Will Laketown's New Lot Regulations Kill the Community?

Concerned Citizens List

If you're concerned with the new regulations that mandate larger lots, please enter your contact information below.

Your information will be used to keep you updated on events and decisions on this topic and to show the council that there's enough public concern to merit a repeal of the regulations and formulation of a new plan.

(Please note neither the author (John Brown), his family, nor any of his clients own are seeking to develop in the Laketown area; the author's real estate practice is focused more than 95% on Logan and the Cache Valley. His single motive is to promote the continuation of the warm and vibrant community that he and his family now enjoy.)

Original Letter to the Editor, Feb 2008

(This letter had to be cut from 2,000 to 500 words to fit the newpaper guidelines. The full text of the original letter follows.)

Two of the most compelling features of Laketown are its wonderful rural, mountainous location and its warm and friendly community. However, while trying to protect the rural feel, the Laketown City Council recently enacted regulations that have put Laketown on the fast track to killing its community.

That strong statement is not meant to cast aspersions upon any individual on the city council. I honor and am grateful to the members of the council for the many hours they spend on our behalf. I like and respect each one of them. I cannot imagine any are working for their own private benefit. I’m confident they are, instead, working to do what each considers the best for all of us.

The new regulations mandate new building lot minimums: 1/2 acre on current city streets, 1 acre in surrounding areas. From my understanding, this regulation was adopted primarily in reaction to the desire to avoid what some consider the unsightliness of small-lot developments.

While laudably intending to help Laketown remain beautiful, the new regulations will do just the opposite. Not only will they fail to meet their ostensible purpose—maintain a rural feel—the regulations will cut the profits for those wanting to sell their land in the future. But more importantly, the regulations will accelerate the depopulation of full-time residents. With such regulations, Laketown will cease being a close community and will instead increasingly become a place that vacillates from streets lined with empty houses in the off-season to motels for transient visitors during the summer. I shall explain each point below.

Failing to Achieve the Objective of the Regulations

The first problem is that 1/2 and 1 acre lots simply do not maintain a rural feel.

You can see what I mean by considering the Last Chance, phase 1 development. If you’d like to see the lot map, you can go to Bear Lake Realty’s wonderful website and view it there: http://www.bearlakerealty.com/maps.php. The subdivision has 16 lots in the area defined roughly by the square bordered by the existing homes on the hill and road at the bottom of the hill. It does NOT include the area around the bend beyond the Lamborn’s. Many of the lots in the subdivision are larger than one acre. So if we were to divide the subdivision into the 1 acre minimum, 20 homes could be placed in that development.

Please look up at the hill and imagine 16 more homes in that space. Would that feel rural to you?

By no stretch of the imagination would that be rural. To maintain a rural open feel, you have to do what Mapleton city did many years ago and require much larger lots—3 acres and above. (You can experience the urban feel of larger 1-acre developments by looking at older parts of Mendon, Hyde Park, or Wellsville when you’re next in Logan.)

So the first problem is that the regulations will fail to do what they were intended to do--keep Laketown’s rural feel.

Large Lots Take Money from Landowners

The second issue is that larger lots are worth less per acre than smaller lots. This is of no small concern to Laketown landowners. But it will also affect surrounding landowners because the city is currently considering annexing large portions of the county.

In Bear Lake, we can see this cut in value by looking at lot sales from last year. This data is compiled from all vacant land sales in the last 12 months on the Utah side of Bear Lake.

So even though large lots sell for more money, they do so for LESS THAN HALF the amount per acre because landowners can sell more of the smaller lots. That’s a huge cut in value.

This phenomenon is not unique to Bear Lake. The fact that smaller lots lead to greater dollar / acre value can be seen by looking at any city. Take an obvious example: you will see people in moderate New York districts pay as much for an apartment as we might pay for a house on a sizeable bit of land. Because you have dozens of people in the small apartment footprint, you have $/acre values in the millions. In such locations, if developed properly, those already living on larger lots see the values of their land rise as well.

Large Lots Fast Track the Killing of the Community

The first two problems, while important, pale next to the third. Laketown is what it is because of the people who live in it full-time. Of course, we love visitors and welcome them. But the full-time residents are what give the town its delightful character. However, full-time residents don’t stay put. Every living community is like a lake—it requires a stream of people to feed it because there are always residents passing on to another physical or spiritual realm. The problem is that the new regulations bar anyone of moderate income from replacing those who move away.

