How do we get from NIMBY to YIMBY and keep the state happy?
There has been a lot of conversation around housing recently and the one term that keeps popping up is “Not in My Back Yard” or NIMBY.
Presently, it is related to the need for moderate-income or affordable housing, but the concept has been around for a long time. There have been challenges from the beginning of time as to what makes sense in development. We have all read stories of a gravel pit or adult lounge zoning being proposed adjacent to a residential area.
This situation is a little bit different as we are discussing all types and sizes of housing…not government-subsidized housing – moderate-income or affordable housing. For purposes of simplicity, I will refer to it all as moderate-income housing.
Let’s start with how Moderate Income is defined. According to the Housing Action Coalition, (HAC), the following chart is utilized:
This chart illustrates that if you have a household income of $55,681 to $69,600 the maximum monthly rent or mortgage, someone could afford using the rule of 30% of a household’s gross monthly income should be allocated for housing – $1590 a month. If you make less as the table shows, you need a lower monthly rent or mortgage.
We know there is a supply and demand issue as it relates to the numbers around housing. These numbers also do not consider if you have student loans, car payments, or other debt related to what you really can afford.
According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Rentometer, a data system many real estate agents subscribe for rental information, the price of an average one-bedroom rental in Washington County is $1,260. Two-bedroom rentals run about $1,700, three-bedroom rentals cost $2,100 and a four-bedroom rental averages nearly $2,600. According to a study by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah, the average price of a home during the third quarter of last year was $537,000.
The question then becomes, how do you build housing in this range and maintain the beauty, views and open space in Ivins getting residents to “Yes In My Backyard” or YIMBY?
Based on what I have heard and read, it comes down to two not-so-simple things.
Value and Appearance.
As a property or homeowner, regardless of if you paid $100 or $1,000,000, your goal is to retain the value or grow it. For many their home may be the primary asset. The fear is that if something of lesser value is built in proximity, it will affect the value of the homes/land around it lowering the value.
We have all seen the gray barracks behind the Harmons in Santa Clara. Also, we have seen in different parts of the area three-story boxes that look more commercial than residential. While we know it is more economical to stack people than spread them, these types of developments are contributing to the NIMBY feelings as it is believed they will negatively impact adjacent property values based solely on their sheer numbers and appearance.
There is an adage from the business world I came from- “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.” I wish I could post here a viable solution but here are some ideas to consider in Ivins.
The land around us is high value, and the cost of building and supplies is high. To make moderate-income homes more attractive, incorporating design and surroundings for Ivins, is going to lay in the lap of the builder to sacrifice some profitability which is a pretty big ask.
One way to minimize that would be to have developers incorporate a few moderate-income properties into the larger developments. They wouldn’t be giving up too much acreage and can benefit profitably from the larger-scale homes. This can also bring more of a sense of community to neighborhoods as well, combing different income levels. A more fitting design can be incorporated so there is continuity in the community, helping to hold property values and not having to build high-density massive complexes.
This was one of the options presented in the Ivins City Moderate Income Housing and Affordable Housing Plan – “Implement zoning incentives for low to moderate-income units in new developments.” But it was replaced with “Ratify a joint acquisition agreement with another local political subdivision for the purpose of combining resources to acquire property for moderate-income housing.” Which I believe means getting land into a community land trust - the land then isn’t part of the buyer’s purchase lowering the overall price.
Location can be a critical component of moderate-income housing. Access to transit, jobs, services, and schools is an important consideration. Another idea comes to mind when we consider the new resorts will be adding 2-3000 jobs. Why not use the land across the street from Canyon Crossing to build so attractive moderate-income apartments? There is access to all the resorts for work, schools are within walking or biking distance, and Canyon Crossing is across the street with shops. That area is already a commercial /professional area that can easily address some of the Ivins’ needs.
Finally, a question comes to mind…as these mandates are coming from the State, what is their contribution? Are they willing to help developers through defraying costs or tax incentives? If they are not part of the solution, are they not also part of the problem?
We are starting to see housing prices come down, but will the pendulum swing close enough to the middle to allow all our nests to stay feathered, or might these ideas start to get residents toward YIMBY?
Comments