Connect with us

Utah

What does ‘Yes in my backyard’ look like for housing? Ask California.

Published

on

What does ‘Yes in my backyard’ look like for housing? Ask California.


There’s one thing Utahns seem to agree on: They don’t want their state to turn into California.

As the housing crisis deepens, however, an expert from the Golden State says without embracing a new approach to city planning and building, Utah could soon be facing the same big problems.

California YIMBY — short, of course, for “Yes in my backyard” — has organized thousands of residents to turn out at public hearings in support of projects and zoning reforms at City Halls, pushing for the benefits of more infill housing.

“The beautiful thing about this issue is that it’s not a Republican or Democratic issue. It’s not a conservative or progressive issue,” Nolan Gray, the group’s research director, told Utah’s chapter of the Urban Land Institute this week. “Red states here like Utah and Montana are leading on this issue; Democratic supermajority states are also leading on this issue.”

Advertisement

The group lobbies state lawmakers as a way of bypassing a patchwork of zoning rules in California cities to encourage construction of more mixed-income housing of the “missing-middle” type — including more accessory dwellings, town houses, smaller starter homes and condominiums, as well as apartments.

There’s also a focus on widening community input on controversial projects and going big picture on master planning, creating new rules and incentives that move more residential projects away from having to go through rancorous public review.

The Salt Lake Tribune interviewed Gray to learn what California pitfalls Utah should look to avoid. (The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)

Nolan Gray, research director for California YIMBY, a pro-housing advocacy group.

What led to the creation of California YIMBY and what do you advocate for?

It’s incredibly hard to build in California and especially in some of our most high-opportunity parts of the state, including Los Angeles, the Bay Area and many parts of the coast.

Advertisement

Amid the 2010s recovery, this came to a head as tech in the Bay Area, in particular, was generating a lot of jobs and a lot of high-income jobs. You had a rising generation of young professionals who, under normal conditions, would have absolutely no trouble finding stable housing, whether that’s an affordable rental or an affordable condo or a town house. Now they were dealing with housing affordability issues that had long imperiled folks at the bottom of the market.

There’s a lot of evidence suggesting that the root cause, or one of the main causes, was a severe housing shortage that was the result of decades of underproduction. … That led to the rise of the YIMBY movement.

The idea was that conversations around housing production — especially infill in our cities, where folks can live car-light or car-free and have access to great jobs and public services — had been totally dictated by NIMBYs, or “not in my backyard” politics.

We know from survey data that NIMBYs are the folks who show up at these Tuesday 10 a.m. public hearings and — it’s going to shock you to hear this — in many cases, they’re not broadly representative of the community.

The original YIMBY idea was: Let’s just go to these meetings and make the case that, “Hey, more housing would be good.” Not only would it not cause all these harms that folks are hysterically alleging, but it would actually improve our lives. It would bring more people in our community. It would allow folks who grew up here to stay here. It would allow folks who need to move to certain places for economic opportunity or for political refuge to move to these places.

Advertisement

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) Carolyn and Brett Mateson constructed an ADU, or accessory dwelling unit, shown in 2023, in the back lot of their home.

Describe that evolution from advocacy on specific projects at the city level to a focus at the state level

Imagine you’re in the Bay Area in the 1970s. You bought your home for two magic beans, and now it’s worth $5 million. And, by the way, because of Prop 13, you pay no property taxes.

In one sense, you won the lottery but, in another sense, your young adult children can’t afford to live anywhere near you.

They’ve gone to Utah to afford the price of housing there, so you’re never going to see them. You never going to see your grandkids. If you want to retire in your community, you basically have to leave because there are no affordable housing options. Then everybody who serves you, maybe at the supermarket or at the hospital, they’re in a housing precarious situation, but it’s just impossible to keep people on with the cost of everything that’s going up around you.

So part of what happened in a place like California was it got so bad that it started affecting the vast majority of people. … I’ve seen YIMBY groups form when there’s good mixed-income infill projects that by a normal person’s standards would be relatively inoffensive, but that are generating these controversies. … [People complain] these projects might not have enough parking, or they have too many homes, or they’re slightly too tall, or they’re slightly too close to the street — qualities that, in many cases, folks would say it’s actually better if we have more homes or new developments that are more situated toward the street, or projects with fewer parking spaces that’ll generate less traffic.

Advertisement

So it starts with that project-based advocacy, then it generally moves to citywide reforms.

