HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-24 Public Comment - J. DiMarco - 7th and Aspen and Guthrie AptsFrom:jerrydimarco@mail.com
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]7th and Aspen and Guthrie Apts
Date:Sunday, July 7, 2024 6:41:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Regarding the Boundary Development apartment buildings project at 7th and Aspen, who
would want to live in an apartment on a noisy, dusty, busy road with smog and light pollutionand no yard? It has been documented that living near heavy traffic is bad for human health.
Subjecting people to these living conditions is just a continuation of a long-standing practiceof environmental injustice inflicted on the less fortunate. The only difference is that people
are forced to move into apartments located in an area with undesirable conditions, as opposedto the usual practice whereby polluting industries are permitted near low income
neighborhoods.
You can find conversations online between people who have lived in apartments on busy
roads, discussing whether they would do that again, and the vast majority said they would notbecause of the above reasons, and concerns for the safety of their children and pets. This
implies that those apartments will likely have a high turnover rate, and tenants will suffer theinstability associated with that lifestyle.
Apartments should be located near roads designed for higher traffic and mass transit, butthey do not need to be on those roads. Adjacent roads (the next block over) would be better
locations for apartments because residents would not be subjected to all the noise, dust, glare,trash and pollution. The cost of land along adjacent roads would be less too.
Regarding the Guthrie Project, it is unbelievable that anyone would promote such tiny unitsas affordable. They may cost less than other units around town, but you give up living space,
which has a human cost, and there is no room for storage which means you will likely need torent a storage unit somewhere, which may mean additional commuting and inconvenience.
If you consider the rental cost per square foot, it is in the same range as a luxuryapartment. So you are not really getting a comparable, affordable apartment. Some of these
units are significantly smaller than the national average. This project would put the final nailin the coffin of quality of life in Bozeman. There may be takers, but how long will they stay?
No one would choose to live there long term.
37 parking spaces for 111 units sounds like some sort of cruel joke. I have seen no
discussion of where all the vehicles will park if more than the anticipated number of rentershave vehicles, or some tenants want to entertain. The lack of off-street parking will be a
particular problem in winter when streets get narrower because of inadequate snowplowing. Ground floor parking should be the norm for projects like this.
Traffic is another concern. It appears the Traffic Impact Study considered the impact ofvehicles from the 37 parking spaces only. What about tenants and visitors that must park on
the street? How many will there be? What will be the effect on traffic flow when Villard and
Beall and 5th are lined with parked cars?
I hope you Commissioners and the Planning Dept will send these projects back to thedrawing board until the developers can come up with something more appropriate
and practical, and that shows an understanding of the bigger picture of what is happeningto Bozeman's quality of life and affordability. Thank you for your time,
Jerry DiMarco
Bozeman