ZONING-- GOOD FENCES FOR PROVO

Good fences make good neighbors.

Creating a "zone" within a city tells people what can happen there. And what cannot. (The proverbial example that is often used is "Do you want a pig farm next to your house?")I am NOT suggesting that higher-density and rental properties are "pig farms" (so do not extrapolate that quote, Roger and Jeremiah) It is meant to illustrate that how one person uses his property effects his neighbors. Cities have the right and responsibility to determine the USE that certain areas will have. It is not unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court judge who said so was from Utah.)

Zoning is one of the tools a city may use to combat "urban flight," the phenomenon of homeowners/occupants leaving a city. Studies show that the basis of a stable population is the long-term, owner-occupant. The dynamic that causes "urban flight" is a complicated one -- decreased "quality of life", declining neighborhood conditions, and decreased property value in their homes, and increased prices of new homes. A healthy city, even a university city, is 60-70% single-family housing. Because Provo is a two-university town (many UVSC students live in Provo to have the "BYU experience"), the percentage is much less. The rest is higher-density (more than one family in a home or building) rentals.

In Provo, we have set aside areas for single-family use,(an R-1 designation). It does not matter if the occupant is single, widowed, divorced or separated-- if they own the home, and stay for longer than four years, they are an asset to neighborhood stability, according to the demographic studies. (No R&J, Provo is NOT "anti-singles!" )

Higher-density housing is important. It's more affordable, it's more efficient. But it never pays for itself; apartments and condos generate more demand on the systems-- streets, parking, water, sewer, garbage, utilities, etc.-- than the tax dollars they supply. Higher density housing is less likely to contribute to "quality of life" issues -- long-term residence, involvement in neighborhood programs, school enrollment, etc. NOT unlikely, just less likely. (That is not just my opinion -- read the reports!)

There is a place for higher-density housing. Some areas cannot be saved as R-1 neighborhoods; they obviously are NOT viable low-density areas anymore, and never will be, and should be "up-zoned". Some of those include portions of neighborhoods that are already predominantly apartment complexes, and some areas along major thoroughfares, for example.

Where city planners have been forward-thinking, every neighborhood has its fair share of higher-density housing. In Provo, there are neighborhoods that have NO higher-density housing. The need should be equally shouldered by everyone in the community. That's what a community is -- every individual doing their part to help the whole. (Some neighborhoods have NO commercial development, either. Residents must drive across town to get to a store. This is bad planning. It creates more traffic, more air pollution, and more demand on family resources. Every neighborhood should have services located nearby, just as every neighborhood should designate someplace for higher-density housing.)

Some neighborhoods have far more than their share of higher-density housing. The Provost South Neighborhood, on the southeast side of town, was at one time 63% higher-density housing. That figure did NOT include the dozens of illegal, and thus uncountable, apartments in the basements of what are supposed to be R-1 homes. When a city-commissioned study suggested still MORE high-density housing on the land east of Bicentennial Park, the neighborhood spoke clearly--"We cannot bear any more high- density!"

But in areas that ARE designated, and zoned for R-1 housing, THE LAW SHOULD BE ENFORCED. Several neighborhoods have seen the effects of NOT enforcing the zoning laws. Wasatch Neighborhood, (the tree streets), east of BYU, witnessed first-hand the impact as investors bought up homes and converted them into student rentals, and long-term residents "flew" to escape the effects. Those "urban flight" participants could not sell to owner-occupants, (who wants to live in a neighborhood where the population suddenly trebles or quadruples; where cars line the streets day and night; where yards and houses deteriorate; where residents move in and out every year; where local school enrollment(and thus, school funding) drops; where church congregations diminish (and occasionally disappear); where owner-occupants who want to buy a house have to compete with investors who can always pay more (4 students to a house x $250 rent each is $1000 a month; but if the landlord puts 2 beds in each room its 8 x $250 = $2000, a positive cash flow); where family homes are decreasing in value because next door is a student complex (decreased by as much as $25k and that's a whole lot of forbearance to ask of the neighbors-- unless, of course, they also sells out to an investor. Result -- end of neighborhood as we know it.) In Wasatch Neighborhood, as well as dozens of others, the trend developed: investors converting ever more homes into over-occupied rentals. The perception of the neighborhood changed. Homeowners grew hopeless. It took government intervention to reverse it.

WHY is this occurring? Several reasons. Increased enrollment at UVSC. Tax breaks fro "kiddie condos." And a series of very important, unnoticed, events.

A decade ago, after Provo was declared "the most livable city in America," the vacancy rates for apartments was at 1%. The "Get-Rich-In-Real-Estate" late-night infomercials declared Provo a top market in the nation for investment rental property. The Olympics were coming. Rents on existing apartments had increased enormously. Everybody saw dollar signs. And Provo became the target for out-of-town investors seeking to buy up the single-family housing stock.

Many local people also got on the wagon. In-town investors usually maintain their properties well, but some of the tax breaks do not apply to local landlords, and being a landlord is tough, so many sold out to big investors, who did not keep up the properties, or violated the occupancy laws. There was one slumlord (see the post entitled "the Trouble with Libertarians") who owned almost 1000 units in town; all of them could be classified as "unfit premises". He sold out and left town when the City Council began to make laws that impacted him.

The measures that the Council took to reverse the trends were multi-directional. There was no single, quick answer. Those measures included: The Neighborhood Program (which encourages grass-roots involvement in neighborhood issues), the CNRCC (which uses federal money to rehabilitate the older neighborhoods in the city), the 80-20 program (which offers loans to first-time buyers), the A-overlay zone (which makes a owning a home affordable), the Neighborhood Housing Service (NHS, which is a non-profit organization that coordinates grants and loans and volunteer projects) the Apartment Licensing Ordinance (which requires that all rented premises be fit to live in, and funds the enforcement of those standards), the South Campus Area Plan (which encourages more in-fill or replacement building just for students), the "3 to 2" ordinance (which defines who can claim to be a "family" for occupancy purposes), the Orem-Provo alliance (which encourages our sister city to house more of its own student population), the Student Housing Approval changes (which removes BYU-approved status from some areas of the city), the Development Agreements Requirements (which raises the bar on what developers can build with regards to parking standards, occupancy, ownership, etc.), the PRO zone (which gives latitude and flexibility for re-developing older sections of town), the Landmarks Commission (which identifies buildings with historical significance that should not be demolished for re-development), and others. The Council has been tough and comprehensive and proactive.

Most of these measures were instituted before the term of the present Council. In the last four years, however, SIX important issues have come to the agenda which would further protect families, preserve neighborhoods, encourage long-term home ownership, and stabilize the city. Two Council members, Midge Johnson and Steve Turley, voted AGAINST those issues. Regardless of what they profess in debates or in their campaign literature, when the rubber met the road, they did not vote accordingly.

I am in favor of the Council's past actions in these regards, and I will endorse further actions.