the city is planned to zone the land, they shouldn't be able to peddle their land to another community."

Amen. I agree with the Mayor on that one.

There's lots here to think about and discuss. I'd like to hear comments from readers, and I'm sure there will be more to discuss in the coming weeks and months. Bluffdale City has said they will appeal Judge Quinn's decision.

The Incredible Shrinking City

2006-02-27T19:15:00.000-08:00

Judge Quinn issued his ruling this morning on the Bluffdale disconnection case. All I have at the moment is the brief Trib story on their daily update -- no doubt more will be available tomorrow, which I'll update onto this entry. I'll also try to get the ruling text itself. But the judge ruled against the city, which will likely result in a disconnection of some 40% of Bluffdale City's land area.

Interesting excerpt the Trib reports, however. In ruling against the city and in favor of the developers and landowners, Judge Quinn wrote, "While justice and equity do not require any specific outcomes from a planning and zoning process, they do require that the planning process be fair, expeditious and consistent. The Bluffdale process as applied to South Farm lacks these elements."

It will be interesting to see what Judge Quinn thought was unfair about the process. Something else for us to put in our pipes and think on for a while, I'm sure.

Bluffdale City officials have said they will appeal the District Court ruling.

It's Alive! (Again)

2006-02-23T07:35:00.000-08:00

Big news out of Oregon yesterday -- Measure 37 is still alive and well!

The Oregon Supreme Court, in a relatively quick action, overturned a lower court action unanimously and put Measure 37 back on track. In a lead story, The Oregonian reported that the decision "jump-starts more than 2,500 applications to develop land controlled by government regulations."

"Oregonians widely view Measure 37 as a shift in the state's approach to planning: reserve the country for agriculture, and concentrating people in cities. [Under Measure 37,] governments must either turn back the clock to rules in place when land was purchased, or pay for owners' financial loss. No money was set aside for cities, counties and state agencies, so rules have been waived."

The rejection of the lower court ruling staying Measure 37 "was emphatic. The court rejected each of [lower court judge] James' grounds for overturning Measure 37, saying it is consistent with the constitution. 'Whether Measure 37 as a policy choice is wise or foolish, farsighted or blind, is beyond the court's purview,' the justices wrote."

Oregon state government has established a 10-member task force to review Oregon's land use laws and philosophy in light of recent moves like Measure 37, to see what direction the state should take in the future.

In a related Oregonian story, farmers who had been prevented from selling land for development had mixed reaction to the court ruling on Measure 37, but generally seemed favorable. "'No one should be afraid of Measure 37,'" berry farmer [Jack] Parsons said. 'It doesn't force farmers to stop farming. It gives property rights back to farmers."

Another story in The Oregonian looks at the political implications of Measure 37 and the general attitude toward land use regulation on the Oregon Governor's election this November. "Candidates from all sides of the political spectrum...blamed Gov. Ted Kulongiski for failing to resolve the thorny issues posed by Measure 37, insisting they could do better. ... But land-use politics in Oregon show little sign of easing."

The success of Measure 37 in Oregon is being cited as part of the reason for other similar actions cropping up in other states, like a ballot measure moving forward in Washington state, and even for SB170 in Utah.

Foxes in the Henhouse?

2006-02-22T07:35:00.000-08:00

Here I am, behind the times again. What with Presidents' Day and frequent writing on legislative updates, I haven't found the time to blog on notable planning-related topics, and they are stacking up. So here I go to try and make a dent in the backlog.

On Sunday (see how far behind I am?) there was an interesting juxtapositioning of stories in the Trib. First, there was a story on legislative conflicts of interest. The main example used in the story -- the influence of realtors and developers. Given all that has happened this year with SB170 and other related bills, that is no surprise to many. The Trib claims that those involved in the land development business make up the largest bloc of "interest" in the legislature -- "This year, 22 legislators build, manage, sell or maintain homes, apartments and commercial buildings. The industry can claim some of the most prominent leaders on Capitol Hill, including House Speaker Greg Curtis, former Senate President Al Mansell and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert."

Then, flipping over to the editorial section, we find an opinion piece by Mike Ostermiller, CEO of the Weber/North Davis Association of Realtors and main lobbyist on SB170 for the Property Rights Coalition, a small group of key developers concerned about local land use regulation. The title of Ostermiller's piece is "Land use bills seek fairness and accountability." Ostermiller writes, "Cities should be able to make decisions that affect owned property only if there is a very good reason to compromise private property rights. The landowners community believes the current lower standard has allowed cities to make and defend land use decisions for almost any reason at all."

