SALT LAKE CITY — Despite housing being one of the top issues for Utah voters, state municipal officials overwhelmingly point to community opposition as the most significant obstacle to increasing affordable housing in a new report.
The Utah Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, surveyed over 600 elected officials and housing-oriented municipal staff across the state to understand the perspectives of local government regarding housing diversity and affordability. The survey garnered about 100 responses from representatives of 65 cities with a population of 5,000 or more.
The Utah Foundation report noted that “numerous strategies exist to accomplish housing goals that can be employed by city or town officials and by housing developers,” but first, it’s necessary to understand local government’s perceptions on the issue.
“The decision to survey municipal officials is based on the reality that these are the decision-makers, and knowing how they think about the issue versus what the outcomes are in terms of policy is important,” said John Salevurakis, Utah Foundation research analyst. “It’s important to understand what the opinions are within that sphere and how those opinions interact with the opinions of the constituency.”
Definitions and perceptions
Elected officials and municipal staff members were asked, “When you hear the term ‘affordable housing,’ what is the first thing that comes to mind?” Despite laws creating precise definitions according to household income levels, definitions or perceptions of affordable housing vary.
In a key highlight, the report noted, “Affordable housing is understood by municipal officials to mean a variety of things, from simply ‘low quality’ and ‘dense’ housing to more technical definitions based on local area median income. This likely parallels many residents’ perceptions.”
The report found that many respondents focused on the confusion of others regarding the term, noting that it is “often misunderstood” with others, adding that the term is used as a “broad-brushed platitude.”
Varying definitions could impact residents’ perceptions of affordable housing, throwing up a potential barrier for municipalities. In fact, the survey found that many municipal officials and staff see community opposition (56%) as the most substantial barrier to affordable housing.
“The idea that opposition to affordable housing that’s favored by municipal officials emanates from the constituency … opposition to affordable housing in spite of the fact that communities overwhelmingly need it, and that’s recognized by communities, as well as as the municipal officials, yet it still doesn’t happen because of opposition from within the community,” said Salevurakis.
That perceived community opposition comes with consequences, respondents added, with 79% saying that municipal officials who pursue affordable housing over resident concerns face political consequences.
“It’s very realistic and understandable that they think that resident opposition is high on their list of problems when it comes to affordable housing. I don’t think there’s likely to be a disconnect between their perception and the reality,” added Salevurakis.
To overcome this barrier, the report suggests that municipalities should reframe discussions of housing affordability and housing diversity.
‘A menu of options’ that doesn’t cater to all
Municipalities across the U.S. recognize the need for housing affordability, but regionally, that concern is the highest in the West, according to a 2023 National League of Cities survey of municipal officials. In the West, 46% of respondents chose either a lack of affordable units for low to very-low income groups or a lack of affordable workforce housing as their top municipal concerns.
That concern has been raised consistently in Utah by elected officials, prompting the Utah Legislature to invest over $350 million to address housing affordability in the last five general sessions. Nearly all revenues have been from one-time sources used to fund large projects as opposed to ongoing programs, according to the Utah Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst.
The state investments range from technical assistance, loan programs, housing preservation, first-time homeowner grants, program housing, redevelopment grants and housing assistance.
But that state’s involvement in some areas is unappreciated; just over 36% of Utah Foundation’s survey respondents indicated that Utah’s moderate-income housing plan is “hurting,” and only 14% assert that the requirement is helping. The law requires every municipality and county in the state to assess its affordable housing needs for the next five years. Communities must develop a plan to meet the needs of their low- and moderate-income residents and adopt it as part of their general plan.
Municipalities must choose from 26 strategies, such as “rezone for densities necessary to facilitate the production of moderate-income housing” or “demonstrate creation of, or participation in, a community land trust program for moderate-income housing.” The law necessitates a minimum of five or six compliant strategies. While it could be easy to chalk up the distaste for the law by respondents as a struggle between state or local control, it is more likely a disconnect between communities.
“What we saw in a lot of the survey responses was a rural-urban disconnect when it came to the modern income housing plan,” said Salevurakis. “Your menu of options as a rural community for issues to be addressed is smaller, and the requirement for addressing them is not small.”
Several calls were made to implement a more flexible moderate-income housing requirement that effectively considers municipal diversity.
‘Important issue’
While there is disagreement on policies or strategies intended to address housing affordability, it’s important to continue efforts.
“This is an incredibly important issue, and it’s likely to become a more important issue over time. This is something that has to be addressed — without that, the big questions become: Where do our children live when they grow up? Where do young professionals live? Is this something that we as a society want to tolerate?” asked Salevurakis.
“Our ability to address these problems is likely to decrease over time. So if we don’t address it quickly and from a multifaceted approach, it could very quickly become something that is almost unaddressable or requires more drastic measures that are even more politically unpalatable than the measures we face now,” he concluded.