But then there’s also a realization — and this is true in a place like metro Salt Lake City as in California — that the big cities are doing fairly decent reform to varying degrees, but then a lot of the suburbs are really doing nothing.

If you’re only liberalizing reform on 40% to 60% of your metro area, your ability to scale up housing production in an equitable way, including in some of the most high-opportunity suburbs, which are often the least likely to reform on their own volition, then you’ve got to advance some of these conversations to the state level.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sage Villas town homes in Ivins in May 2023.

What have been some of California’s best moves to encourage more housing?

One of the most effective things we’ve done in California has been legalizing accessory dwelling units statewide. A lot of states have some version of this. Utah has even passed legislation on this.

Advertisement

In California, we actually first “legalized” ADUs statewide in 1982 but what we said was, “OK, local governments, you can write whatever standards you want for ADUs. As you probably could guess, this resulted in basically no ADUs. Every single jurisdiction immediately came up with an ordinance that made it impossible for these things to be built — and California was building ADUs in the dozens.

In 2017, California said, “OK, we are going to set up a clear, workable statewide framework for ADUs. We’re going to say, every jurisdiction in California, you have to allow ADUs subject to these standards.” … It was probably one of the most popular things the California Legislature has done in the past 10 years. It kicked off the building boom. We’re now approaching something like 100,000 ADUs permitted in California since 2017.

Another thing we’ve done in California is say that within half-mile of transit, you cannot impose minimum parking requirements.

If a developer wants to build units there, and they’re saying, “Hey, I can actually build these without having to build tons and tons of parking” [which would drive up rents and home prices], the state has now said you can’t mandate construction of parking.

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Worthington Residences, a new 31-story residential tower that opened in Salt Lake City, with 359 luxury apartments, is pictured in July 2024.

Advertisement

How can a city like Salt Lake make it easier to connect with a more diverse sector of residents, including more renters, folks with jobs and kids that are too busy to attend meetings, etc.?

For many people, it’s very scary to go to these meetings and testify, especially if you’re in a room full of people who oppose the project, you know, and you’ll face hecklers. For other folks, that might not be the level at which they can engage, but we’re helping to build them up, making folks aware of the opportunities, providing accommodations, making it a social thing.

The more broader, structural things planning departments and city councils can be doing is diversify, but also to figure out what you actually need a public process on.

You can have public engagement that involves child care or food provided that actually makes them enticing for normal people to show up, or just paying people for their time, making sure you’re getting a broad representation of the community that you can do that at the general-plan stage in a way that you can’t do on that project-by-project-based approach.

What’s your advice for Utah’s Wasatch Front?

I talk to so many places where they’re always trying to blame everything on outsiders coming in and bidding up the price of housing. And, yeah, Californians coming in and making cash offers on homes, that’s definitely contributing to the problem. But you have people from all over the country who want to move to a place like Utah. I’m sorry to say, Salt Lake is a very nice place to live. People have discovered that, and they’re going to keep coming.

The option facing a community that’s dealing with growth pressures, are these:

Advertisement

• You don’t change the built environment at all. And the people dramatically change because the prices go up. The folks who were born and raised in the community, they get priced out. Only very wealthy people can move in. You end up in a case like in every meaningful sense, your community is different.

• Or you say, the built environment of our community is going to change in an incremental and steady way, as it has for all of history. We’re going to incrementally allow apartment buildings on corridors, more missing-middle ADUs, and then the type of person who was born and raised here — the type of person who built this community in the first place — can stay here, or people like them can come.

One of the shocking things from the 2020 census was a lot of these jurisdictions are losing population very rapidly.

Go to some of these no-growth suburbs of Los Angeles in the ’70s and ‘80s that built out as single-family homes on 5,000-square-foot lots and strip malls. That suburb probably looks exactly as it did in the ‘80s, but all those affordable homes and households that had working- and middle-class families with lots of kids, lots of retirees who could downsize, lots of diversity, lots of new people coming and going — that’s all gone away.

In many cases, these are very old and wealthy communities where, in every meaningful sense, the community has died. They are closing schools. Cultural institutions are dying off — all because they said, “We don’t want our community to change” and what they get is their community radically changing in every meaningful sense of the word “community.”

Advertisement

So, Utah, don’t go down the California path. I come from a future that you can avoid. We’ve gone down this path. You don’t have to replicate this. You can actually situate yourself in a much more positive way.



