Current Events > Damn. AZ governor vetoed a bill that would have limited zoning powers

(+) Yeah! (+)

Disappointing considering some of the good work Hobbs as done recently.
https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1769804049426079881?t=I7Pnfg5jgHInBojtgfOvRg&s=19

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2024/03/18/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-arizona-starter-homes-act/

It's not even a drastic bill as it's not ending single family only zoning. It's reducing lot sizes!!

Property owners cannot be forced to form homeowners associations (HOAs) or forced to build shared amenities that would require HOAs for maintenance. Homeowners can of course voluntarily form an HOA, but the government cannot require it. Because HOAs can add hundreds of dollars a month to a housing payment, this is a simple way to save Arizona homeowners money.

In cities with more than 70,000 people just our sixteen largest cities city governments can no longer require single-family homes to be extremely large (big houses cost more), cover a specific portion of the lot (flexibility saves money), or conform to arbitrary design standards (fancy flourishes can drive up costs by thousands of dollars).

In those same cities, in new subdivisions not existing neighborhoods single-family homes can be built on lots that are 1,500 square feet or larger. Because land is expensive, these small lots can save homeowners many thousands of dollars. Indeed, many of the most affordable cities in America have a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet or smaller.

None of these regulations supersede building codes, fire codes, or health and safety regulations, and they do not apply to historic districts or tribal land.

Thats it! Its simple and it thoughtfully addresses the most common municipal government regulations that inflate costs for single-family homes.

But after this unusually bipartisan moment in the legislature, as the bill headed to Gov. Katie Hobbs, several city elected officials and their representatives not just misinformed citizens, but people with a duty to serve their constituents came out of the woodwork promoting misinformation.

For example, they say it will preempt fire codes, end single-family zoning, require every lot to be 1,500 square feet, force apartments into single family neighborhoods, allow unlimited height, or bypass water regulations, none of which is remotely true. That they are resorting to falsehoods shows how hard it is to oppose the Arizona Starter Homes Act on the merits.

Like, why do we dictate how small a lot can be!!!

Homeowners associations are shit

Wait, what? So homes of any size can be built on any size land?
I'm really struggling with the words

pedro45 posted...

Wait, what? So homes of any size can be built on any size land?
I'm really struggling with the words

This would remove minimum lot requirements.

Right now, homes must be built on lots that are a minimum size. It means developers are forced to make houses be a larger size, leading to increased home costs and less density, therefore less housing.

Interesting. I guess my fear would be if houses were being built right next to each other, all cramped like.

pedro45 posted...

Interesting. I guess my fear would be if houses were being built right next to each other, all cramped like.

They are

pedro45 posted...

Interesting. I guess my fear would be if houses were being built right next to each other, all cramped like.

Why is that a fear. If people are fine buying those houses let them. If people want homes that are further away from each other, they can pay more for those houses. The point is, let people choose.

The root cause is housing supply and bills to remove minimum lot sizes will help fix that issue. We having a housing affordability crisis and we should treat it as one. That means doing hard things in order to fix the issue. We can't keep saying it's a crisis and then be too worried to remove minimum lot sizes for single family home. It's insane..

Detached houses having a minimum lot size is common sense. In big cities you have detached houses with literally no yard space and it defeats half the point.

Tall buildings for density, detached homes for space.

Irony posted...

Homeowners associations are shit

This, but with more profanity.

Frostshock posted...

Detached houses having a minimum lot size is common sense. In big cities you have detached houses with literally no yard space and it defeats half the point.

Tall buildings for density, detached homes for space.

Again. Let people have the choice. Why can't I have a detached house with no yard space? Maybe that's what I want. If you don't, that's fine. But making it illegal to have no yard space is insane.

emblem-man posted...

This would remove minimum lot requirements.

Right now, homes must be built on lots that are a minimum size. It means developers are forced to make houses be a larger size, leading to increased home costs and less density, therefore less housing.

How does that "force" developers to make houses bigger? Can't have a smaller house on a normal lot?