Hmmm. Pretty broad statements about the overall picture, I'd say.

Fortunately, there is also a piece in that day's editorial section from Alan Matheson, executive director of Envision Utah. Alan does a good job of pointing out the need for a balanced approach to land use regulation and development for the benefit of all.

As an interesting side note, yesterday SB268, the bill making changes to the property ombudsman office, was amended on the Senate floor with things that local government reps had been party to and were generally in support of. However, one change caught most of us off guard. The new advisory board which will help to oversee the activities of the ombudsman was changed, taking the nominating role for one of the board members from Utah farm organizations and giving it to the Utah Property Rights Coalition. I don't know that there is any one particular group in the state that represents developers in general, but I know this one ain't it. The Coalition is made up of a fairly small group of developers who have a certain ax to grind, and giving them power to nominate one of the ombudsman advisory board members seems rather unbalanced. Just my opinion.

Referendum Issues Resurface

2006-02-19T07:48:00.000-08:00

One of the proposed Sons of SB170 bills was supposed to deal with the question of having certain land use decisions subject to citizen referendum. There was even a bill in progress under Sen. Tom Hatch's name for this issue.

Stories last week in both the DesNews and the Trib indicated that citizen groups were forming to oppose any change to the citizen referendum process. "We're really worried," said Save Our Communities (Sandy) representative Robyn Bagley. "There's a lot of different ways they can go."

Most of the discussion in the press, and even comments made by Sen. Tom Hatch, revolved around changing the threshold percentage of signatures needed in communities of varying size. In larger communities, to get a referendum petition on the ballot, supporters must collect enough signatures equivalent to 20% of the number of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election in that community. For smaller towns, the standard rises to 35%.

In Riverton, a recent referendum proposal was put forward by meeting the 35% standard -- twice. Dennis Sampson, president of Riverton United, said "It was very, very hard to get enough people. It was nearly impossible to do it the second time." But they did.

Discussion I had heard about the proposed bill for Sen. Hatch, however, was about applying the same standard for taking issues to referendum for cities and counties as exists for the state legislature -- if the measure passes the legislative body by a vote margin of more than two-thirds, it cannot be subject to referendum.

But we may never know (at least not this legislative session) what would have been in the bill -- even Sen. Hatch acknowledged that it is getting late in the legislative session to come forward with a new bill and have it have any hope of making it all the way through the process. Given the citizen groups that would marshall to potentially oppose it, that is about a given.

It's no secret how I feel generally about land use decisions being made by referendum. I have blogged on this topic before. In the give and take world of development approval, it is difficult if not impossible to deal with individual projects on such a basis. There may be more rationale for allowing referendum votes on such broader topics as the general plan for the community, or large-scale rezones. But reviewing and approving individual projects is such a give-and-take of negotiation, how can that be accomplished when it may be subject to citizen referendum?

Two weeks ago, the Bluffdale City disconnection case was heard in Third District Court before judge Anthony Quinn. A lot of factors and issues were brought up and discussed in the hearing, including the role that the referendum by Bluffdale citizens played. Near the end of the hearing, while discussing this issue, Judge Quinn said,

"If you consider the referendum, that is somthing that really cuts both ways. ... "In my analysis of this case, on fairness, predictability and consistency of the process, how can a developer negotiate with, in effect, all the citizens of Bluffdale City?
"When you've got a situation where the political climate is such, and I'm not saying that it's wrong -- I mean I'm in favor of active citizen participation in the process -- but it creates a political climate. And when the political climate is such that all the decisions of the city council are going to be examined and challenged by referedum, how can a developer negotiate with that? The city council and the mayor become, in effect, an agent with no authority. They can say no, but can never say yes, and have it mean anything. Doesn't that affect the process and ultimately the fairness and equity of the situation?"

Cogent words from Judge Quinn. It will be interesting to see how he rules in the Bluffdale disconnection case (the referendum is only a part of all the issues being dealt with there).

I'm sure those citizens in favor of referendum petitions will argue that it is stripping the right of the people away from them to do away with such votes, but the right to referendum is already limited to non-legislative type decisions. These kinds of development approvals may be in the same category.

