Utah needs a variety of housing options so people of all ages and incomes can have healthy places to live that don't break the monthly budget. At Envision Utah, we have been working with our community in a consensus-building effort to create sound, affordable-housing strategies.

We recently released materials to help cities and towns explore their own priorities and incorporate attractive, compatible and affordable housing into their neighborhoods. We suggested removing unnecessary regulations. And for years we have promoted developments that reflect market trends, make our transportation more efficient and save on public infrastructure costs. In fact, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget has estimated that implementing Envision Utah's quality-growth strategy would save taxpayers more than $4.5 billion in infrastructure costs by 2020.

So, we were surprised that the Sutherland Institute published a study concluding that "smart growth" in general, and Envision Utah's efforts in particular, is increasing the cost of the average Utah home. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have reached the conclusion that quality-growth strategies provide more affordable housing and decrease the tax burden.

If we continue to push new growth to the suburban fringe, we will more quickly fill developable land. This will cause housing prices to skyrocket and force people to live ever further away, increasing pollution, commute time and transportation costs. The costs of extending roads, wires and pipelines will be enormous. We need to embrace quality growth strategies to keep housing options affordable and abundant.

Envision Utah's work is based on sound facts, not a political agenda. But the Sutherland study is not credible, objective research. The study went wrong when it compared Utah's quality growth efforts to mandatory "smart growth" regulations — such as urban growth boundaries, population growth caps, and open space mandates —imposed in some communities outside Utah. The study concluded that these mandatory growth policies were increasing the housing costs in those areas. Then, incredibly, it made the leap that since Utah is pursuing quality growth principles, the same costs apply here.

First of all, we are not aware of any mandatory growth regulations in Utah similar to those criticized in the report. Nor has Envision Utah ever advocated such policies. Envision Utah's quality growth strategies have always been community-based, market-driven and voluntary. The irony is that current zoning regulations often prevent the sort of housing development that Envision Utah promotes, investors would like to build, and which would allow the free market to provide affordable housing options.

The Sutherland researcher attributed all Utah "planning costs" to quality growth policies. The study includes many planning policies that are, in fact, completely counter to quality growth strategies and counter to Envision Utah's efforts — artificially creating a cost to quality growth where none exists.

The study also fails to adequately address the primary drivers of housing price acceleration — population growth, strong economic activity, limited developable land and favorable quality of life — all of which are operating in Utah to increase housing costs.

All research and statistics aside, we can all agree that our communities will be better if we plan before we act. By deciding together how we should grow and the best way to invest our public resources, we will all enjoy stronger, healthier communities in the future.

---

Pamela Atkinson is the chairwoman of the Coalition for Utah's Future, which sponsors Envision Utah.