This bill is short sighted, and not fixing any inherit root problems to the housing crisis and was essentially a quick fix.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

How does that "force" developers to make houses bigger? Can't have a smaller house on a normal lot?

They can, but why not also allow them to build smaller homes on smaller lots?

Sorozone posted...

This bill is short sighted, and not fixing any inherit root problems to the housing crisis and was essentially a quick fix.

What are the inherent root problems to the housing crisis?

Don't get me wrong. More needs to be done such as removing single family only zoning, removing minimum parking requirements, etc.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

How does that "force" developers to make houses bigger? Can't have a smaller house on a normal lot?

to recoup the cost of the land, because the land is expensive in the first place they want to cram mcmansions onto them to make as much as possible.

This is actually a good veto.

This bill was a quick fix solution that could prevent local residents from having a say in their communities, and would allow developers free reign to build at will with no real plan, and the metro has enough urban sprawl as it is.

emblem-man posted...

What are the inherent root problems to the housing crisis?

Don't get me wrong. More needs to be done such as removing single family only zoning, removing minimum parking requirements, etc.

The problem with the bill is that it gives way too much power to the developers. It would essentially allow them to bypass a bunch of red tape to build wherever they wanted. Zoning sucks, but it's pretty crucial to infrastructure and city/town planning and building.

The root problem to the housing crisis is; one, not enough houses, and two, corporations and private firms are buying up houses for air BNB and other rental services, but to bypass red tape, and ignore community input just for the sake of buying a bunch of likely half-assed houses is not the way to go.

That op-ed is a waste of space and does a terrible job at explaining the bill and why it should matter.

electricbugs2 posted...

This is actually a good veto.

This bill was a quick fix solution that could prevent local residents from having a say in their communities, and would allow developers free reign to build at will with no real plan, and the metro has enough urban sprawl as it is.

Residents having a say in their community is why we're in this situation in the first place. Residents should not be able to dictate what type of housing I want to buy or live in. If we can't pass something as simple as removing minimum lot and home sizes to allow for denser homes, how will we ever pass laws to increase multi family zoning? You can't central plan your way out of this crisis. We need homes to get built. All types of homes, all sizes, everywhere.

yea the NIMBY bullshit has to end.

stopping lower-income houses being built is just being a racist. it's not different from the "covenants" white ppl entered during Jim Crow that prevented them from selling to black families.

emblem-man posted...

Residents having a say in their community is why we're in this situation in the first place. Residents should not be able to dictate what type of housing I want to buy or live in. If we can't pass something as simple as removing minimum lot and home sizes to allow for denser homes, how will we ever pass laws to increase multi family zoning? You can't central plan your way out of this crisis. We need homes to get built. All types of homes, all sizes, everywhere.

Homes are already being built rapidly on the outskirts in places like Casa Grande and the San Tan Valley.

You ignored half my post. Why should developers be able to just build willy nilly and pass any restriction they want? That's how you end up with shoddy work and more urban sprawl, which again, the metro already struggles with.

harley2280 posted...

That op-ed is a waste of space and does a terrible job at explaining the bill and why it should matter.

I just put a link to the actual bill in the opening post.

Sorozone posted...

The problem with the bill is that it gives way too much power to the developers. It would essentially allow them to bypass a bunch of red tape to build wherever they wanted. Zoning sucks, but it's pretty crucial to infrastructure and city/town planning and building.

They still have to follow all public safety regulations. This removes the red tape that make it unable to build denser housing. That's the exact kind of red tape that needs to be removed.

Sorozone posted...

The root problem to the housing crisis is; one, not enough houses, and two, corporations and private firms are buying up houses for air BNB and other rental services, but to bypass red tape, and ignore community input just for the sake of buying a bunch of likely half-assed houses is not the way to go.

This bill helps move us towards the first problem.

The second problem is minimal compared to the first.

If we really want to own the corps and private firms, we should make it legal to build a huge supply of housing, therefore driving down the costs and decreasing their potential profit.

electricbugs2 posted...

Why should developers be able to just build willy nilly

Because we have a housing supply and affordability crisis and I think we should actually treat it as a crisis and make difficult decisions that solve the crisis.