Trib Says We're "Caving In" to Developers

2006-02-17T07:47:00.000-08:00

Interesting editorial in the Trib yesterday morning about the successor bills to SB170 -- SB267 and SB268 (I haven't been able to get to this until this morning -- between being at the legislature, meetings, real work, snowstorm, and my wife taking me to see "Julius Cesear" at PMT last night, just not a lot of time left to blog!)

They don't seem to have a lot of hearburn with SB267, but they think local governments are caving in to the developers on SB268, the changes to the provisions for the state private property ombudsman.

"Or he could serve as an ombuds-hit-man whom the developers could call on whenever a mayor or city planning director wasn't showing propert respect. Thus our suspicion that the local government associations, which should be providing that legal advice themselves, caved rather than watch SB170 resurrected.
"The worst part of SB268 is its provision turning lawsuits opposing the ombudsman's 'non-binding' opinions into insurmountable loser-pays affairs."

There's no question that many planners and local government officials would rather not have to deal with some of the changes proposed for the ombudsman take place like this during the heat of the legislative session. It would be better to study, talk through, and work out what the role would be and how it would work. It will also take some time to build support among local government types for some of what is proposed here.

But Sen. Mansell is a rather powerful legislator, and the political reality is that something is going to pass on this, whether we play along or not. We could take the stance that, like SB170, its terrible and shouldn't be done. Truth is, however, when you read what is proposed in SB268 vs. SB170, it seems much more reasonable and is infinitely more difficult to make the case that this is such a draconian hit on local authority like SB170 was.

For example, getting a non-binding advisory opinion from the ombudsman about whether a city or county is following state law and case law in their approval process doesn't sound so bad to most outsiders. What's wrong with that? And the legal fees requirement, if it goes all the way to court, actually is a sword that cuts both ways -- if the developer doesn't like the ombudsman's opinion that the city is doing things right, and pushes it to court anyway, and loses, the developer could wind up paying for the city's legal costs - something that doesn't happen now.

So it is much harder to make the case that SB268 is such a bad thing. Better to work it and get it to where it is palatable to local government. My own personal opinion is this -- third parties (neighbors, other affected landowners) are also able to throw the process to the ombudsman (or a mediator) for an opinion. After a few of these, I think developers are not going to like this process so much anymore, and it will be changed in a future legislative session, maybe done away with. I think this thing is full of unintended consequences, for the developer as much as anyone.

This may all sound a lot like accomodation, and it is in large measure. There is no question that there are a few cities and counties out there that are not playing by the rules properly, and that has helped bring this down on our heads. In a way, we have to blame ourselves for some of this as well as pointing to the developers trying to get an edge. But that's reality -- we have to live with it.

Another One Bites the Dust (Maybe)

2006-02-13T19:43:00.000-08:00

"[We have] reasonable protections that make our neighborhoods better, our streets safer, ensure us good jobs, and generally contribute to our quality of life. Irresponsible developers and other special interests would like to see these protections removed to line their pockets, sacrificing the good of the many for the benefit of the few.

"And what if these protections were taken away? What if a huge mall were allowed to be built in your neighborhood and there wasn't anything you could do about it? What if a new law took away government's ability to protect you from flooding, landslides or from contaminated drinking water?"

Sounds like a reaction to the Utah legislature's infamous SB170, doesn't it? But no, this is part of the verbiage found on the website for the Community Protection Coalition. The Coalition is reacting to a proposed initiative in the State of Washington filed last week by the Washington Farm Bureau. The purpose of the initiative is to have voters adopt a measure in November that would be similar to Measure 37 in Oregon. The Washington Farm Bureau is primarily concerned about restrictions in Washington state law on farmlands and environmental protection, but the measure would blanket all property, urban or rural, and severly restrict what regulations could be adopted without providing compensation to owners.

The Washington Farm Bureau also has a website, called Property Fairness for Washington. A story in The Olympian (Olympia, Washington) is a good briefing on the issue.

So let's see, we have Measure 37 that passed in Oregon a little over a year ago (though it is currently on hold as appeals work their way through the Oregon courts), we have SB170 in Utah, and now this measure in Washington state. What's going on? Are development interests just getting overly aggresive lately, or is there a real backlash developing because of heavy-handed land use regulation? Richard Carson, former director of Portland Metro planning agency and current director of community development in Vancouver, Washington, thinks that may be the case.

Yes, we must oppose and decry such moves. But we must also look to ourselves and see what it is we need to be doing different and better to support the needs and desires of the community.

