The Issues

THE ELEVATOR PITCH:

• More and more Salt Lake residents are being priced out of the city because of out-of-control rental prices. State law forbids rent control ordinances, but the city can build up alternative ownership models.

• Cooperative Housing gives renters the ability to collectively purchase their building, allowing them to gain equity by signing a lease. Additional ordinances could give renters the first right of refusal when a building is sold.

• Community Land Trusts reduce the cost of housing through the city purchasing the land and the owner purchasing the structure on top of it. 

• Hybrid Land Trust–Cooperatives combine the best of both of these models.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

Rental costs are oppressive and destabilizing. Renters face the constant question of whether to accept another cost increase or chase the next move-in incentive. For families with children, frequent moves can be especially harmful, forcing changes in schools and friendships. An unstable housing market contributes to multiple social and community problems.

Utah law prohibits cities from enacting rent control ordinances. With no legal ability to regulate rents directly, Salt Lake City must instead focus on empowering residents to protect themselves.

For most renters, the leap to traditional homeownership is nearly impossible. Even if a family can afford a monthly mortgage payment, saving for a down payment while paying ever-rising rent is unrealistic. Those entering the housing market today face far greater challenges than past generations.

It is time to adopt proven ownership models that provide pathways to ownership immediately. Many of these require only minimal investment from the city, but would be transformational for residents. These models include:

• Cooperative Housing (Co-ops)

• Community Land Trusts (CLTs)

• Hybrid Land Trust–Cooperatives

I support all of these approaches, but cooperative housing is the most scalable and capable of delivering ownership opportunities to the greatest number of people. It is where the city should begin.

COOPERATIVE HOUSING

Cooperative housing has existed for more than a century and has been shown to stabilize housing costs and strengthen community ties.

In a cooperative, renters join together to form an association that can bid to purchase the building where they live. The association takes out a single mortgage, so residents don’t need individual loans. Once purchased, every household becomes a shareholder (referred to as a member). Instead of paying rent to a landlord, members contribute to their cooperative — building equity, gaining voting rights, and keeping housing costs stable. Most expenses remain similar to those of a rental property — mortgage, management, taxes, reserves — but without the profit margin for an outside landlord. Cooperative members collectively vote on any changes to fees, preventing runaway rent increases.

In a gradual equity model, when members move out, they sell their share back to the cooperative. The sale price is determined using a predetermined formula, which ensures the former member leaves with a modest return on their investment, while at the same time keeping the unit attainable for the next member of the cooperative. This structure makes getting into a cooperative a great deal for someone needing a place to live and not a good option for a speculative investment. The Salt Lake City RDA FY2025 Budget Staff Report specifically calls out cooperatives as a mechanism for low–moderate income households to build wealth. Unfortunately, the budget does not allocate any funds specifically for the purpose of promoting or creating cooperatives. 

A common concern is whether cooperatives can qualify for financing, but this is one of the simplest parts of the model. Since 1950, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has insured cooperative mortgages, making financing accessible.

Cooperatives do not require city involvement to exist, but with city support they could reshape the rental landscape and begin reversing the current shift from ownership to renting. Light-touch support might include information and advocacy. More robust support could include grants to help properties become financeable, or a modeling a city ordinance after the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) in Washington D.C. TOPA has granted tenants the first right of refusal when landlords sell the properties they live in since 1980, and it is credited for preserving 16,224 affordable units. Because of Utah’s legal framework, such an ordinance might require state authorization to be fully enforceable, but Salt Lake City could encourage voluntary participation by offering incentives to property owners who give tenants the first opportunity to buy.

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS (CLTs)

Salt Lake City currently has a handful of housing units that are part of a land trust.

In a land trust, the homeowner purchases the home (the structure) in the same way as any other homeowner. They can live in it, improve it, pass it on to their heirs, and most importantly, build equity. However, the land is leased to the homeowner on a long-term basis — generally 99 years, with the option to renew for another 99 — through a modest monthly ground lease fee, which covers administration and stewardship costs.

Because the homeowner does not need to purchase the land, the overall cost is significantly reduced, making both financing and monthly payments more manageable and attainable. The homeowner enjoys and uses the property much like they would if they owned both the land and the home, even though the land itself remains in trust.

When the homeowner moves, they sell the home (not the land). The resale price follows a formula that allows the homeowner to build equity on their investment while ensuring the property remains affordable for the next household that purchases it.

I support the expansion of community land trusts. However, because they require the purchase of land that cannot be sold for a very long time, this structure is difficult to scale to a degree that it could provide a significant number of attainable housing units that residents could own.

HYBRID LAND-TRUST–COOPERATIVES

A Hybrid Land Trust–Cooperative merges the strengths of both models. This structure often develops in two ways. First, it occurs when a cooperative is built on land owned by a community land trust. Second, when an existing rental complex is converting to a cooperative, a CLT may acquire the land for the benefit of the cooperative.

