HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-24 Public Comment - N. ten Broek - Addressing the Flaws in the AHO_ A Call for Community-Driven SolutionsFrom:Noah ten Broek
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Terry Cunningham; Emma Bode; Jennifer Madgic; Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Addressing the Flaws in the AHO: A Call for Community-Driven Solutions
Date:Monday, August 19, 2024 12:15:35 PM
Attachments:AHO_Work_Session_Public_Comment.pdf
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.
Dear Members of the Commission,
First and foremost, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your responsiveness to the
public's request by prioritizing a timely and expedited review of the AHO. Your care andthoughtfulness in this matter are of the utmost importance.
Recently, I decided to walk down N. 3rd Ave to observe the progress of the affordable housingproject known as "The N. 3rd Apartments." To my utter surprise and dismay, I realized I was
walking through the structural ramifications of an ordinance that prioritizes one thing aboveall else—units—at the cost of everything else. What I witnessed felt borderline criminal; every
aspect of this development shouted at me.
During my visit, I had the displeasure of meeting a neighbor whose home fronts the
development on the East side of N. 3rd Ave. As she shared her lived experience of pain andsuffering, I felt my own body becoming tense with emotion, nearly hoarse with anger. I cannot
find the words to describe the way my nervous system jittered when walking down this street.
Rather than burden you with the imperfect translation of my body's fight-or-flight response, I
ask only this: take five minutes to park your mode of transport and walk down N. 3rd Ave. Asyou do, imagine yourself living both near the development and within it. Then ask yourself—
could there have been respectful and dignified changes made to the application that wouldhave improved this project, protected the lived experiences of those whose homes front the
development, and enriched the future residents’ experience?
Taking the time to walk this corridor will provide you with all the lived experience necessary
to determine what changes should be made to the AHO. Meanwhile, I will offer my ownsuggestions as a resident who lives in a neighborhood that bears the unfair burden of
shouldering all the new development in the core of our community:
1. Administrative Reviews: Administrative reviews should not be permitted for projects
that exceed a certain size and are likely to have significant impacts on current and futureresidents. My experience with City Staff has revealed a troubling pattern: when
mistakes occur during the developmental review process, there is a noticeable lack ofownership. Often, responsibility is deflected under the guise of "following orders,"
which undermines accountability and fosters a rote, careless approach to decisions thatprofoundly affect our community. To minimize the impact of such oversights, we
should limit their scope of responsibility in the public domain, ensuring that onlyprojects with minimal consequences are subject to administrative review.
2. Holistic Housing Solutions: We cannot simply impose a monoculture approach tosolving our housing problem because our housing challenges are not the result of a
single factor that can be eliminated. Our housing situation is dynamic and complex,requiring solutions as diverse as the origins of the problem itself. The variances we
grant should be flexible, site-specific, and overseen by individuals who are truly
accountable for their decisions. Parking is not the sole variable that can undermine aproject—greed is. As a community, we can address pro forma deficiencies by
collaborating with our non-profit partners, who are transparent about their costs andneeds. Additionally, we could establish a cash-in-lieu system for developments that fall
outside our community’s price range, using those funds to counter the greed embeddedin the returns demanded by REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts).
3. Renaming the AHO: To prevent the misunderstandings and ambiguity associated withthe term "affordable," I propose we rename the AHO to the Targeted Housing
Ordinance. As a community, we may find ourselves in need of specific housing types atvarious income levels at any given time. Referring to the housing ordinances as
"targeted" will foster a clearer understanding within the community and help movebeyond the ongoing "affordability" debate.
4. Community-Owned Housing: I firmly believe that we must utilize all available tools—and develop new ones as needed—to create greater inclusion in our housing stock.
While we continue to incentivize the market to build targeted housing solutions, wemust also initiate a community-owned housing program. This will enable us, as a
community, to set the market for specific vulnerable housing demographics in thefuture, ensuring that everyone has access to the housing they need.
5. Rescind Deep Incentives: Please rescind the Deep Incentives portion of the AHO. Thelast seven months of my life have been profoundly impacted by this broken ordinance.
The time wasted on The Guthrie project and subsequent AHO meetings stems directlyfrom the faulty, exclusive, and bureaucratic nature of the Deep Incentives.
6. Community Participation: When negotiating community resources with developers inexchange for community benefits, the community itself should have been a key
participant in shaping the incentives and determining the benefits. This ordinancedeserves to be re-noticed by mail to every resident in our community. We need the
collective wisdom and collaboration of all our citizens to fully address the complexitiesof our housing challenges.
