The cost of housing is a supply and demand issue. There are ways to free up supply without automatically resorting to high density developments in single family neighborhoods.
Obtaining a building permit, whether for a new build or a simple home improvement, should not take weeks or months. We need to improve and streamline this process because time is money and adds to the cost of a project.
We have to allow for more true starter homes to be built. My husband and I bought our first home in 1989 in west Provo. It was pretty much the only home we could afford and was a simple rectangle with a carport–a true starter home. We need to look at why true starter homes are not being built anymore and address these reasons. By the way, I raised all my kids in this starter home, and my husband and I still live here and love our neighborhood!
I would encourage “for sale” new builds to have Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) requiring the owner to occupy the home for a specified number of years and is a requirement for each new owner. This discourages investment buyers and encourages buyers who want to live in the home. 1-5 years is standard.
I support owner occupied Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). These allow more individuals/families to buy homes and they help seniors or others to stay in their homes, because of the added income, all while adding to the housing stock to accommodate growth. The more homes that are owner occupied, with or without an ADU, the more stable the neighborhood.
I support proactive code enforcement to make sure that ADUs are owner occupied and otherwise following code so that out of town investors are disincentivized from buying homes and burdening our neighborhoods.
I would work to substantially increase student housing south of campus close to BYU, which will have the effect of freeing up the single family homes in neighborhoods where students now have to live because all the housing close to BYU is taken.
I will dedicate a portion of existing resources in the city budget to creating a housing office that will address housing issues from educating renters and landlords to helping residents apply for property tax relief to researching best housing practices for different areas of Provo. A priority would be helping residents work through the ADU process and working with neighborhoods to alleviate concerns over ADUs.
I strongly support personal property rights and have always voted against increasing the government’s ability to claim eminent domain.
Miles says:
Hopefully we can get more súrtanle housing for families. Currently work full time, as dues my wife in the schools around here and we’re can’t afford to buy a home and barely afford rent. We’d love to live in the community we work. I know many teachers in the west side commute 30-40 minutes because of how expensive housing is
Marsha Judkins says:
I completely agree. There are some things that Provo could do to increase affordable housing stock. Here are a few ideas–let me know what you think.
1. Allow developers to create more high density apartments within five blocks of BYU. Students want to live close and as they move out of housing that is farther away, it will hopefully free up some of that for families.
2. Better code enforcement of ADUs. I love ADUs–owner occupied homes that have a separate rental unit somewhere on the property. They have a bad name because many homeowners/corporations are not following code on these and they are not owner occupied. If we enforce the current code and make sure they are owner occupied, corporations and people who own these homes but don’t live there will be encouraged to sell, freeing up housing stock. As we enforce this code, residents who are resisting allowing ADUs in their neighborhoods will hopefully see that allowing ADUs will enable families to buy a home–because they will have help with the payment by the rent.
3. Creating public/private partnerships with city/county owned land. The city/county would retain ownership of the land but lease it to developers, who would build starter homes. These homes would be sold for market value minus the cost of the land, which will take out about a third of the price. There would be deed restrictions that the owners could sell for only 3% or so increase in value each year. So if a family lived there four years, they could sell for 12% above the buying price, keeping the cost more affordable for subsequent buyers.
4. Make permitting for construction quicker and easier. It currently takes months and is an arduous, inefficient process. Other cities get permitting done in a day. The longer it takes to get a permit, the more expensive a project is. It also discourage new construction, ADUs, and additions.
I would like to hear your ideas!
Marsha
Riley says:
As a student at BYU, I think more high density housing near BYU campus would be great, because along with what you said, it would also help compete with all the overpriced, run-down apartments that students have to pay for around campus. This would hopefully encouraging them to fix themselves up or to at least not increase their rent prices every year for no reason. Of course I probably won’t see the benefits by the time I graduate, but it could definitely help future generations of students
Marsha Judkins says:
Riley,
Thank you for taking the time to write. A lot of the student housing near campus has been around since I went to school over four decades ago–and a lot of it looks exactly the same except they might be cramming more students into it. Increased density for student housing south of campus is something that we need to get going ASAP! I am sorry that we didn’t get it done in time for you to reap the benefits. 🙂
Julie says:
Thanks for a bit more thorough explanation in response to the previous comment, I always appreciated that you do your best to actually listen to your constituents.