This model combines long-term affordability with democratic resident control. Financing is typically easier to secure because the cooperative only needs to finance the structure itself, not the land. That reduces the mortgage size and lowers monthly costs. While the arrangement introduces some added governance complexity, it provides a sustainable path to ownership that balances stability and affordability.

I will strongly advocate for the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency to use its resources to facilitate cooperative conversions on land held in CLTs. This approach is far less expensive than building new affordable housing from scratch and would create lasting, community-owned housing opportunities for residents.

THE ELEVATOR PITCH:

• Unhoused people are, first and foremost, people.

• It costs significantly more money when we fail to help those in need.

• During deadly extreme heat and cold, Salt Lake City needs to open up its properties to provide relief and partner with churches and non-profits who already engage in this life-saving work.

• The City must prioritize buying and converting existing structures to provide housing, resources, and support to help those in need. Sanctioned camp sites often become permanent, expensive programs that don’t effectively help those experiencing homelessness, so we should focus on converting existing structures.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

Westside communities are compassionate. We recognize that unhoused people are, first and foremost, people. They are our neighbors in need of help. Currently, more than 4,500 Utahns are experiencing homelessness. We are not okay with this scale of suffering.

Our city and state currently don’t have an effective plan for addressing the needs of those without stable housing. It seems as if the only plan is to try to arrest and fine people out of homelessness through anti-camping citations. The current status quo leads to more harm and fails to address the roots of the problem.

In addition, it costs taxpayers significantly more to not help people suffering from a lack of housing. On average, a chronically homeless person costs more than $35,000 each year. Supportive housing solutions can cut that cost by about half. One Denver-based non-profit found that providing direct financial support to those facing chronic homelessness helped people reduce barriers to stable income (such as housing, transportation, and childcare) and saved their city over $500,000.

This is a problem that can be resolved. While some individuals may have more difficulty exiting homelessness, 70 – 80% of them are off the streets and housed within one year. Two important takeaways are: 

1. A strong housing program that reduces the instances of people entering homelessness is a crucial part of any policy addressing homelessness. 

2. It is not a foregone conclusion that people who experience homelessness will remain in that situation.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS

At a minimum, the City needs to help out during extreme weather. Hot days lead to a spike in deaths, and Salt Lake City regularly has some of our most vulnerable neighbors freeze to death during the winter. This isn’t acceptable. 

In addition to using city-owned buildings as temporary heat and cold relief shelters, Salt Lake needs to partner with the churches and non-profits that regularly provide these life-saving services. They know what they’re doing and how to organize the volunteers that staff these locations, and the City can offer additional resources that help them scale this important work.

We need to meet people where they are. Harm-reduction programs prevent overdose and the spread of disease, all while saving money. Sobriety requirements prevent those experiencing addiction from receiving needed service and perpetuate the cycle we are trying to disrupt. 

OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONED CAMP SITES

Occasionally, city leaders and residents suggest sanctioned camping, or safe sleeping sites, as a way to alleviate the impacts of unsanctioned camping at minimal cost. Unless a truly exceptional and unique program were created, this is not the answer for Salt Lake City. Generally speaking, these are short term solutions that create long term problems for the following reasons.

First, these programs are not as inexpensive as they seem at first glance, causing them to divert resources from long-term housing solutions. In San Francisco, their “safe sleeping sites” ended up costing nearly $60,000 per year, twice the cost of housing two people in a one-bedroom apartment. There are many reasons why it is so expensive, including the cost to bring in restrooms and showers, community resources, and security. Housing people in structures is not only more humane, but also less expensive. 

I share the same concern as the National Coalition for the Homeless: “We believe that sanctioned encampments will be used as permanent placements for local jurisdictions to avoid providing safe, affordable, accessible and permanent housing.”

When it comes to the city government, I have trust issues. If an issue can be swept under the rug or on to a side of town with less resources and lower property values, you can bet it will be.

LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS

I will prioritize housing-first solutions to homelessness — without housing stability, it is not possible to effectively help people heal. When studied, housing-first programs can save an average of $15,000 on emergency services yearly, and can cost $20,000 less per person than shelter programs. The city’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) reported in June 2023 that the agency's net position was $263,579,243. While the most recent figure is not yet available, past growth trends suggest it is now significantly higher.

The rules for how and where these funds can be spent are somewhat complex, but with flexibility and political will, they can absolutely be directed toward long-term housing solutions. The challenge is not resources — it is whether we choose to use them wisely.

