By Roland Murphy for AZBEX
Here at AZBEX, we follow political news closely, but we try to keep ourselves above the fray. While these editorial analyses always have conclusions—and, sometimes, predictions—we try to base those on numeric data and long experience while steering clear of politics and opinion.
Sometimes, however, things happen that require us to get down into the mud. Most often, this is because of a trend or series of events for which there isn’t much in the way of objective, numeric data and we’re forced, instead, to rely on our experience and familiarity with issues from having followed and reported on them for years.
Now that the tone-setting preliminaries are out of the way, Gov. Katie Hobbs’ March 18 veto of House Bill 2570, the so-called “Starter Homes Act,” may well have killed the last, best chance for useful housing development reform in Arizona.
As we discussed in the March 15 column, the bill impacted zoning and approval powers for cities with populations of 70,000 or more, including:
- Minimum lot sizes would be set at 1,500 feet;
- Setbacks from the street would be capped at no more than 10 feet;
- Minimum distance between homes would be reduced to five feet at the backs or sides;
- Cities could not impose specific architectural, design or aesthetic requirements; and
- Developers could not be required by cities to institute homeowners associations in new developments. (AZBEX, March 15)
While not universally supported in the legislature, it was one of the few truly bipartisan major bills to have emerged during Hobbs’ tenure as governor. It also had generally broad support with residents around the state, particularly since Arizona has gone from one of the most affordable places to live to one of the least in a fairly brief period of time.
Veto Came After Hard Lobbying
Hobbs has set a record pace for vetoed legislation. Former Gov. Janet Napolitano has the most vetoes, with 181 in her six years in office. Hobbs has vetoed 145 since taking office in 2023.
That is, in a way, understandable. After Hobbs won the governorship in a heated race against a Republican challenger, the Republican-led Legislature sent her a raft of measures they knew she would oppose out of principle and policy. The relationship between the two branches started off strained and has remained so.
On bills that were more complex or less partisan, Hobbs has developed a reputation for standing to the side for as long as possible. Supporters say the delays allow for careful study of the matter at hand. Opponents say it is a tactic to stay removed from controversy for as long as possible and to assess potential political risks.
With HB 2570, Hobbs again waited several days before taking action. During that time, legislators who advocated for the bill lobbied for her signature both directly and in the media. Opponents, including the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, did the same.
Hobbs’ delay led to protracted news coverage, as reporters, pundits and advocates on both sides increased their discussions and focused on the, “Will she or won’t she?” question.
In addition to the League’s organizational efforts to kill the bill, individual municipal and county leaders from around the state lobbied publicly and privately to secure a veto. In the end, they won out. When she finally executed her decision, Hobbs’ cited mayors’ arguments that the legislation was “too expansive,” and, “a step too far.”
In discussing her reasons for the veto, Hobbs said, “This is unprecedented legislation that would put Arizonans at the center of a housing reform experiment with unclear outcomes. It lacks the nuance necessary for statewide reform.”
History Says Otherwise
Hobbs’ veto and the arguments from the League and mayors overlook the history of this type of legislation in recent years. HB 2570 was, in fact, comparatively timid and far more nuanced than its predecessors in the last two legislative sessions.
In early 2022, Republican Arizona State Representative Steve Kaiser and co-sponsor Democratic State Representative César Chávez introduced HB 2674, a bill to preempt “local laws, ordinances and charter provisions” limiting residential development.
That measure would have stripped local governments of their ability to reject residential development proposals almost entirely. (AZBEX, Feb. 8, 2022)
Mayors and land use professionals were shocked and stunned, and opposition was immediate and vocal.
Nearly as soon as it was proposed, HB 2674 was withdrawn. The bill was seen as a warning to cities to stem overreach into restricting housing development and to start a conversation on the matter. Nearly every municipality had seen an increase in NIMBYism leading up to the legislation, along with an increase in catering to the opposition contingent by local officials. HB 2674 was meant to put that segment on notice.
While conversations certainly increased, the extreme nature of HB 2674 and its rapid withdrawal had an unintended consequence. It emboldened opponents who now felt they had beaten back a threat from the state level.
Last year, after having moved from the House to the Senate, Kaiser introduced another housing process reform bill – SB 1117. That legislation was milder than HB 2674, but still contained extensive local process reforms. It failed to secure enough votes in the Senate to advance.
Talking with AZBEX after the bill failed, local land use attorney Jason Morris of Withey Morris Baugh said the measure’s failure was a net positive, given its broad reach, but cautioned cities that changing their processes and allowing more housing development was essential.
“At the end of the day, the state controls our zoning,” he said. “The cities don’t. So, if cities believe the status quo is acceptable, they’re going to be in a world of hurt in future legislative sessions. I anticipate that we will ultimately see some significant changes. We have to because the status quo is unacceptable in terms of land use.” (AZBEX, March 21, 2023)
Cementing the Status Quo
With HB 2570, this year’s effort was much more restrained. In arguing that this year’s legislation would strip municipalities of local control, both the mayors and Gov. Hobbs omitted any examination of recent history and ignored what has been shown to be a real appetite for reform in some circles.
In vetoing the bill, Hobbs has also given a tacit endorsement of the status quo Morris warned about last year. The NIMBY contingent and their representatives have shown they can shut down even comparatively mild measures to restrain their attempts to strangle developments that check every box on the requirement lists under local code but that are found subjectively unpalatable by a minority of residents looking to halt change of any sort.
In these pages, we have sometimes accused parties in various political debates of behaving like petulant children. Now that it has been proven there will likely be no comeuppance, the veto will likely embolden those childish voices. They have been warned over and over that if they don’t straighten up and act to increase housing supplies and improve affordability, there will be consequences.
The veto says that the threat of consequence was merely a bluff.
Adding what could be considered an insult to injury, Hobbs then stunned some observers by washing her hands of involvement in any next steps.
The Governor told reporters she wants municipalities, zoning and housing process reform advocates, and others to work on solutions but added, “I don’t necessarily think it needs my involvement. They’re the ones most closely involved in this issue.”
There are other potential pieces of legislation on the horizon, including some administrative process reforms and allowing casitas on single-family lots, that Hobbs has said she will consider signing if they’re passed and presented for her signature, but those comprise largely cosmetic reforms without any accompanying changes at a foundational level.
What’s worse, there is now no real remaining threat or impediment to those hardcore opponents of change who view even the more modest reforms Hobbs has said she may consider as being an existential threat to their sacred status quo.