Thank you for taking the time to read and absorb my comments. As a committed member ofthis community, I am deeply grateful for your service and the thoughtful consideration you
bring to your role. Please know that we, the community, are here to support you as well—donot hesitate to lean on us in return.
Warm regards,Noah ten Broek
406 600 3841
Dear Members of the Commission,
First and foremost, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your responsiveness to the public's
request by prioritizing a timely and expedited review of the AHO. Your care and thoughtfulness
in this matter are of the utmost importance.
Recently, I decided to walk down N. 3rd Ave to observe the progress of the affordable housing
project known as "The N. 3rd Apartments." To my utter surprise and dismay, I realized I was
walking through the structural ramifications of an ordinance that prioritizes one thing above all
else—units—at the cost of everything else. What I witnessed felt borderline criminal; every
aspect of this development shouted at me.
During my visit, I had the displeasure of meeting a neighbor whose home fronts the development
on the East side of N. 3rd Ave. As she shared her lived experience of pain and suffering, I felt my
own body becoming tense with emotion, nearly hoarse with anger. I cannot find the words to
describe the way my nervous system jittered when walking down this street.
Rather than burden you with the imperfect translation of my body's fight-or-flight response, I ask
only this: take five minutes to park your mode of transport and walk down N. 3rd Ave. As you
do, imagine yourself living both near the development and within it. Then ask yourself—could
there have been respectful and dignified changes made to the application that would have
improved this project, protected the lived experiences of those whose homes front the
development, and enriched the future residents’ experience?
Taking the time to walk this corridor will provide you with all the lived experience necessary to
determine what changes should be made to the AHO. Meanwhile, I will offer my own
suggestions as a resident who lives in a neighborhood that bears the unfair burden of shouldering
all the new development in the core of our community:
1.Administrative Reviews: Administrative reviews should not be permitted for projects
that exceed a certain size and are likely to have significant impacts on current and future
residents. My experience with City Staff has revealed a troubling pattern: when mistakes
occur during the developmental review process, there is a noticeable lack of ownership.
Often, responsibility is deflected under the guise of "following orders," which
undermines accountability and fosters a rote, careless approach to decisions that
profoundly affect our community. To minimize the impact of such oversights, we should
limit their scope of responsibility in the public domain, ensuring that only projects with
minimal consequences are subject to administrative review.
2.Holistic Housing Solutions: We cannot simply impose a monoculture approach to
solving our housing problem because our housing challenges are not the result of a single
factor that can be eliminated. Our housing situation is dynamic and complex, requiring
solutions as diverse as the origins of the problem itself. The variances we grant should be
flexible, site-specific, and overseen by individuals who are truly accountable for their
decisions. Parking is not the sole variable that can undermine a project—greed is. As a
community, we can address pro forma deficiencies by collaborating with our non-profit
partners, who are transparent about their costs and needs. Additionally, we could establish
a cash-in-lieu system for developments that fall outside our community’s price range,
using those funds to counter the greed embedded in the returns demanded by REITs (Real
Estate Investment Trusts).
3.Renaming the AHO: To prevent the misunderstandings and ambiguity associated with
the term "affordable," I propose we rename the AHO to the Targeted Housing Ordinance.
As a community, we may find ourselves in need of specific housing types at various
income levels at any given time. Referring to the housing ordinances as "targeted" will
foster a clearer understanding within the community and help move beyond the ongoing
"affordability" debate.
4.Community-Owned Housing: I firmly believe that we must utilize all available tools—
and develop new ones as needed—to create greater inclusion in our housing stock. While
we continue to incentivize the market to build targeted housing solutions, we must also
initiate a community-owned housing program. This will enable us, as a community, to set
the market for specific vulnerable housing demographics in the future, ensuring that
everyone has access to the housing they need.
5.Rescind Deep Incentives: Please rescind the Deep Incentives portion of the AHO. The
last seven months of my life have been profoundly impacted by this broken ordinance.
The time wasted on The Guthrie project and subsequent AHO meetings stems directly
from the faulty, exclusive, and bureaucratic nature of the Deep Incentives.
6.Community Participation: When negotiating community resources with developers in
exchange for community benefits, the community itself should have been a key
participant in shaping the incentives and determining the benefits. This ordinance
deserves to be re-noticed by mail to every resident in our community. We need the
collective wisdom and collaboration of all our citizens to fully address the complexities
of our housing challenges.
Thank you for taking the time to read and absorb my comments. As a committed member of this
community, I am deeply grateful for your service and the thoughtful consideration you bring to
your role. Please know that we, the community, are here to support you as well—do not hesitate
to lean on us in return.
Warm regards,
Noah ten Broek