This page, with an essentially hands-off “supply and demand” philosophy of housing has me worried and I don’t think it will earn many people’s support who have ever struggled to pay rent, which is almost all of us. (Pretty sure wealthy homeowners are not the only people in Provo who vote.)
“Supply and demand” as a way for people to control things somewhat, doesn’t work for housing, it’s not possible. People can boycott a product so that (in theory) demand and thus prices go down. But people will always need a place to live, and we do not have power over either side of that supply/demand equation. I can’t boycott all landlords for having too high of prices –because it’s not optional to have a place to live! Does it really make sense for everyone to have higher rent prices because there are a lot more unhoused people than housing? (When demand is high and prices go up for one place or area, ALL landlords raise their prices because they all just have to stay roughly comparable to what’s “typical” for the area, giving cover for them to do it. Which they do, readily. Ya know, kind of like price fixing.)
So when trying to find a place to live, you can either afford the place to live that’s available, try your luck in a different city or with lower quality/ size of housing than you really need, try to get HUD subsidy help requiring being on a waiting list for well over a year and still having to find a place that fits their too-low rent limits, or live with friends/relatives (which is a form of homelessness).
Solutions #2 and #3 above may be helpful for potential homebuyers, I’m not really sure, they seem creative at least. Since that’s not an option for me I’ll not address them.
iHigh density housing seems great, it’s always the go-to solution named. But…. every single time a new apartment complex is built in Provo, which seems pretty dang frequent to me, the rent for them is so high they may as well be all considered “luxury”.
(And many of them are built as student housing with even higher total rent.) So I don’t see how simply building more of that and letting builders do so even faster is going to be helpful at all to average families?
The city needs to do more to control rent prices. Landlords sure as heck aren’t going to do it for us! I’d think for a start, the city needs to set regulations that limit rent prices based on inflation, cost of living, and local wages (and not city-wide-“local”, but neighborhood-local, as we’re all aware that there is a wide wage and wealth disparity in different areas of the city). Even better would be to work with the county as a whole and get all cities on board with it so you don’t have to fear landlords fleeing Provo and the city also dealing with more “tent camps”, because not every homeless person has family or friends they can crash with.
So, what’ve you got that is helpful to struggling renters? If you were actually able to fix not just housing availability but *affordability* for people? You’d be the hero of the decade, Marsha. Pretty sure they’d erect a statue in your honor. In fact, I’d be the first to spearhead that project. 🙂
Marsha Judkins says:
Hi Julie! As you know from legislation that I sponsored, I worry about the percentage of renters’ income going to housing and about the difficulties of planning ahead and stabilizing your future when you don’t know when or how much your next rent increase will be. I also understand that landlords face increasing costs, and need to make a profit. That being said, there are predatory landlords, and there are horrible renters. I would love to fix the affordability issue.
I wish there were an easy, effective answer, but there isn’t. Rent control is not legal in Utah, nor has it been the panacea that it might seem.
Supply is a big part of the equation because prices are directly affected by supply and demand. A city cannot create less demand, so we have to look at more supply, but we do have to be careful about how and where we create more housing. One of the reasons I am running is because I have not seen a vision articulated of how we want Provo to develop. It has been haphazard and doesn’t seem to consider the residents of Provo. We also have a permitting process that discourages landlords from fixing up their rentals.
Something I am looking at is setting up a Housing Office for Provo under the Mayor’s office. It would be responsible for educating renters and landlords about their rights and responsibilities: doing outreach to seniors and others who qualify for property tax relief (both renters and home owners) and help them apply and to answer their questions; helping Provo citizens find housing resources; educating residents on city codes; and finding creative, evidence based solutions in the housing arena that we could implement here.
