The study, commissioned by the Sutherland Institute and nine other conservative groups, says land-use restrictions have cost Utah homeowners hundreds of millions of dollars - adding $18,000 to the price of an average home in the Salt Lake-Ogden area, and $29,000 in Provo-Orem.

But the study's author can't point to a single law or regulation causing the inflation, instead relying solely on his own mathematical formula. Utah home builders and government officials call the study inaccurate, unfair and baseless.

Yes, house prices are climbing, but they say Utah is far from the "crisis" stage. And so-called smart growth initiatives are not the driving force when it comes to home costs. Those are the state's rapidly expanding population, mountains that act as natural barriers to growth and increased cost for building supplies.

"That can't be attributed to the quality growth strategy in any way," said Alan Matheson, executive director of Envision Utah, a nonprofit group that encourages smart growth.

The Sutherland Institute report blames Utah's increasingly costly real estate market on Envision Utah and its supporters.

While the Sutherland Institute's main issues are conservative family values, school vouchers and poverty, the think tank is starting to expand its reach.

"From our mind-set, the price of a house is important," said Sutherland President Paul Mero. "Probably more important than many of the environmentalist concerns thrown out to support smart growth policies."

The Sutherland Institute was one of 10 conservative think tanks from throughout the country to commission the report from environmental economist Randal O'Toole.

He concluded that sprawl is a cheaper alternative to "planning and regulation."

His study examined median family income and the median value of owner-occupied homes in metropolitan areas throughout the country and determined areas with active smart growth campaigns were more likely to have more expensive homes.

Using his formula, O'Toole estimated that restrictive land-use policies have cost home buyers an extra $590 million in Utah. But O'Toole couldn't name a specific state law, county or city ordinance or planning policy that has made Utah homes less affordable.

Neither could Mero.

"If he can't point to the cause, how can he point to the effect?" questioned Dan Lofgren, chairman of the Utah Quality Growth Commission, a division of the state government.

Lofgren is a proponent of planning but he is also a past president of the Utah Homebuilders Association concerned about available private land.

Part of the schism comes down to the definition of smart growth.

O'Toole said cities buying into the smart growth movement have created artificial growth boundaries limiting the use of developable land, mandated open space, placed restrictions on building permits, imposed large impact fees and required large lots in rural areas. O'Toole argues that government should stop protecting open space and get out of the way of the free-market system, which would provide plentiful cheap housing.

Lofgren acknowledges that many of those strategies can inflate the cost of homes, but he says he knows of no community in Utah using such methods.

"From my perspective, the notions of quality growth have moved past that," Lofgren said.

Because of the stigma attached to such smart growth proposals, most Utah planners and Envision Utah have dropped the term and moved to quality growth.

Utah's standard quality growth strategy emphasizes more dense housing in an area with multiple transportation options. The strategy calls for a variety of housing types and costs, but is only voluntary.

Utah doesn't use "coercion," said John Bennett, a staff member for the Quality Growth Commission. "We have never been willing to say we are not going to develop in certain communities."

Matheson says Envision Utah is advocating for more flexible planning policies, not restrictive zoning.

The planning organization is now encouraging cities to think about the elderly population when building new residential areas. Older residents usually want smaller homes, with few stairs and a limited yard. These homes would encourage affordability, he said.

But Utah hasn't always been on the quality growth bandwagon. Lofgren said some southern Salt Lake County cities did zone for larger lots in the early to mid 1990s as a way to try to ward off the impacts of growth. And the larger the yard, the more expensive the home.

"We continue to see the vestiges of that. They substituted open space with yard space," he said. "But now I see cities working hard to try to do the right thing."

mcanham@sltrib.com