Source link

Utah

A new law in Utah allows students to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs

Published

on

A new law in Utah allows students to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs


OGDEN, Utah — The syllabus in 18-year-old Madelynn Wells’ introductory film studies class assigned “Jaws” first, and then the Spanish dark comedy “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.” She said she watched those, and did the written assignments with no problem. 

Around the third week of the term, the assignment was a film called “Pariah.” She hadn’t heard of it, so she looked it up and found that it was a coming-of-age film about a young woman who turned away from her conservative family to live as a lesbian.

Wells, a freshman at Weber State University who said she’s a devout Catholic and a political conservative, felt uneasy. She didn’t want to watch the film, and the idea of writing a paper on it made her even more uncomfortable. 

Advertisement

“I feel like whenever you put something in writing it just feels more serious,” Wells said. 

She decided to drop the class. 

In Utah, with a large and devout religious population, Wells is not alone in trying to uphold her religious beliefs while getting a college education. 

A new state law offers these students a unique protection: If something in a class conflicts with their strongly held religious or personal beliefs, students can ask their professor for an alternative assignment or exam. And as long as their request doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the course, the professor is now required by law to allow the student to opt out. 

Advertisement

The law has some guardrails that protect against accommodation requests that are universally considered absurd. For example, a student won’t be able to claim a moral objection to math in a college algebra course. And the law requires faculty to make these accommodations only in courses that are part of a college’s general education requirement or are required for the student’s major.

Despite those protections, the law is polarizing. Proponents say that students shouldn’t be required to do assignments or take exams on topics that compromise their morals unless it’s absolutely necessary to advance in their field of study. Opponents argue that engaging with beliefs they don’t hold helps students understand their own views better. 

This Utah law is the first of its kind targeting higher education, but it’s an extension of concerns being expressed at the K-12 level. There have been efforts to emphasize conservative and religious values in public schools, and limit what can be taught about subjects including racial history, gender and sexuality. The Utah law is also reminiscent of a case the Supreme Court took up last year, in which the justices sided with parents of public school students who wanted to take their children out of class during lessons that violate their religious beliefs — such as using books about LGBTQ+ identities. President Donald Trump has said that colleges are “corrupting our youth and society with woke, socialist, and anti-American ideology.” 

And over the past few years, there have been dozens of state-level bills — including one in Utah — banning initiatives or programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Lawmakers in other states have gone after what’s taught in the classroom and how certain issues, like race and gender identity, are discussed. The legislative approach here is different. Instead of dictating what can or cannot be taught, the new Utah law shifts the power to students who now have the agency to decide when curriculum crosses a line for them. 

Amy Reid, who directs the Freedom to Learn initiative at the free speech advocacy organization PEN America, said it’s the responsibility of faculty to help all students get the most out of what’s being taught. Some accommodations — like those for students with disabilities or religious students who need to reschedule exams for religious holidays — help faculty meet that goal, she said. This one, she said, does not. 

Advertisement

Rather than “encourage students to shut their eyes or plug their ears or throw a book out the window,” she said, “You encourage students to engage with ideas, and you provide them with the support that they need — which can be different for individual students — so that they are able to complete the work.”

“Being exposed to ideas that you disagree with doesn’t mean you’re going to change your mind, but it should make you clearer about what it is that you believe and why,” Reid added.

Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

Wells, a zoology major, was taking the film course to fulfill a general education arts credit. After dropping it, she had more than two dozen other classes to choose from to earn that credit. She picked photography. 

Advertisement

But if she had needed the course to graduate, she said she would have had to swallow her discomfort or work up the courage to talk to her professor about an alternative assignment. In the case of the film studies course, perhaps she could have watched a different coming-of-age film, or another film by a Black screenwriter — depending on the goal of that assignment. (Her professor declined to comment.) 

Seth Mulkey, a junior at Utah State University in Logan, said he felt uncomfortable in his general education biology class when the course topic turned to evolution. Mulkey, an evangelical Christian, said he believes that God created the Earth in seven days.

“It can be a bit disheartening to have to learn about something and have something proposed as fact when it’s not something that you’re in agreement with,” Mulkey said. He tries to keep his beliefs to himself and instead, he said, “I’ll do my best to engage from an intellectual standpoint with this idea. So, if this is the assumption we’re making about how this works, we’ll talk about it, we’ll see what conclusions are there.” 