I care more about people having a home to live in than I do for the aesthetics concerns that a current homeowner has about the homes around them.

electricbugs2 posted...

That's how you end up with shoddy work

They still have to follow safety regulations.

electricbugs2 posted...

urban sprawl, which again, the metro already struggles with.

How does allowing for denser homes increase urban sprawl?

emblem-man posted...

How does allowing for denser homes increase urban sprawl?

At the rate things are going outside the metro, Florence will be a part of it in 10 years. How is that a good thing?

electricbugs2 posted...

At the rate things are going outside the metro, Florence will be a part of it in 10 years. How is that a good thing?

How does that address what I said?

If we don't want additional sprawl, it makes sense to allow for developers to build denser housing, requiring less sprawl right? Since they'd be able to build more homes using fewer land, correct?

The next step is to remove single family only zoning and remove height requirements so that they can keep building even denser homes.

I'm actually really confused on how this increases sprawl.

1500 sqft is 0.03 acres. Put another way, 1500 sqft is around the land space required for a townhouse, which is already wedged side-to-side with other homes.

I don't even know if you can get smaller than that without violating various safety standards and fire codes.

emblem-man posted...

They still have to follow all public safety regulations. This removes the red tape that make it unable to build denser housing. That's the exact kind of red tape that needs to be removed

I don't think the state should just override local city and town jurisdiction just because.

It's a quick fix that is ignoring future consequences. Like I mentioned early this would be an infrastructural disaster waiting to happen. In a state that already has an immense water problem, in addition to the population growth the roads and traffic are worse than ever before, and ADOT already spends tons of money on Phoenix's roads.

We shouldn't settle for a half-assed bill, and I'm an Arizona resident. We can do better. The fact it's bipartisan makes me side-eyed too. I don't trust any of the MAGA republican's in office here.

s0nicfan posted...

I don't even know if you can get smaller than that without violating various safety standards and fire codes.

American ingenuity baby, let them try.

Sorozone posted...

I don't think the state should just override local city and town jurisdiction just because.

It's not just because. It's because cities and towns are not adjusting their zoning and housing laws to allow more homes to be built, leading to a housing crisis. Therefore, the state is stepping in and removing legal barriers. The state isn't forcing homes to be a certain type. It's literally removing legal barriers.

Sorozone posted...

It's a quick fix that is ignoring future consequences. Like I mentioned early this would be an infrastructural disaster waiting to happen. In a state that already has an immense water problem, in addition to the population growth the roads and traffic are worse than ever before, and ADOT already spends tons of money on Phoenix's roads.

We won't get better infrastructure (public transportation) unless the density makes sense. Density won't make sense if dense housing is not allowed. We get dense housing by removing legal barriers to build dense housing.

Denser homes means better land use for things like water and sewage!

Sorozone posted...

We shouldn't settle for a half-assed bill, and I'm an Arizona resident. We can do better. The fact it's bipartisan makes me side-eyed too. I don't trust any of the MAGA republican's in office here

Being for more housing should not be a partisan issue.
You're essentially saying you don't want any bills to pass if it gets Republican votes?

Half assed bill...if a bill proposing to remove minimum lot and house sizes can't get passes, what makes you think more drastic bills that will do more to fix housing will get fixed?

emblem-man posted...

We won't get better infrastructure (public transportation) unless the density makes sense. Density won't make sense if dense housing is not allowed. We get dense housing by removing legal barriers to build dense housing.

You are ignoring that this allows them to build anywhere. They are going to build in the cheapest areas to build, which means in the middle of nowhere, or next to potential nuisances like military installations. In the case of one, being in the middle of nowhere means the state is now going to have to put more money into infrastructure(water, sewage, roads, lighting). You are ignoring how much power this would give developments, and it's not good. And point two, would you really want to live right next to Luke AFB?

emblem-man posted...

Being for more housing should not be a partisan issue.
You're essentially saying you don't want any bills to pass if it gets Republican votes?

Half assed bill...if a bill proposing to remove minimum lot and house sizes can't get passes, what makes you think more drastic bills that will do more to fix housing will get fixed?