RDA Bill Unveiled

2006-02-11T14:39:00.000-08:00

First, I should apologize for not writing more frequently. With the state legislature in session and in my role as the Utah APA Legislative Chair, much of my free time to blog has been taken up instead with writing legislative updates and getting them out to the Utah APA legislative email network. I'd love to spend more time writing and blogging, but the realities of life and job just make it hard. OK, enough whining.

Sen. Bramble has released the language for the rewrite of the RDA laws for the state, something that has been worked on for the last year. The bill, SB196, has been pretty much agreed to by all the groups involved. While it preserves RDAs as a tool for community and economic development, it is somewhat more cumbersome and not as easy to use as it has been in the past. Of ocurse, some of this change is the result of abuses, both real and perceived, by some communities. Why is it that we can never leave well enough alone, but instead find ways to twist and misshape tools that were intended for one purpose, thus causing us problems as legislators are brought into the picture? What we really should have been doing is going to local and legislative leaders saying, "this tool is not working as well as it should, and is not addressing the problems we really need to address. Can we craft a new tool (or changes?). But I also realize the political reality that unless something is about at crises stage, no one will pay attention to it.

Stories in the Trib and DesNews are good summaries of what is happening with this bill. This tool is sorely needed to give us a way to both redevelop older areas, and provide infrastructure improvement for areas for economic growth. We need to pay more attention to the latter, and find ways to make it even better.

The successor land use bills to SB170 are coming down to the home stretch, with only about two and a half weeks left in the legislative session. SB267 is easy to support, but SB268 needs some work. We shall see what happens this coming week.

Sons of SB170

2006-02-07T07:00:00.000-08:00

SB170, the now-infamous land use bill sponsored by Sen. Mansell that has drawn a lot of flack from the public, local officials, and all the media editorial boards, is lying dormant, but is being replaced by three pieces that would do various things.

The first is a bill which is already out, SB267 - Changes to Local Government Provisions. This bill is like a firecracker compared to the nuclear bomb that SB170 was. The provisions of this bill were talked about with local government reps, and there is pretty good general agreement that these provisions should move forward. It includes such things as a way to provide notice of general plan amendments to property owners directly (rather than just by way of a published legal notice) to those that request notice to be made to them; requires cities and counties to process and render a decision on land use applications with "reasonable diligence"; and makes some reporting and calculating requirements for impact fees.

The second piece will be a bill regarding taking zoning measures to referendum. Essentially, from what I'm told, local governments will be given the same standard as exists for the state legislature, that if a measure passes the local governing body by at least a two-thirds vote, it is not subject to referendum. There will likely be split support for this measure. While some feel that deciding zoning and planning issues by referendum is not a good way to go, others feel that it is appropriate and even necessary. This will be a bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Hatch.

The third is a bill that will make modifications to the role and duties of the state's private property ombudsman. A board would be created that would advise the ombudsman and consent to the appointment and removal of the ombudsman and any future staff for that office. The ombudsman could be asked to provide an advisory opinion on an administrative land use application at the request of either party (or a third party with standing to challenge) -- the opinion may be requested at any time during the review process. The advisory opinion would be non-binding, and if taken all the way to court, the prevailing party could then recover attorney's fees from the other party.

There is lots to talk about with regard to this third bill (which is currently in the works, to be sponsored by Sen. Mansell). There may be some merit to the things it would provide, but some will likely have to be tweaked. With the pressure and short time remaining in the legislative session, however (3 weeks), there will likely not be enough time to get general agreement and the support(!!) of local officials. This one probably needs more time to be worked on.

The DesNews and Trib both carried stories this morning on this topic. The DesNews story is more accurate, as the Trib makes it sound like local officials will oppose anything that comes after SB170, which is not right.

More to come....

The Public Speaks

2006-02-04T22:03:00.000-08:00

Lots of letters to the editor and editorial comments showing up in area newspapers on SB170. Some links to help you get the flavor --

Standard Examiner editorial

Standard Examiner letter

Deseret News letter, letter, and letter

Salt Lake Tribune letter, letter, letter, letter, and another letter

The Trib also has another editorial comment, and a piece by Paul Rolly on the topic

Provo Daily Herald letter

Davis County Clipper letter

The proposal has certainly drawn the public's attention, and it seems that it is mostly negative. Don't think this is helping the image of developers with the public.