State lawmakers want to give churches, synagogues, mosques and other nonprofit religious institutions the ability to use their land to build affordable homes – and do it regardless of whether those projects conflict with area zoning.

With an 11-5 vote Monday, the House Appropriations Committee approved a measure that would give what some have called overly broad leeway for churches – and the developers that would work with them – to construct three-story or more multi-family homes and apartments on the property they own. 

The approval came despite objections by legislators who were worried the new church-owned developments might sharply change the character of residential neighborhoods. 

Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, who also represents Paradise Valley, was unconvinced that the bill could be fixed with new restrictions, such as a 150-foot setback from existing homes, before it becomes law.

“I can still see this three-story apartment complex with significant density in a single-family home,” he said.

“I can certainly see into the windows,” Gress said. “And they can certainly see into my back yard.”

Others, however, have a different perspective.

“This bill is very personal for me,” said Rep. Lorena Austin. “I grew up in multi-family housing.”

But the bigger issue, said the Democrat from Mesa, is the affordability of housing in the area. 

“We have townhouses in my district going for $350,000,” she said. “Housing is something we need very desperately.”

What became clear during Monday’s debate is that the bill, in its current form, is unlikely to get the votes it needs without significant changes.

Several lawmakers agreed to vote to have it go forward to Gov. Katie Hobbs on the promise that it be tightened up to prevent loopholes that would allow developers to “game” the system. But even that may not be enough to overcome opposition from neighborhood groups, opposition that was strong enough last year to kill a similar plan in the Senate.

This measure, HB 2199, is one of several efforts to increase the supply of housing.

Lawmakers approved several last year, including requiring some cities to allow multi-family development in some areas now zoned for single-family homes. And there is a new proposal this year to override some municipal regulations to allow construction of “starter homes” that are smaller than allowed by zoning and on smaller lots.

HB 2199 takes a different approach, at least partly on the premise that churches and other religious institutions have a vested interest in creating more affordable options.

But that still leaves the question of whether, regardless of intent, churches could use the more relaxed rules to erect housing and apartments that would otherwise never be permitted in certain areas.

There are some guardrails already in the bill, beyond height limitations.

One, for example, is that the church would need to own the property for at least three years before it could develop residences that conflict with local zoning laws.

Some, however, consider that to be too broad, and one of the changes being weighed would limit the zoning exemption to the specific property on which the church is located, rather than any piece of land the church owns.

Then there are questions about what happens when the church no longer owns the land, whether the property has been sold, or the congregation no longer exists.

HB 2199 would require that there be a restrictive covenant in the deed – one that would be binding on future owners – that for 55 years at least 40% of the units are set aside for low-income households.

Moreover, the bill seems marred by vague height restrictions. Yes, the bill does mention a three-story limit. But in its current form, it also permits construction up to the height of “a previously existing structure on the eligible site,” something that could include the steeple.

Rep. Kevin Volk, who has previously been involved in commercial real estate, said it’s difficult to find places to put affordable housing within the state.

On one hand, the Tucson Democrat said, neighbors don’t want those who are transients or homeless in their communities.

“And we don’t want to blade virgin desert to create housing,” Volk said.

“And we want the housing to be accessible to services and transportation,” he continued. “to be welcomed by their immediate property neighbors.”

Then there’s the problem of affordability, something that Volk believes can be overcome if property owners are willing to provide it.

“This bill does something, where we are cornered into a crisis where we have 180,000 or 270,000 needed housing units in Arizona,” Volk said in supporting the measure.

But fellow Tucson Democrat Rep. Nancy Gutierrez said she can’t support the measure as it now stands. She also said if lawmakers are serious about making housing affordable they would consider more sweeping changes like rent caps or limiting the ability of out-of-state corporations to buy up housing stock.

Others, like Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, said she is supportive of the concept – but remains unsure of whether she can vote for it.

“I think the church can mostly be counted on to do the right thing,” said the Tucson Democrat. And she also said that “mixed housing is good for our community.”

The problem, Stahl Hamilton said, is political. She said her district includes parts of three counties, encompassing both big city and lots of towns.

“I’ve heard from a couple of the mayors, this bill gives them some heartburn,” she said.

“This has me over a barrel,” Stahl Hamilton continued. “Because if I take to heart that title ‘representative,’ I am at odds on how to represent my constituents.”

In the end, she abstained from voting.

So did Rep. Stacey Travers.

The Democrat from Phoenix acknowledged that Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, the sponsor of the legislation, has promised that there will be changes when the bill reaches the House floor. But Travers said she’s unwilling to support something based on a promise of fixes – on corrections that don’t always occur.

Consider, Travers noted, the decision a decade ago to prohibit cities from banning short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods.

It was billed as a way for a homeowner to make a few bucks by renting out a spare bedroom to visitors during sporting events. Yet, using the regulation, developers bought up homes in neighborhoods specifically for short-term rentals, leading to increased complaints from neighbors and decreased housing supply.

“Just because we build more doesn’t mean it’s going to become affordable or that we’re going to be able to use it for the people that we want to use it for,” Travers said. “If there’s a loophole, somebody will find it.” 

Others, like Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said his problem with the idea was more philosophical.

“When you move the church into a housing project as it is outlined, I’m not really sure it’s well thought out,” he said. “You have the possibility of losing the sacred land and sacred footprint that may be there.”

Gress said he also believes that things should remain sacred, though his focus is different.

“What about the sacredness of single-family neighborhoods?” he asked.