The State Legislature keeps chipping away at our ability to decide for ourselves what type of construction design and materials are appropriate in single-family neighborhoods. For years Ivins, like other cities, has had design guidelines for building colors and materials to ensure new construction is harmonious with its neighbors and our environment.
That has given Ivins its unique identity and it’s the reason so many have moved here. They like the way the city looks and feels.
The State took away our ability to require these design guidelines on new single-family and two-family homes a couple of years ago. However, we could still require new homes in a subdivision to follow our design guidelines by requiring a development agreement. Now the state is limiting our ability to do even that.
So, here’s a photo of a new “structure” in an Ivins single-family neighborhood. It’s completely legal. The homeowner had every right to build it because of the state’s changes. But I wonder if the state’s intent was to encourage this type of construction all over the place? Especially in residential neighborhoods? I doubt it. I believe this is a real-world example of the law of unintended consequences.
That law, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people, and especially of governments, always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians have largely ignored it. The State Legislature is ignoring it, to our detriment.
I would certainly not want that monstrosity next to me in a subdivision. It’s fine on a rural lot, but not in a subdivision! Yikes!
Local control is very good, if done for the natural beauty of the area and neighbors. We live in a distinct desert area that needs to have rather strict restrictions. Our red rock mountains need to be seen everywhere. That being said colors, design, and materials need to have the view in mind. Local restrictions that distinguish our neighborhoods are necessary. The tranquility, and natural beauty of the area needs to be seen by all. Locals want the state to agree with this and not use a bureaucratic rule for all.
It seems to me that the animating principle behind trying to have input in to the types of materials and design guidelines is fear of how a neighbor’s choice will impact one’s own home prices. For many Americans, their home is their largest asset, so it makes financial sense to adopt this type of attitude. As a homeowner, I am empathetic with that point of view.
However, we know that excessive regulations can drive up housing costs and make it difficult to build new housing. We have an affordability crisis in Utah, and southern Utah as well.
I believe the pendulum has swung too far and the state’s actions here are warranted. When it comes to premption, (state control superseding local control), this can only be justified in narrow areas and I believe this is one of them because they are looking out for future residents who might be shutout from the benefits of belonging to a city due to regulations that drive up costs and make such areas exclusionary.
When it comes to code, I think we need to focus narrowly on nuisance items or genuine hazards and less on the aesthetics of our neighbors. The enjoyment of my property is not dependent on what my neighbor’s do and I think we need to afford people more flexibility in their property rights so long as there are not health or safety concerns or egregious examples of someone’s choices harming one’s ability to life in security in their own dwelling.
(Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We agree the pendulum has swung too far but disagree about which way it has swung. I don’t know about other cities, but Ivins design guidelines do not negatively impact affordability so do not justify the state’s broad-brush removal of this tool in Ivins. We have used design guidelines for many years, responsibly, to create our own unique community identity while balancing our duty to individuals with our duty to the community.)
Mike,
We appreciate all you do for our community. Keep it up.
John
Utah legislators really dislike the federal government telling them what the state can and cannot do. They, as the state, have no problem telling cities what they can and cannot do. Isn’t this hypocritical? What happened to the local control?