Median Incomes and the Cost of a Home

Let me give you some numbers. The 2004 median household income in Utah was $47,224 (more facts at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/). The 645 households in Rich country had a 2004 median family income of $45,036. That was 4 years ago. If we adjust the income for 3% inflation, we can estimate the current median Rich County family income to be around $50,000. With good credit and low debt to income ratios, such a family could probably afford payments on a mortgage in the $170,000 range.

But could they build a home in Laketown for something around that price?

If we estimate the cost of building a modest home is $110 / sf with an unfinished basement, then an average 2,200 sf home would cost around $120,000 to build. This means the average Rich county family has less than $50k for a lot.

Now look at the table below. It shows the price range of all the lots sold in the Utah side of Bear Lake in the last 12 months.

The average Rich county family could afford about 30% of the lots sold in the last 12 months. But note that such families would NOT be able to afford any of the size mandated by the new regulations.

Closing the City to Area Families

What this means is the Laketown City Council has voted to effectively and immediately bar new teachers, policemen, miners, gas & petroleum workers, mechanics, ranchers, nurses—any family with a moderate income—from moving in. The regulations have closed the city to the majority of Rich County, southern Idaho, and western Wyoming residents.

I don’t believe this was the council’s intent. Nevertheless, it is the consequence of the regulations. I personally know of a number of families who have been effectively barred from becoming permanent residents. Three of those families currently live here and are contemplating moving away because they cannot afford lots the size the town council has mandated.

As stated before, a city is like a lake. The new regulations have prevented the bulk of working families from flowing in. So who will take their place?

To answer that, we need to identify how many new jobs are being created within a reasonable commute from Laketown (45 minutes) that pay more than the median income. The answer is that there are precious few.

Some have suggested that remote workers in the high-tech industries will fill the gap. But there’s no data to support such an assertion. The data does support the idea that most of the replacements, who are not gifted land by their parents who already own here, will be people who are building an investment or vacation spot.

I love our visitors. But when a community loses its permanent residents and replaces them with a transient population, the wonderful community will disappear. The yards with children and the friendly and concerned neighbor across the street will, in a matter of only a few years, become a thing of the past. In their place will be vacant homes during the off-season and rotating visitors during the summer months.

Promoting Full-time Residents Possible

Some may argue that land prices will never be affordable for moderate-income families again. So why try to preserve the community? But this premise is faulty: last year’s sales prove there were many lots in the valley well within reach—just not in Laketown.

Some may argue that smaller lots will only forestall the inevitable by a few years. But a few years will give the economy in the area time to build and provide more jobs that could support full-time residents. Even if there’s a possibility of failure, promoting a thriving community is well worth the effort.

The facts are that we are indeed likely to have affordable lots for many years to come, but only if the city allows smaller lots. Unfortunately, not only do the new regulations fail to preserve a rural feel and take money from landowners, they have pushed Laketown’s wonderful community toward a hasty and unnecessary death.

Our Choice

Laketown cannot remain as it was these last few decades. Current market forces have removed that option. Instead, we’ve come to a crossroads where we have only two choices: we can choose to take the path which promotes a community that includes full-time residents or we can choose the path which turns the town into a collection of vacation houses. I am one who would prefer to see the smile of a neighbor rather than a few more feet of air between the vinyl and brick walls of houses.

Furthermore, choosing that path does not mean the town has to become an ugly monument to the drive for profit. Beautiful views and streets can be developed on smaller lots. I know this because I’ve seen them in communities from Utah to California to Ohio and because I grew up in a beautiful ¼ acre lot neighborhood myself. Even townhomes can add beauty to the community. If you would like examples of beautiful smaller lot neighborhoods, just go to www.mybearlake.com and request them.

Not only can smaller lots preserve beauty and bring land owners greater value, smaller lots will also, more importantly, keep the way open for permanent neighbors to move into our community and keep it warm and vibrant.

What We Can Do

The time to act is now, before the next housing season begins. The decisions made now could immediately affect a number of families that do and can add a great deal to our community. Therefore, I want to propose two courses of action.

First, I want to suggest the Laketown City Council immediately repeal the recent lot size regulations and go back to the 1/3 acre minimum. Following this immediate action, the council should consider regulations that will allow beautiful subdivisions on, if developers choose, smaller lots.

Second, a number of people in the community share my concerns. I have already started a concerned citizen list with more than a dozen names on it. It’s likely the town council will want to see that there is enough interest from the residents to reconsider the regulations. If you would like to voice your concern and be updated on this issue, please visit www.mybearlake.com and enter your information. Or feel free to call John or Nellie Brown.

Prompt action now can save our wonderful community from an untimely demise.

Sincerely,

John Brown  

We take your privacy seriously:
Your information will not be shared or used for anything but keeping you informed about this one issue.