In addition to available funding, Salt Lake City also has existing structures that could be repurposed. The problem isn’t a lack of buildings — it’s a lack of vision and compassion. As of this writing, the Salt Lake County Government Center at 2001 S. State Street will be vacated over the next two years, and county offices are moving to a new facility in Midvale. The County has announced plans to sell the property to a yet-to-be-determined developer.

Too often, such properties are sold in deals that benefit well-connected developers at the expense of residents. What if, instead, the property were converted into a resource center for people experiencing homelessness? The large campus — with existing utilities, office space, meeting rooms, and parking — could provide:

• Case management

• Medical and mental health care

• Addiction recovery services

• Beds and shelter

This could be achieved more quickly and at a lower cost by adapting the existing buildings than by pursuing ground-up construction. Its central location, with access to transit and nearby educational services, makes it an ideal site. Similarly, as hotels and hospitals close, we have an opportunity to repurpose these structures to house and rehabilitate our unhoused community — at a fraction of the roughly $35,000 per person annually that it costs when people remain on the streets.

The Elevator Pitch:

• When designed well, traffic-calming measures can make our roads safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. I would prioritize effective and resident-requested projects.

• I support the Rio Grande Plan, which would bury the rail lines in downtown SLC. This would free up 50 acres of land and remove several rail crossings that prevent residents from freely moving throughout the city.

• The Westside needs more-reliable public transit and improved transit infrastructure.

TRAFFIC-CALMING MEASURES

Traffic calming measures are designed to make the roads safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. I have come to the conclusion while talking with many of you that this goal is important, and we must focus our efforts on reasonable solutions that prioritize safety.

Raised crosswalks are great because they make pedestrians, especially children, easier to see. Well-placed speedbumps can work similarly, and protected bike lanes keep cyclists safe.

Roundabouts can be effective on busier roads, but some don’t always make sense, for example, the roundabout at 500 N and 1300 W.  While I appreciate the art installation made by our own local artist Matt Monsoon, the roundabout itself is ineffective because the amount of traffic on the road doesn’t warrant it. Because there are stop signs on two sides, it is just a two-way stop with an unfamiliar traffic pattern in the intersection. 

Corner extensions can be helpful in keeping crosswalks safe, but they are ineffective when they stick out so far that they make it impossible for drivers to turn into the correct lane.

When putting in traffic calming solutions, I would:

• Prioritize solutions that are most-effective (including raised crosswalks and well-planned protected bike lanes)

• Prioritize projects that neighbors have requested through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. Some projects have been requested by residents every year for more than a decade but still haven’t been funded. (You can read more about the CIP program in “The City Budget” policy)

• Avoid options that are confusing and therefore make driving more difficult and dangerous

WEST-EAST CONNECTION AND THE RIO GRANDE PLAN

Several barriers divide our Westside communities from the rest of the city, making it harder for us to travel to other parts of Salt Lake and preventing others from coming in to access our local businesses. I support the Rio Grande Plan, put together by our neighbors, as one of many solutions to this divide.

The Rio Grande Plan aims to address these issues by relocating and burying the rails that run through downtown Salt Lake City. This would not only remove several train crossing locations that cut off the Westside from the rest of town, but it would also free up 50 acres of land that make up the current rail yards. 

In addition to creating opportunities to bring in dense, cooperative housing, this plan will provide several economic benefits. According to a Utah State University analysis, the Rio Grande Plan would create over $12 billion in total economic output, as well as create over 51,000 jobs in Salt Lake County.

The Salt Lake County Council and several SLC Community Councils have issued letters in support of the Rio Grande Plan. Our current mayor and city council have not even made this minimum effort to lead in this initiative. 

TRANSIT LINES

Partnering with the Utah Transit Authority, I will advocate for increased transit opportunities on the Westside. There are significantly fewer routes on the Westside. Currently, the City Council is allowing developers to add fewer and fewer parking spots at new housing developments, and with inadequate public transportation, this puts even more of a strain on Westside residents. We need to improve our transit offerings for those who need or want to use it.

In addition, the Eastside has better transit facilities, including more covered bus stops to protect riders from the elements. While UTA is working to improve some areas, almost all recent bus stop improvements have been on the Eastside. The Westside deserves its fair share of transportation infrastructure.

The Elevator Pitch:

• The city’s priorities are apparent in what it allocates funds for. Our public dollars should be used to support the people, not billionaire handouts or vanity projects.

• The current Capital Improvement Program setup leaves almost no money for resident-requested projects. I would advocate for restructuring this program to ensure more projects from the people have the chance to receive funding.

• If the city is going to give away land or provide business or development incentives, we must receive clear, tangible benefits.

THIS YEAR’S BUDGET

Salt Lake City approved the 2025–26 budget totaling $2.2 billion, with $512 million in the general fund. Within the general fund budget, roughly 26% goes to the police department, 11% to the fire department, and 10% to public services. The largest sources of revenue to the general fund is sales tax at 38% and property tax at 29%.

