RE: Expanding Housing Options Proposal

Dear Council Members:

I am writing to express my opposition to the Expanding Housing Options proposal, specifically the Small Lot Dwelling element. This proposal poses unstudied infrastructure risks, encourages teardowns, reduces neighborhood tranquility, and will permanently alter established streetscapes. Increased density and loads on infrastructure capacity – specifically water - will have unknown and unstudied consequences” and“property values will drop, as the tranquility attribute of neighborhoods will be diminished.

Public outreach has been insufficient, and the City has provided no long-term data from other cities showing the impacts on property values, parking, code enforcement, or quality of life. Citizens must be notified through a multi-media undertaking – including USPS. This issue requires more public input, deliberation and open public debate.

I respectfully urge you to reject the Expanding Housing Options proposal.

Sincerely,

[Name] [Address]

Sample letter
[DATE]

Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street, Rm. 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Unstudied infrastructure impacts. Increased density and loads on infrastructure capacity will have unknown and unstudied consequences - specifically on water supply.
Loss of neighborhood tranquility and property value decline. Research cited in public comments shows measurable “welfare loss” from increased density, and residents note that “property values will drop, as the tranquility attribute of the neighborhood will be diminished.”
Teardowns and speculative redevelopment. Despite incentives to retain existing homes, tear downs will become the norm and construction of the allowed higher-density structures will follow, accelerating displacement of long-standing homes.
Shift toward rental units and erosion of neighborhood stability. Non-owners lack a long view and neighborhoods will lose existing character and property values will decline further.
Incompatible building forms and setbacks. Many neighborhoods have 20-35-foot front setbacks, while the proposed ordinance allows a preferential 10 feet. A 10-25-foot difference is not in keeping with the proposed ordinance language which promises to preserve neighborhood character.
No long-term data from other cities. The City cites lower purchase prices in Durham and Portland but provides no statistics on the long-term effects on established neighborhoods, including parking, code infractions, crime, or quality of life.
Insufficient public outreach. Citizens must be notified through a multi-media undertaking including USPS. This issue requires more public input, deliberation and open public debate. Attendance at information sessions has been low, and no city-wide mailer has been funded.
Market conditions do not justify drastic intervention. Apartment vacancy rates have normalized, and the housing market has cooled. Why is Salt Lake City pursuing a central planning solution for a perceived problem that will ultimately be corrected by market forces?

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the Expanding Housing Options proposal and pursue alternatives that protect neighborhood character while addressing housing needs responsibly.

Sincerely,

[Name] [Address]

Sample letter
[DATE]

Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street, Rm. 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

RE: Expanding Housing Options Proposal

Dear Council Members:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning ordinance changes contained in the Expanding Housing Options initiative, specifically the Small Lot Dwelling element. After reviewing the City’s materials, attending public information sessions, and studying independent research, I believe this proposal will cause irreversible harm to established neighborhoods, reduce quality of life, and undermine the very goals the City hopes to achieve.

The Small Lot Dwelling proposal introduces substantial increases in density without adequate study of the impacts on critical public utility infrastructure systems—most significantly, water supply. As one resident noted, “Increased density and loads on infrastructure capacity will have unknown and unstudied consequences”.

Allowing single-family parcels to expand from one household to two, three, four or greater will significantly diminish neighborhood tranquility and reduce property values. Research by Joseph Gyourko and Sean McCulloch (NBER, 2024) documents measurable “welfare loss” associated with increased housing density.

The proposed changes also incentivize teardown activity. Despite provisions encouraging retention of existing homes, developers will quickly identify profitable redevelopment formulas, leading to widespread replacement of long-standing homes with high-density structures.

Furthermore, the proposal will accelerate the conversion of owner-occupied properties into rental units, eroding long-term neighborhood stability. Renters are transient and lack a long view and the neighborhoods will lose their existing character and property values will decline further.

The City’s claim that neighborhood character will be preserved is not credible. Existing homes in many neighborhoods have deep front yard setbacks of 20 - 35 feet, while the proposed ordinance allows a preferential 10 feet. How is this 10 - 25-foot difference in keeping with the proposed ordinance language?” A single triplex or other structure with the 10 foot setback placed among decades-old homes will permanently disrupt the aesthetic and architectural cohesion of the block.

Additionally, the City has not provided long-term data from other cities that have implemented similar policies. The staff report cites lower purchase prices in Durham and Portland but offers no statistics on long-term effects such as property values, parking, code infractions, crime, or quality of life.

Public outreach has also been insufficient. Attendance at information sessions has been low, and the City has not funded a city-wide mailer to ensure residents are aware of the magnitude of the proposed changes. “Citizens must be notified through a multi-media undertaking – including USPS. This issue requires more public input, deliberation, diversity of proposed solutions, and open public debate.”

Finally, market conditions do not justify such sweeping intervention. Apartment vacancy rates have normalized, and the housing market has cooled significantly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Name] [Address]