Legislation & Growth
How the Statehouse impacts cities & growth
A Garden City area legislator is trying to make it easier to build an accessory dwelling unit on your property, but the proposal met some early skepticism at the statehouse.
On Friday, Rep. Colin Nash, D-Garden City, introduced a bill that would ban HOAs, cities, counties and any restrictive covenants from preventing the construction of ADUs on someone’s property. ADUs, sometimes called mother-in-law suites, are small homes affixed to a foundation behind or attached to a traditional house that can be lived in by a family member, friend, renter or used as a short-term rental to make the property owner extra income.
Loosening ADU regulations has been part of the strategy employed by cities across the country to alleviate the nation’s housing crisis in recent years. Boise increased the size of units allowed in 2019 and Garden City is in the process of doing the same. But, critics of ADUs say it packs density into neighborhoods that weren’t originally built for it and they can never be priced affordably enough to be a truly low-cost option for people in need and largely only benefit those looking to invest in real estate.
Nash was not available to present the bill because he was working in the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee setting state budgets, but Rep. Ned Burns, D-Bellevue, presented on his behalf, calling it a “private property rights” bill. He noted the legislation had workshopped with real estate interest groups.
Taking property rights away from HOAs? Or giving to the individual?
All but two legislators in the House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce the bill, but several had questions about how it would work and showed some hesitance to put the bill into practice.
Rep. Christopher Allgood, R-Caldwell, was one of the two legislators to vote against introducing the bill. He started off the discussion by asking Burns what the bill would allow.
“This would indicate if a subdivision and development has a mandatory minimum of 8,000 square foot lots somebody could add a small shed with cooking facilities and have an additional person living on the property, is that correct?” He asked.
Burns responded, saying the law defines ADUs and requires full plumbing for a bathroom, a kitchen, sleeping areas and other amenities you’d see in a home. It cannot be a shed with a hot plate and the bare minimum necessary for a person to live, he said. Burns also told Allgood the law would allow areas to cap ADUs at one per property so you wouldn’t have multiple springing up behind a home, but it couldn’t ban them outright.
Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, also raised questions and motioned to return the bill to Nash, killing it. But, he was outvoted by the majority who decided to introduce it for discussion.
“I’ve been a president of HOAs a few different times, but sometimes we like to band together and make sure we don’t have something like this in our neighborhoods for good reasons and you’re taking away that property right away from an HOA, is that correct?” Skaug asked.
“I would argue we are working for individual private property rights instead of the collective property right of the association,” Burns quipped back.
“Not a fan of the word collective, thank you” Skaug replied, earning a laugh from the committee.
