HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-24 Public Comment - Z. Osman - Re_ Deny Application 23354 The Guthrie (2)From:Zehra Osman
To:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Takami Clark; Sarah Rosenberg
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Deny Application 23354 The Guthrie
Date:Monday, July 8, 2024 11:43:26 AM
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.
Please include this citation with my public comment sent earlier this morning:
References/footnote did not transfer when I copied/pasted the 7 characteristics of adequate
housing. Here they are:
The Shift Directives: From Financialized to Human Rights-Based Housing, June 2022. Written by Leilani Farha, Global Director, The
Shift and former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to housing (2014–2020); Sam Freeman, Director of Research and Tenant Advocacy,
The Shift; and Manuel Gabarre de Sus, Researcher and Lawyer, Observatory Against Economical Crime, with substantial contributions
by Julieta Perucca, Deputy Director, The Shift and Alyssa McMurtry, journalist.
On Monday, July 8, 2024, Zehra Osman <zosman534@gmail.com> wrote:
Please post in the public record and also email to Commissioner Emma Bode, for whom I can’t find an
email address.
Honorable Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, Commissioners Madgic, Fischer, and Bode,and City Staff,
There are many reasons to deny application 23354, the Guthrie development. I can’t improve upon the
excellent public comments already submitted to you, which identify the reasons why the Guthrie violates
the goals of the affordable housing incentives program, historic preservation goals within the NCOD, and
how it violates code. I endorse all of these comments.
In particular, I would like to reference and build upon the excellent public comment of Natsuki Nakamura
dated June 29, 2024. The Guthrie offers inadequate, undignified, and over-priced micro-units. Touted as
“affordable housing,” the Guthrie is where Homebase Partners’ employees, who would work at their
many luxury developments downtown, can hand over most of their paycheck to their Homebase Partners
for rent while living in what is essentially a dormitory. It looks like Homebase Partners is turning
Bozeman into their own company town.
I reviewed many development plans and projects in four major U.S. National Parks as a NPS employee
over the course of 40 years. In this capacity, I reviewed countless concessioner dormitory plans where
poorly paid employees who worked split shifts lived within walking distance to their jobs at concessioner
lodging, restaurants, and other commercial facilities - - for the benefit of their employers. The proposed
Guthrie building closely resembles this kind of dormitory with it’s cramped quarters, TV lounge, and
game room. Like concessioners in National Parks, the Guthrie allows Homebase Partners to bring in
workers who don’t have their own cars and are willing to share a 365 square foot “apartment” with
others.
To picture the size of the Guthrie micro-units, think of a standard hotel room. In the United States and
Canada, the average hotel room size is around 325 square feet for a standard room in a mid-range hotel. A
parking space is 10’ x 20’ = 200 square feet. The Guthrie’s micro-units range from 365 - 600 square feet.
Go out to a parking lot and you can see that this range of dimensions is characterized by 1.5 - 3 parking
spaces. These micro-units are either a short term rental, a hotel, or a dormitory. This is NOT affordable
housing!
The question we must as ourselves is whether we’re okay with turning Bozeman into a company town for
Homebase Partners. Are they helping us grow as a community or are they helping their bottom line? We
have to ask why they are so focused on building in and near the downtown area. We have to ask WHO
their developments are being allocated to. Their high rents and exorbitant selling prices reveal the
answers to these questions and, as we all know, there is no such thing as “trickle-down housing.” And,
when Homebase Partners is sad to not have enough labor to clean their pricey apartments and short term
rentals, we have to ask if we are willing to let them build a dormitory rather than adequate and dignified
housing.
The right to housing is the right to live in peace, security, and dignity. Adequate housing requires more
than four walls and a roof. Housing can only be enjoyed if it is “adequate.” Adequacy is regarded as
having the seven key characteristics listed below:
Affordability. Housing is affordable if it is commensurate with household income and not
measured against what the market can command.
Security of tenure. For tenure to be secure, states must adopt legal protections against, for
example, forced eviction, harassment, and other threats; increases in rent causing unaffordability;
construction or renovations causing displacement; or a change of ownership resulting in eviction
or displacement.
Habitability. Housing must be kept in good repair, provide inhabitants with adequate space, and
protect them from the elements, structural hazards, and health threats.
Availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure. Housing must contain the facilities
that are needed to ensure comfort and well-being. This includes access to safe water, sanitation,
heating, cooking space, and washing capacity.
Accessibility. Adequate housing must be sustainable and fully accessible for those who need it,
particularly people who are vulnerable and marginalized.
Location. Housing must be located within reach of vital amenities and sources of livelihoods,
including employment opportunities, health care facilities, and educational establishments.
Housing should also be built only in areas that are safe and away from sources of pollution.
Cultural adequacy. Housing, through its construction methods and materials, should enable
residents to express their cultural identity.
The Guthrie does not meet the majority of these key characteristics.
As a final note, I can’t help but comment on how Homebase Partners did not think that renovating an
existing historic building was profitable for them. Of course they didn’t. They keep proposingincompatible developments because they do not care about Bozeman, they want to make a profit for their
shareholders. If you ever wondered why so many community members advocate for the preservation of
Bozeman’s historic and cultural resources, think of it this way:
Historic and cultural resources, i.e. “Old Places” matter because they:
connect one generation to another
help us put ourselves in someone else’s shoes — someone from another culture, from another
time, when the world was a different place
help us see ourselves and the rest of the world from a different point of view, regardless of our
background
allow us to discover unexpected commonalities
help us learn not only about our own immediate ancestors, but about other traditions as well, such
as indigenous groups who have called this valley their home for thousands of years. We absolutely
must do a better job incorporating this knowledge into Bozeman’s future.
I don’t live anywhere near the NCOD and I endorse its preservation and protection because it’s the right
thing to do. Providing adequate and dignified housing is the right thing to do. We need to stop framing
these two issues against each other — this is the con presented by Homebase Partners and other real
estate investment companies. Don’t fall for the con. We can and should do both.
Respectfully,
Zehra Osman
312 Sanders Ave., 59718