Even if the law had been in effect when he took that biology class, Mulkey said he wouldn’t have asked for an accommodation to get out of uncomfortable group discussions. But writing assignments might have been a different story. 

“If the assignment were to write an essay supporting this view, write an essay about why evolution is correct and why it is the right view of the creation of the world — I think at that point, I would want to step back,” Mulkey said. 

Advertisement

Politicians say left-wing professors push their views. New poll shows students don’t see it that way

Utah appears to be the most religious state in the country. About 76 percent of Utah residents are religious, compared to only about 49 percent nationwide, according to a 2024 report from the Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that about 50 percent of all residents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and another 13 percent identify as members of other Christian denominations. 

Michael J. Petersen, a Republican state representative from Logan, said the idea for the bill came after his daughter was assigned to write a letter to a legislator in support of LGBTQ+ rights as part of a master’s degree program at an out-of-state college. The assignment was in conflict with her beliefs, so she called her dad for help. 

He helped her write “something that was very, very bland.” She moved on — and he began drafting the legislation. 

Had Petersen’s daughter been an undergraduate student at a public college in Utah, the law would have helped her in two ways. It would have prohibited her instructor from requiring that she take a specific public stance (such as sending a letter) on anything that is a “political, social, religious, moral, or community matter.” And it would have allowed her to ask her professor for an alternative assignment.

Advertisement

Petersen said he believes that his daughter’s assignment was to write the letter and also send it. (The Hechinger Report was not able to independently confirm this.)

Most faculty and education advocates, whatever their politics, agree that requiring her to send the letter would be inappropriate.

Mike Gavin, the president and CEO of the Alliance for Higher Education, said it is reasonable for a professor to ask a student to take on other perspectives during an in-class debate or in a written assignment. But it shouldn’t be taken outside the classroom. 

“In no way, shape or form should they be required to publicly sign their names to something. That would be very problematic,” Gavin said. “That, I think, would be a personnel issue that an institution should handle. That is not an academic freedom issue. That is actually using students for things that are political.” 

And, he said, in 30 years in higher education he’s never heard of it happening. 

Advertisement

Gavin said he thinks it’s unnecessary to give students such broad permission to opt out of coursework that conflicts with their beliefs. There are cases in which it’s appropriate, but those already come up and are handled on a case-by-case basis between professors and students, he said. 

“It’s entirely probable — I say this facetiously and also seriously — that a freshman in college doesn’t know everything yet,” Gavin said. “They need to engage with ideas they have not come across. Even if they end up being uncomfortable for a minute, that doesn’t mean that they’re traumatized.” 

Conservative-leaning civic centers now teach courses at public colleges 

Outside of Utah, many people might gawk at the idea of students opting out of coursework that makes them feel uncomfortable, and worry about the broader implications of such a policy. But among Utahns, there seem to be wider-ranging and more nuanced perspectives.

It’s partly because they’ve been down this road before. In 1998, a Mormon theater student at the University of Utah objected to reading a script with profanity. The student sued the university, accusing faculty of essentially pushing her out after she was given the choice to recite the lines as written or leave the program. 

Advertisement

A settlement agreement required the university to write a policy to deal with coursework objections related to sincerely held beliefs. But the policy still requires that students be able to understand and articulate ideas and theories that are important to the course, regardless of whether they agree with or believe them. The new law does away with that requirement. 

High school speech and debate allows students to find common ground 

Sarah Projansky, the vice provost for faculty and academic affairs at the University of Utah and a professor of film and gender studies who has examined the representation of sexual violence in film and media, said she’s had students walk out of class film screenings during intense moments. If a student says they can’t watch a certain film, she says she works with them to find an alternative. 

“It’s not my business why a student can’t be there. Religion, sincerely held belief of conscience, memory, family memory. It doesn’t matter, they can’t be there,” Projansky said. “Anything that’s not pedagogically necessary is very easy to accommodate.”

Nicole Allen, a communications professor at Utah State, said she thought the law was “a solution in search of a problem,” given existing policies at public institutions and the fact that most professors are able to handle these issues on a case-by-case basis. 

Advertisement

Still, she thinks there’s no need for students to experience “gratuitous discomfort” in the name of academia, she said, as long as accommodations wouldn’t take away from the big-picture goals of the course. 

Although the law doesn’t concern what professors are allowed to teach, some worry that it could still influence academic freedom.