What part of half-assed, short-sited do you not understand? A quick fix isn't a fix. It's a ticking time bomb.

I'm all for more housing, more affordable housing, but this bill isn't it. I don't know what's so hard to understand.

Arizona is a red state, turned purple, angling towards blue. I'd rather wait for democratic legislation to come up with an actual solution as opposed to a band-aid.

Yeah it sucks, it's not what I want. But this bill is ass.

Sorozone posted...

You are ignoring that this allows them to build anywhere. They are going to build in the cheapest areas to build, which means in the middle of nowhere, or next to potential nuisances like military installations. In the case of one, being in the middle of nowhere means the state is now going to have to put more money into infrastructure(water, sewage, roads, lighting). You are ignoring how much power this would give developments, and it's not good

What part of the bills is that in?
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/bills/HB2570P.htm

Is that not the bill? Hell, it even says it's only for areas with more than 50k people. It's by definition not in the middle of nowhere

Sorozone posted...

And point two, would you really want to live right next to Luke AFB?

Someone might. I'm not going to force people to be able to live or not live based on what I want.

emblem-man posted...

Is that not the bill? Hell, it even says it's only for areas with more than 50k people. It's by definition not in the middle of nowhere

Have you never been to the Phoenix metro? One of the largest metro's in the nation? Where you can drive in the city limits for miles with nothing going on? Those area's is where the building would go.

Sorozone posted...

Have you never been to the Phoenix metro? One of the largest metro's in the nation? Where you can drive in the city limits for miles with nothing going on? Those area's is where the building would go.

So you're saying it should apply only for municipalities with like more than 200k (or whatever number) people or something?

How does this bill incentive developers building in the middle of nowhere.

emblem-man posted...

So you're saying it should apply only for municipalities with like more than 200k (or whatever number) people or something?

No. You know what I said. I said it gives developments too much power. I don't know why you can't understand this. A more balance bill would work a lot more wonders. The reason it won't get passed in the AZ house is because of Republicans.

Sorozone posted...

No. You know what I said. I said it gives developments too much power. I don't know why you can't understand this. A more balance bill would work a lot more wonders. The reason it won't get passed in the AZ house is because of Republicans.

What does more balanced mean. I've posted exactly what the bill does. What power does it give developers that allows for more sprawl?.
How will they be able to build in the middle of nowhere with this bill?

You're just saying "developers" as though it's supposed to be some boogyman word to scare me away. Nothing that you've said is backed up by the text of the bill that I'm actually talking about. It's just hypotheticals based on nothing.
You want to know the best way to make sure Arizona doesn't continue turning blue? By making housing so expensive that people stop moving here.

emblem-man posted...

What does more balanced mean. I've posted exactly what the bill does. What power does it give developers that allows for more sprawl?.
How will they be able to build in the middle of nowhere with this bill?

You're just saying "developers" as though it's supposed to be some boogyman word to scare me away. Nothing that you've said is backed up by the text of the bill that I'm actually talking about. It's just hypotheticals based on nothing.
You want to know the best way to make sure Arizona doesn't continue turning blue? By making housing so expensive that people stop moving here.

Missing middle housing for one. Which is currently illegal, would be a much more balance approach as opposed to having developments build wherever they fuck they want.

This bill would give developments powers to build where they want in a housing crisis. The demand is there, so they are going to build in the cheapest areas to maximize profit. This bill gives them more power than ever before. I dont know why you cant grasp this. Im all for removing legal barriers to get this done, but they are target the wrong barriers.

AZ definitely shouldnt allow developers to do whatever they want. Thats how they ended up with isolated communities a half hour outside civilization that bring in 100% of their water in trucks from Scottsdale.

This bill does the following. What in this text makes you think they will building housing "wherever the fuck they want"

A. A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH A HOME BUYER'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE FEATURES, AMENITIES, STRUCTURE, FLOOR PLAN AND INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DESIGN OF A HOME.

B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT REQUIRE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION. PROPERTY OWNERS MAY VOLUNTARILY FORM OR ESTABLISH A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANOTHER ASSOCIATION.