While this year’s budget didn’t include tax increases, utility bills are going up. The city has restructured rates, including a $10 monthly fee for those considered “low water users.”

It is also worth noting that the Council recently voted unanimously to create a new sales tax for 30 years in order to give $900 million to an entertainment group owned by a Provo billionaire. You can read more about this in the next section of this policy, as well as the full policy on this page.

CITY PRIORITIES

The city budget is a reflection of the City Council’s and Mayor’s priorities. For years, the city has claimed to be interested in prioritizing helping our unhoused neighbors, pursuing better housing policies, and finding solutions to ongoing problems. But these items rarely make their way into the budget in a substantial way. The city has limited financial resources, so if something doesn’t appear in the budget, it is not a priority, regardless of the amount of lip service or plans submitted by the mayor.

Planning is necessary for creating real, strategic change in a city. But when endless plans are created and don’t find their way into the budget, then they are little more than hopes and dreams. Salt Lake City has a tendency to release plan after plan, but they rarely go anywhere. 

At times, the city diverts its limited funds to half-hearted vanity projects. Among these is Mayor Mendenhall’s Green Loop. This project would add thousands of trees, 60 acres of greenspace, and a walkable third space downtown. In this year’s budget, $3 million was allocated to this project.

Unfortunately, this was a $3 million lie. The total cost for project construction comes in at between $250 million and $350 million, which doesn’t include yearly ongoing maintenance. The $3 million will develop only a single block, and that single block just happens to be right outside the City and County Building where the Mayor can enjoy it on her lunch breaks. If the Green Loop is ever to become a reality, it cannot happen through the general fund — the city will need to pass a bond that residents will need to vote to accept or reject. 

This $3 million was taken from the Capital Improvement Program funding, preventing projects that needed funding, such as resident-requested traffic calming in Poplar Grove (project #26). 

Another budget priority of the current Council is the privately-owned developments of Provo Billionaire Ryan Smith. The Council voted unanimously to create a new sales tax for 30 years in order to take $900 million from the taxpayers and give it to this private interest. For the next three decades, we will not only be paying for the Delta Center renovation, but the city will also be limited on its ability to raise taxes for urgent needs in the future. To learn more about Smith Entertainment Group, you can read the full policy on this page.

When making budget recommendations and decisions, I will prioritize projects that will help the people instead of vanity projects and billionaire handouts. Our budget must be used for public benefit, not private profit or vanity. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has great potential, but needs some modifications to better serve the community. The program allocated funds for infrastructure needs. According to the City, it allocated $44.2 million to 32 projects through this year’s CIP process, but this doesn’t tell the whole story. When discussing the CIP process, city elected officials and staff often discuss it as a way for the people of Salt Lake City to bring forward important projects for funding, but the numbers don’t reflect this.

This year, 90.9% of all the funding went to projects requested by the city, with less than 10% going to resident-requested projects. When looking by category, this disparity is even more obvious:

• Of the 25 city-requested projects:

  • 72% received full funding

  • 20% received partial funding

  • 8% received no funding

• Of the 26 resident-requested projects: 

  • 19.4% received full funding

  • 5.6% received partial funding

  • 75% received no funding

I broke down the numbers in a spreadsheet that can be viewed here. The full list of requested projects can be viewed here.

The current setup forces residents to compete against city projects for funding. This is difficult because many of the city requests need to be funded, such as repaving roads and fixing damaged traffic signals. This leaves just crumbs for the projects requested by citizens. 

A better approach would be to separate city and resident requests. The city should fund needed infrastructure projects from city departments separately and create a pool of funds just for resident requests. This will level the playing field, allowing resident projects to compete against only each other for a predetermined pool of money, ensuring that more of these requests can get implemented.

INCENTIVES AND TAX BREAKS

There are times where thoughtful incentives and tax breaks can be helpful in bringing businesses or developments to Salt Lake City, but these should be done with strict requirements to ensure the city is benefiting. Any time property is given away for free, or a business is given a tax break, we are losing out on thousands or millions of dollars that could benefit the city and the people. When done, the city must receive clear, tangible benefits from the project. 

For example, a Texas based-developer was given prime real estate downtown for free in exchange for building a handful of discounted-rent units. The land was worth millions of dollars. After demolishing a historic theater, they have refused to begin redeveloping the site. They are two-and-a-half years past the deadline to break ground on the site. The city is not required to give the developer extensions on this deadline but has chosen to do so despite the fact that the developer was able to find almost $150 million to purchase a building in Chicago. With this single deal, Salt Lake City lost millions of dollars that could have come from the sale of the land, destroyed a public treasure, and still has nothing to show for it. We must end these senseless giveaways that harm the city.