Reid, of PEN America, worries that faculty may overcorrect. They might leave controversial reading materials off their syllabuses or dodge subjects that tend to make students feel uncomfortable, in order to avoid consequences. Those range from the extra work of writing new assignments and test questions to the bureaucratic headache that comes with denying a request to, in the worst and least likely scenario, becoming caught up in a public controversy if a student takes issue with something they’re being taught. 

She said it makes sense that professors would not want to end up like Melissa McCoul, who was fired from Texas A&M University after a student recorded her teaching about gender identity, or Mel Curth, the graduate teaching assistant who lost her job at the University of Oklahoma after she failed a student who had turned in a poorly written psychology paper using only the Bible as a source. 

Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are coming after tenure 

Advertisement

Though students can now choose to opt out of coursework on difficult topics, many Utah public colleges go to great lengths to encourage them to do the opposite outside the classroom. Many institutions host regular forums where students can come together for facilitated conversations on controversial topics and engage with classmates who hold differing opinions. Often, the colleges offer free lunch to incentivize students to dig into tough topics. 

At Weber State, the dialogue programming is run by the Walker Institute of Politics and Public Service. On a recent Wednesday, a group of students, staff, and current and retired professors came together at a long, conference room table to discuss the war in Iran over sub sandwiches and chips. 

Strict rules protect the integrity of conversations: Everyone has to read the same article, there’s to be no use of tech devices and no note-taking, and nothing that is said should be shared outside that space. 

Leah A. Murray, the institute’s director and a professor of political science and philosophy, said the rules exist so that everyone feels comfortable speaking freely. (The group made an exception to the no note-taking rule for the reporter in the room.) 

Advertisement

Sometimes Murray selects the topic, but sometimes the topic comes from a student.

Adam Nichols, a 43-year-old junior who is studying to become a high school teacher, said he proposed the idea to Murray because he wanted to be able to talk about the Iran conflict with people in his life, but he felt he didn’t quite have the language to feel comfortable doing so.

When he’s been forced to reckon with his strongly held beliefs, both in class and in various Walker Institute Talks, he said, “It forces me to reassess other areas where I may have been wrong. And I would much rather be wrong and be corrected than to continue under those false pretenses.” 

Despite her appreciation for difficult conversations with people she doesn’t necessarily agree with, Murray sees value in making the types of accommodations in the law. Her views are informed by her own experience as a vegan, animal-loving undergraduate who opted to fulfill her science requirement with geology instead of biology to avoid having to dissect a pig.

“I was unwilling to do that,” Murray said. “It was a violation of my conscience at that time.”

Advertisement

She said that experience has also informed the way she handles difficult issues with her students. At the beginning of each term, she says, “If you’re going to go to hell for learning this, please drop this class.”

She delivers it just like that, she said, and her students always laugh. But she’s serious. 

“I don’t want to be responsible for your salvation being denied because you learn something in this class.”

Contact staff writer Olivia Sanchez at 212-678-8402 or osanchez@hechingerreport.org

This story about religious beliefs and college students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

Advertisement

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/new-law-utah-student-coursework-religious-beliefs/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=116311&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/new-law-utah-student-coursework-religious-beliefs/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>



Source link

Continue Reading

Utah

Utah Royals FC Returns Home to Host Racing Louisville FC Chasing Eight Match Unbeaten Streak | Utah Royals

Published

on

Utah Royals FC Returns Home to Host Racing Louisville FC Chasing Eight Match Unbeaten Streak |  Utah Royals


HERRIMAN, Utah (Thursday, May 14, 2026) — Utah Royals FC (5-2-2, 17 pts) returns to the Beehive State this weekend to host Racing Louisville FC (2-1-5, 7 pts) for the first meeting between the two clubs during the 2026 campaign on Sunday, May 17, at America First Field. Kickoff is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. MT.

Utah enters Sunday’s contest following a hard-fought 0-0 road draw against Bay FC at PayPal Park, earning another clean sheet while continuing the club’s streak of never allowing Bay FC to score at home against Utah Royals FC. The point on the road marked Utah’s 11th away point of the 2026 campaign, equaling the club’s combined road-point total from both the 2024 and 2025 seasons.

Advertisement

The Royals were tested throughout the opening half, with one of Bay FC’s best opportunities coming in the 40th minute when Racheal Kundananji broke forward on a dangerous run through the middle of the pitch before entering the penalty area. Midfielder Narumi came up with a crucial defensive stop, diving in front of the attempt and deflecting the shot away with her leg to preserve the scoreless draw. The sequence highlighted Utah’s defensive commitment, with multiple Royals players sprinting back to disrupt the Bay FC attack and protect the clean sheet heading into halftime.