2. A SHARED FEATURE OR AMENITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAIN OR OPERATE THE FEATURE OR AMENITY, UNLESS NECESSARY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

3. SCREENING, WALLS OR FENCES.

4. PRIVATE STREETS OR ROADS.

C. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT SUPERSEDE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODES OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.
9-461.19. Planning; applicability; lot size

A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A MUNICIPALITY WITH A POPULATION OF MORE THAN FIFTY THOUSAND PERSONS THAT IS DESIGNATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS AN URBAN AREA BY THE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE ANY CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, STANDARD, STIPULATION OR OTHER REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM LOT SIZES ON WHICH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME MAY BE LOCATED.

2. MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OR DIMENSIONS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

3. MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

4. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

5. DESIGN, ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC ELEMENTS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

B. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT SUPERSEDE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODES OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.

Sorozone posted...

Missing middle housing for one

We can't pass a bill to remove minimum house and lot sizes and you think we'll pass a bill to allow upzoning?

radical_rhino posted...

AZ definitely shouldnt allow developers to do whatever they want. Thats how they ended up with isolated communities a half hour outside civilization that bring in 100% of their water in trucks from Scottsdale.

Nothing in the bill allows that!!!

radical_rhino posted...

AZ definitely shouldnt allow developers to do whatever they want. Thats how they ended up with isolated communities a half hour outside civilization that bring in 100% of their water in trucks from Scottsdale.

Marana in absolute shambles because of this post.

electricbugs2 posted...

Marana in absolute shambles because of this post.

Imagine how much better marana and vail would be if the homes were actually dense

emblem-man posted...

Imagine how much better marana and vail would be if the homes were actually dense

Never been to Vail so I can't comment, but Marana is exactly the size it should be. It's not exactly a bustling tourist trap or business center, it's a farming and hiking community in the middle of the Saguaro Reserve.

*Passes bill to remove minimum lot and home sizes*

"OMG this is allowing developers to build wherever and whatever they want.

*passes law to allow upzoning*

"OMG, we can't pass this. This means developers will have free reign to build whatever and wherever
they want.

This has honestly rustled my feathers a lot. We are not going to do our housing crisis, which requires even more drastic steps, of we can't even pass statewide reforms that would legalize smaller single-family homes. The bill just loosens lot size, setback, and square footage regulations.

And you've got people here actually supporting the veto of this bill based on lies and hopium that we'll be able to pass upzoning laws far in the future. I contacted the governors office and I'll call and leave a voicemail as well.

emblem-man posted...

And you've got people here actually supporting the veto of this bill based on lies and hopium that we'll be able to pass upzoning laws far in the future. I contacted the governors office and I'll call and leave a voicemail as well.

I'm sure Katie will find time to respond in between vetoing all the AZ GOP's obnoxious horseshit and all the other stuff she has to do as governor. /s

electricbugs2 posted...

I'm sure Katie will find time to respond in between vetoing all the AZ GOP's obnoxious horseshit and all the other stuff she has to do as governor. /s

I don't expect a reply, but i think it's probably good to express distaste in things a politician does. NIMBYs who attend zoning meetings and harass local politicians about things like this understand that and enable anti housing policies to pass.

emblem-man posted...

I don't expect a reply, but i think it's probably good to express distaste in things a politician does. NIMBYs who attend zoning meetings and harass local politicians about things like this understand that and enable anti housing policies to pass.

Look, I don't like the NIMBY's either. They're the reason the arena deal fell through last year and that would have been a huge economic boom for the metro instead of having a landfill sitting there taking up valuable space.

But again, this bill is a rush job, and there's a better way to do it.

Hobbs has been nothing but good for the State since taking office. If this ends up being her one blunder, so be it. The good far outweighs the bad she's done.

Like I said in the opening post, Hobbs has done lots of good stuff. I do not want anyone to take my criticism of this veto as me saying she's a bad governor. She's been good and I want her to keep making good choices and I want the state to keep turning blue. Having affordable housing is the way to do it.

What about it is a rush job exactly? It's a pretty simple bill.