The State released a draft Housing Strategic Plan last week, asking cities to provide feedback before it’s finalized and presented to the Legislature. (Download the Plan)
I’ll admit, I approached my review of the Plan with low expectations. In recent years, housing policy discussions at the state level have leaned toward mandates, one-size-fits-all rules designed for the Wasatch Front but applied everywhere. I expected more of the same.
Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. Much of the plan is collaborative, data-driven, and sensitive to local context. It recognizes that small cities like Ivins face very different realities than Salt Lake or Lehi, both in scale and in staffing.
But there are also real concerns
Some of what’s proposed could undermine the very local control and thoughtful planning that help preserve Ivins’ unique character. A few ideas are excellent; others could reshape community character statewide if we’re not careful. This article shares my take on what’s good, what’s risky, and why this plan deserves your attention.
The Good…
There are several parts of the plan that could genuinely help us. It calls for the state to coordinate funding, streamline training, and provide technical support. These are things smaller cities desperately need. Ivins doesn’t have a full-time planner and modernizing our code is a challenge. State-supported training for staff and Planning Commission members could make a real difference.
The plan also acknowledges the connection between growth and water, calling for a statewide study that realistically evaluates supply and limits. That’s long overdue! This should actually help cities like ours defend context-appropriate densities rather than being pressured to approve housing that our water system can’t support. But other elements of the Plan suggest otherwise. I need to remind myself to be less optimistic when it comes to the Legislature.
There are other smart elements too, tax compliance rules for short-term rentals, incentives for energy efficiency, and recognition programs that reward communities taking thoughtful, proactive steps toward affordability. It even suggests better statewide tracking of what’s actually being built, not just what’s approved on paper. These are solid, practical steps that could strengthen local decision-making instead of replacing it.
If You Were Waiting For a “But…”
There are areas of real concern. Some parts of the plan would invite state mandates that don’t fit everywhere. For example, applying a uniform zoning formula for accessory dwelling units or “graduated density” projects might make sense in large redevelopment markets, but not in a small, low-rise community like Ivins.
Similarly, a statewide study of “development standard uniformity” sounds benign. But I’m concerned that it could lead to one-size-fits-all setbacks, parking ratios, and other State mandated rules that might work in Salt Lake but would erase the flexibility we need to preserve Ivins’ character.
Even more concerning is the proposed rewrite of Utah’s land-use law (LUDMA) to make housing production and affordability the primary goal of planning.
That’s not what planning is. The purpose of planning is to balance the needs of the community, the environment, and future generations. Planning exists to protect the “integrity of place,” to preserve the character of the built and natural environment. It’s about more than just how many homes can be built; it’s about shaping where and how growth happens, so communities remain safe, distinctive, and livable.