Utah continued to remain organized defensively throughout the second half, limiting Bay FC’s opportunities and securing its fifth clean sheet of the 2026 season. The result extended the Royals’ unbeaten streak to seven consecutive matches while also leaving Bay FC winless against Utah through five all-time meetings between the clubs.

With the result, Utah extended its unbeaten streak to seven consecutive matches, continuing the Royals’ impressive run of form heading into Sunday’s home match against Racing Louisville FC.

Advertisement

Head Coach Jimmy Coenraets and his squad now look to build on an impressive seven-match unbeaten streak, alongside multiple consecutive clean sheets against Chicago Stars FC, Seattle Reign FC, Angel City FC, Houston Dash, and most recently Bay FC. The result against Bay extended Utah’s strong run of form as the Royals continue to establish themselves as one of the league’s toughest defensive sides. Utah now returns home looking to carry that momentum into America First Field in front of its home crowd while aiming to extend both its unbeaten streak and defensive success.

Now in his second full season at the helm, Head Coach Coenraets continues molding a balanced squad built on defensive discipline, midfield control, and attacking creativity. Sunday’s contest presents another opportunity for Utah to extend its unbeaten streak to eight consecutive matches while collecting crucial points at home in front of the club’s supporters at America First Field.

Advertisement

Racing Louisville FC enters the matchup with a 2-1-5 record, most recently earning a 3-1 home victory over Portland Thorns FC after suffering back-to-back defeats. Led by Head Coach Bev Yanez, Racing Louisville FC will look to build on its return to winning form and secure all three points on the road at America First Field.

Sunday’s contest marks the tenth match of the 2026 NWSL regular season for the Royals and the ninth for Racing Louisville FC, with both sides aiming to secure valuable early-season points and strengthen their position in the league standings.

WATCH LIVE on Victory+ with Josh Eastern and McCall Zerboni :: Utah Royals FC vs Racing Louisville | America First Field | 6:00 p.m. MT

Advertisement

WATCH LIVE on Victory+ with Kelley O’Hara and Ali Riley :: Utah Royals FC vs Racing Louisville | America First Field | 6:00 p.m. MT

LISTEN via KSL Sports Radio (102.7 FM / 1160 AM) starting at 5:30 p.m. MT

Advertisement

Following Sunday’s match, Utah Royals FC will remain in the Beehive State to host inaugural side Denver Summit FC on Saturday, May 23, at America First Field. Kickoff is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. MT, with tickets available for purchase here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Utah

‘It means building hope’: USU brings independence to refugee group through chicken coop project

Published

on

‘It means building hope’: USU brings independence to refugee group through chicken coop project


SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Refugee communities in Utah are being supplied with farm-fresh eggs and poultry thanks to a collaborative effort between Utah State University and Utah Refugee Goats.

According to Utah Refugee Goats (URG), their goat and poultry farm supplies refugee communities with reliable, affordable and culturally familiar sources of meat. Thanks to Utah State University (USU) agriculture students, it’s getting some ‘egg’stra attention.

Over the last 10 weeks, Brad Borges, a Ph.D candidate for career and technical education, has been taking a hands-on approach with his students to construct a new chicken coop with the support of a mobile construction lab and a $20,000 grant.

According to URG President Abdikadir Hussein, the coop is equipped with fully enclosed roofs and will increase their flock by 40%, meaning faster growth for the Salt Lake City-based farm. As a refugee, though, Hussein said it means even more.

Advertisement

“It means resiliency. It means independence. It means building hope. Hopelessness is something that is killing the most refugees inside,” he expressed. “I came as a refugee, and hope is the last everything that ever came to mind.”

“We feel like even the birds are happy, like they want to get into there,” he added.

From the student perspective, being able to build a project that will be used to generate money for refugee groups was incredibly engaging and inspirational, according to Borges. The sentiment is shared by Joseph Okoh, extension assistant professor of small acreage livestock.

“It’s a win-win situation for everyone,” Okoh said. One, we are getting the coop for the refugee group, these students are going to learn from the construction of the coop, and not only that, everybody is going to be happy to be part of this community to be able to develop a better coop for better production.”

To learn more about issues facing refugees in Utah and how to support them, visit Utah Refugee Goats’ website.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending