ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

The legislation crafted by Rep. David Livingston gained preliminary House approval this week after he agreed to some changes demanded by neighborhood associations.

Most notably, the Peoria Republican stripped out language that would have allowed for multi-story, multi-family apartment complexes in areas now zoned for single-family homes. As approved, says only single-family homes can be built, and they can’t be more than two stories tall.

But Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, said even what’s left still leaves residents of existing residents at risk of having the character of their neighborhood altered. And that is now forcing Livingston to scramble to see if he can make further changes to line up the necessary support before a roll-call vote next week.

The dispute is one piece of a larger multi-year fight over how to create more affordable housing.

Lawmakers last year voted to require cities to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes on some parcels now zoned for single-family housing. They also said commercial properties can be repurposed for housing and agreed to force cities to allow placement of “casitas’’ adjacent to existing homes.

And this year the Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs are trying to reach a dead that would allow developers to build subdivisions with homes on smaller lots than zoning now requires.

HB 2191 is another carve out from such regulations.

It says that existing churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions are free to enter agreements with developers to construct housing on their property and do so without regard to how the land is zoned. In fact, as approved, it would allow up to 17 homes per acre.

That drew a specific objection from Gress, who represents portions of north central Phoenix as well as Paradise Valley and Scottsdale.

“Every church is surrounded by a neighborhood,’’ he said. “And those neighborhoods differ.’’

Gress said what’s missing from the legislation is something that requires these new developments, with their entitlement to avoid certain zoning regulations, to reflect the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

“So, having a one size fits all, 17 units per acre, really, in some of these communities?’’ he said. “That could be a bit too much for some of our neighborhoods.’’

But Rep. Sarah Ligouri who has been working with Livingston on the plan, suggested she believes that the changes from the original plan, done to satisfy neighborhood groups, may already have gone too far. She said they are undermining the goal of creating as much affordable housing as possible.

“I think that it is narrowed in scope where it won’t have as much of a positive impact as we would have liked to address the housing crisis we’re seeing statewide,’’ said the Phoenix Democrat.

Among the changes is that the original bill would have required the religious institution that owns the property to record a deed restriction requiring that, for at least 55 years, 40% of any housing be earmarked for low-income households. That is now gone.

Still, Ligouri said she supports the bill.

“I do think it would do a great deal to begin to bring the American dream of home ownership to a large population of Arizonans who have been left behind,’’ she said.

But Rep. Cesar Aguilar said there are more and better ways to deal with affordable housing, like rent controls and what he called “affordable housing zoning reform.’’ The Phoenix Democrat said what’s left in this bill, including the elimination of the possibility of multi-family housing, hardly makes it worth of consideration.

“This bill, with this amendment, is now watered down to barely help a handful of people when the churches’ intent was to help many in need,’’ Aguilar said. And he said he thinks he knows the reason.

“I’ve seen and heard more and more people before more and more NIMBY and question having God’s people in our neighborhoods,’’ referring to what is known as the “not in my back yard’’ attitude of some.

Still, Aguilar said he supports what’s left of the legislation, even though he said he believes it does the bare minimum to address the issues.

House Majority Leader Michael Carbone, however, said there’s a reason the legislation was recrafted to eliminate apartments from what can be built.

“This is about putting people in homes they can own, not rent,’’ said the Buckeye Republican. “Rental does not make homes affordable, does not increase supply.’’

Gress, however, said even more changes are needed to make the legislation acceptable. And that includes the issue of home ownership versus rentals.

“I think we need to more explicitly define what we mean by single-family housing,’’ he said. And that, said Gress, does not mean homes built by and owned by investors who then can rent them out.

“We’re talking about housing that people can actually buy,’’ he said, saying that it’s not economically healthy to have a large percentage of housing being occupied by people who are renters. Gress called home ownership “the single greatest wealth device that we have in our society.’’

And there’s another concern.

He said that the bill makes churches eligible for making these deals with developers if they have been in existence for at least three years. That, said Gress, creates a huge loophole.

“I think you’re going to see a lot of church LLCs pop up exclusively for taking advantage of some really, really generous entitlements,’’ he said, even if the bill limits these projects to single-family housing.

“We need to have established church institutions that have shown that they’ve been there, that they’re going to be there long after this,’’ Gress said. “Because, if developers can find a loophole, I trust that they will.’’

There is some basis for that fear of what could happen without sufficient guardrails.

During committee debate on the measure, Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Phoenix, noted that state lawmakers in 2016 agreed to allow “vacation rentals’’ in residential neighborhoods. Proponents, including then-Gov. Doug Ducey, billed it as allowing homeowners to make a few bucks renting out a spare bedroom, perhaps during a special event like the Super Bowl.

But that law also allowed investors to buy up homes and convert them entirely into rentals, what with no limit on the number of houses that could be rented out in any neighborhood. That led to complaints by neighbors of “party houses’’ as well as drying up the available housing supply.