Elizabeth says:
Julie is right. Rent is outrageously expensive. I mostly blame corporate landlords who live out of state–kind of like how the English exploited the Irish for centuries: They don’t care about the cost of living in-state and they don’t directly see the consequences of their actions. What they care about is turning a profit for their investors. Capitalism is inherently exploitive–supply and demand is all about getting as much of whatever you want as you can out of the other party–and needs conscious human effort to not be short-sighted about long-term gains. For renters, the housing situation is the story of the Golden Goose all over again, and we’re the goose getting strangled.
I’m not entirely sure how rent control works in a nuts-and-bolts fashion, but it doesn’t make sense that non-student housing annual rent total is easily more than 10 times the annual property tax due: Mine’s just below it (property taxes are public record–check the county recorder’s website), and I live in a very very inexpensive place yet if I didn’t have roommates, I couldn’t pay rent and have water/heat/electricity/food; the last place I lived my annual rent was about 15 times the annual property tax (again, a very cheap place with roommates so we could all eat–and we are white collar professionals). Landlords need to make a profit, true, and good property management companies are essential both to protect the owner and the tenants and they definitely need to be paid; however, this landlord-tenant relationship has gotten so imbalanced it’s toxic. Landlords don’t need that much profit, but this is the result of leaving everything to barely regulated supply and demand. This is what happens when profits are put before people and governments over-prioritize business.
If it’s illegal to set some sort of rent cap amount (e.g., a multiplier of the property tax for said property–gets landlords to actually reinvest in a property and increase its value ergo rents they can charge, instead of landlords not approving the repair of a bathroom light fixture for 3 months and then getting dropped by the property management company for not approving any necessary repairs all year which is what is presently happening), talk to your friends and colleagues from the State Legislature and change the law so cities can cap rents. Not allowing that power is almost as stupid as the illegality of speedbumps on Provo residential roads (a cheap, effective, impossible to ignore solution to speeding that is also illegal).
If you can’t change that law, set restrictions on who can lease. Require them to be residents, if not of Provo then at least of the county or the state. Make the non-resident landlords, the multi-state corporations and investment entities have to pay a higher tax rate, which will no doubt be trickled down to tenants thereby increasing the rents of the non-resident landlords and making their properties less enticing to renters. Help keep money local. Again, you have friends in the State Legislature. Talk to them. Mayors aren’t only elected on their own merits, but also for their connections and what they can do with them. Work those connections.
And if educating people worked, we wouldn’t have so many wrong-way drivers, or speeding, or running red lights, or riding someone’s bumper, or parking in crosswalks on our roads. I’ve worked with housing offices before, and they generally suck for renters. Julie is right.
Marsha Judkins says:
Elizabeth, thank you for taking the time to write. The state does regulate the issues that you have raised. Most legislators are landlords, developers, and investors, so they are biased in that direction. I am an educator and think education does work–not for everyone and not perfectly, but it works. If renters and landlords knew their rights and responsibilities and where to find resources, many difficult situations could be avoided. Look up Mountain Mediation, https://mountainmediationcenter.org/. They are a great organization that has recently expanded to Utah County. They do great work with renters and landlords.
Melanie says:
What do you think about the ideas:
1. Of limiting businesses from purchasing single family homes to only being allowed to purchase apartment complexes? Thus eliminating the “rich” businesses coming in and driving up costs of homes
2. Making it a law that you have to owner occupy any single family home you own (making it impossible for the rich to just come in to Provo and buy up any single family home they want and rent it out). They would be allowed to own ONE home here in the city and THEY have to live in it. They can own their “vacation” homes in the mountains or resort towns.
3. Single family zones being just that…not rentals to college students (room-mates)? That drives up the cost of homes too when a landlord can opt to get $600 per single person renting vs a family who can’t compete
4. ADU’s being allowed to anyone AS LONG AS THEY ARE OWNER OCCUPIED.
5. I live on a street that has multi-generational families occupying one home/kitchen and spilling out onto the streets (parking). It’s really not a “single” family home anymore. It is crazy that this is legal, and yet I can’t put in an ADU with a separate kitchen, and live upstairs until I’m over 60.
