Utah leaders have spent years talking about affordable housing.

Governor Spencer Cox has repeatedly emphasized the need for more attainable housing, with a goal of creating tens of thousands of starter homes priced below $300,000. Yet despite broad agreement that housing affordability remains one of the state’s biggest challenges, one proposal designed specifically to encourage the construction of smaller, more affordable single-family homes failed to advance during the most recent legislative session.

The question raises an uncomfortable issue: if Utah agrees there is a shortage of starter homes, why are those homes still so difficult to build?

According to attorney and real estate professional Asha Klarich, much of the debate comes down to how communities want to grow and who gets to make those decisions.

House Bill 184, known as the Small Lots and Starter Homes Amendment, was intended to reduce regulatory barriers and allow smaller homes to be built on smaller lots. The proposal would have created a process for builders and homeowners to seek exceptions to local zoning requirements and construct homes on lots as small as roughly 5,400 square feet.

The idea was straightforward. Smaller lots generally mean lower land costs. Lower land costs can translate into lower home prices.

For many first-time buyers, that sounds far more appealing than another apartment building or densely packed townhome development.

“I think most people would prefer a smaller home on a smaller lot than apartment-style living in a high-rise,” Klarich said during a recent discussion about housing legislation.

The bill ultimately failed.

The restaurant itself felt polished in that distinctly corporate way, where every detail seems carefully planned. We sat outside near a large fire feature on the patio while dance music drifted through the speakers and shoppers passed by. It felt lively, upscale, and relaxing for someone who had spent most of the day feeling unappreciated. 

Three days before Ralph Hoffman was killed, Utah Stories interviewed Phillips Plaza residents who described security concerns, unauthorized visitors, and questions about how vulnerable tenants were being supervised. After the murder, many of those concerns remain unanswered.

A recent KUER article critically examines The Other Side Academy (TOSA), focusing primarily on former participants who describe the program negatively and questioning the philosophy behind therapeutic communities. Every institution should be subject to scrutiny, and TOSA is no exception. But after reading the article, I was left asking a different question: Why is this level of scrutiny almost never applied to the homelessness industry itself?