Curious your thoughts! Especially with #1 & #2
Marsha Judkins says:
Melanie,
Thank you for sharing these ideas. I will address them one by one. I will admit that I don’t know the legality of some of them and will have to check.
1. Of limiting businesses from purchasing single family homes to only being allowed to purchase apartment complexes? Thus eliminating the “rich” businesses coming in and driving up costs of homes.
A city can’t do this legally. There are ways to discourage businesses from buying homes through changing the tax structure–increasing property taxes for multiple homes is one way to do this–but the state would have to do that through statute. A colleague and I tried to get a bill drafted that would do this, but it didn’t go anywhere.
2. Making it a law that you have to owner occupy any single family home you own (making it impossible for the rich to just come in to Provo and buy up any single family home they want and rent it out). They would be allowed to own ONE home here in the city and THEY have to live in it. They can own their “vacation” homes in the mountains or resort towns.
Cities can demand a deed restriction of a new build which would require that every time a home changes owners, the owner has to live in it for a certain number of years. That discourages investors because they generally don’t want to live in the home, they want to rent it. If they had to live in it for five years, they wouldn’t be as interested. I really like this idea–it has been added to my website. However, it can’t be required retroactively.
3. Single family zones being just that…not rentals to college students (room-mates)? That drives up the cost of homes too when a landlord can opt to get $600 per single person renting vs a family who can’t compete
I wasn’t sure if this would be allowable in Utah, so I asked AI, which means I am still not sure, but AI did say that this type of zoning by a municipality was legal in Utah. It is something I could look into, but there would have to be exceptions, e.g., for an owner that needed to leave the state for a few years. An owner would also retain the right to rent to roommates as long as it was owner occupied and followed code.
One of the main reasons we have this problem with student rentals overflowing into neighborhoods is because we don’t have enough student housing. We need to get a LOT MORE student housing south of campus. There are parking issues to work out, but these are surmountable. The students have to have somewhere to live.
4. ADU’s being allowed to anyone AS LONG AS THEY ARE OWNER OCCUPIED.
I have always been completely supportive of this.
5. I live on a street that has multi-generational families occupying one home/kitchen and spilling out onto the streets (parking). It’s really not a “single” family home anymore. It is crazy that this is legal, and yet I can’t put in an ADU with a separate kitchen, and live upstairs until I’m over 60.
I hear you and support owner occupied ADUs.
This is from my website under Housing and Property Rights
I would encourage “for sale” new builds to have Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) requiring the owner to occupy the home for a specified number of years and is a requirement for each new owner. This discourages investment buyers and encourages buyers who want to live in the home. 1-5 years is standard.
I support owner occupied Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). These allow more individuals/families to buy homes and they help seniors or others to stay in their homes, because of the added income, all while adding to the housing stock to accommodate growth. The more homes that are owner occupied, with or without an ADU, the more stable the neighborhood.
I support proactive code enforcement to make sure that ADUs are owner occupied and otherwise following code so that out of town investors are disincentivized from buying homes and burdening our neighborhoods.
I would work to substantially increase student housing south of campus close to BYU, which will have the effect of freeing up the single family homes in neighborhoods where students now have to live because all the housing close to BYU is taken.
Isaac Teuscher says:
I agree that housing is a supply and demand issue however zoning laws often set at the city level (including the % of ADUs) approved across the city effectively restrict the supply and thus squeeze the cost on the remaining available housing. As our city grows we should reduce the zoning laws that prohibit ADUs and allow land owners to rent their properties so that supply can keep pace with demand.
Marsha Judkins says:
I agree. ADUs, by law, are owner occupied and have sufficient parking. They are a very important part of providing more housing and that young families, new home buyers, and seniors can afford. We also need to create more student housing south of BYU.