Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-24 Public Comment - D. Carty - Economic Vitality Board meeting, Wed, Dec 4, 2024From:Daniel Carty To:Bozeman Public Comment; Brit Fontenot; David Fine Cc:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode Subject:[EXTERNAL]Economic Vitality Board meeting, Wed, Dec 4, 2024 Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 7:27:49 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 place the following comment in the Economic Vitality Board (EVB) folder for their Dec 4, 2024, meeting at 6 pm at City Hall, and please distribute to all EVB members. Thankyou. Dec 4, 2024, 7:30am To: Economic Vitality Board (EVB); Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development and City Staff Liaison to the EVB; David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager; andcomments@bozeman.net for the public record Subject: Dec 4, 2024, EVB meeting. Public comment on Action item F.1: Review Revised Elements of the AHO Part I: The Failure of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (existing and revised) On balance, the City of Bozeman’s (City) existing Affordable Housing Ordinance is a failure. Moreover, the City’s proposed revision of the AHO will also be a failure. Why? Because theAHO, whether existing or revised, (1) does nothing but give away economically valuable public resources—both natural and built—to private developers for little to no communitybenefit and (2) contributes to the ongoing destruction of Bozeman’s historical character and sense of place in the downtown core (i.e., within the Neighborhood Conservation OverlayDistrict, NCOD). Cases in point are the proposed The Guthrie development (versions 1 and 2), the proposed Block B development, the proposed Bozeman Yards development, andeven the proposed 7th and Aspen development. Specifically (but not exhaustive): Neither of The Guthrie proposals will provide “affordable units” that will be affordable to the majority of Bozeman’s workforce; neither will provide sufficient on-site parkingnear an elementary school; and neither will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is in the NCOD. The proposed Block B development will be built for the wealthy only (i.e., zero “affordable units”) and will result in the net loss of affordable housing because on- site Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) will be destroyed and noaffordable housing will be simultaneously built off-site. And, there is no guarantee that any affordable housing will ever be built off-site as part of the proposed landswap deal. Also, the proposed Block B development will be a seven-story monstrosity totally incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood,which is in the NCOD. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/guest_columnists/alison-sweeney- city-s-experimental-ordinance-results-in-a-net-loss-of-affordable- housing/article_c8e600f8-a089-11ef-ada9-b7461fdd1ac6.html The proposed Bozeman Yards development will contain two—count’em—two “affordable units” for sale at 120% AMI while the rest of the units will be luxury units affordable to the wealthy only. Not to mention the proposed design is entirelyincompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is in the NCOD. The proposed 7th and Aspen project pits affordable housing against Bozeman's natural environment—a false choice—and will destroy nearly all of the existing mature trees on the site, thus creating another affordable-housing heat island ofwhich the City can be proud. I note that neither the existing AHO nor the proposed revision to the AHO includes a tree-equity requirement. So much for the City livingup to the goals of its Climate Plan 2020. The final—and perhaps most serious—failure of the existing and revised AHO is that all AHO development projects are administrative-review only, which removesfinal decision-making authority from the City Commission and violates the public’s MT-constitutional rights to participate and to know. The MT Constitution, Article II,Section 8. Right of Participation reads, “The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizenparticipation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.” The MT Constitution, Article II, Section 9. Right to Know reads,“No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and itssubdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” The bottom line here is that the existing AHO is a failure—and the revised AHO will be a failure, too—because developers have figured out how to “game” the AHO such that they can and will build luxury and/or environmentally irresponsible developments while providing almost no housing affordable to Bozeman’s workforce (affordable housing = spending 30% or less of a household’s annual adjusted gross income on rent or mortgage). In the end, the failure of the AHO—existing or revised—lies with the City Commission, which has ceded complete decision-making authority to City staff rather than taking on this important responsibility themselves. Part II. A three-step plan for the City to (1) provide affordable housing for Bozeman’sworkforce, (2) protect the historical character and sense of place of Bozeman’s downtown core within the NCOD, and (3) help conserve Bozeman’s finite watersupply (as a bonus!). If all three of the following steps were implemented simultaneously, the result would be to (1) provide a substantial amount of affordable housing for Bozeman’s workforce, (2) protectthe historical character and sense of place of Bozeman’s downtown core within the NCOD, and (3) help conserve the City’s finite water supply (as a bonus). Here is how the three-stepplan would work: Step 1. Repeal and re-write the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) such that it would no longer apply within the NCOD but instead would apply only to new greenfield development, where it could, e.g., be integrated judiciously into new developments of any size. In a re-written AHO, the City would require that affordable housing units be equitably distributed among buildings and among units within buildings. Step 2. Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) within the NCOD only, thus encouraging Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing to be kept and allowingnew, neighborhood friendly affordable housing to be built as part of redevelopment and infill projects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOXJozSO_mw Step 3. Amend subsection “D” of BMC 38.410.130 - Water Adequacy to require 33% affordable housing in all residential developments of three or more units. In late May, 2024, the Bozeman City Attorney approved the form and content of amendments proposed to subsection “D” of BMC 38.410.130 - Water Adequacy as part ofthe Bozeman Water Adequacy municipal citizen’s ballot initiative, which was submitted by the local grassroots working group, Water Adequacy for Residential Development (WARD).Shortly after this ballot initiative had been approved for signature-gathering by the City Attorney and Gallatin County, the WARD working group voluntarily withdrew it because theCity Attorney imposed a signature requirement of 25% of Bozeman's registered voters rather than a 15% signature requirement (15% was later deemed the correct number for theBozeman Plastics Ordinance). Likely, the form and content of the proposed amended code are still approvable by the City Attorney, and thus the proposed amended code could beadopted by the City itself rather than being re-submitted by the WARD working group and run as a city-wide, municipal citizens’ ballot initiative. Briefly, the proposed amended code—which is quoted below—stipulates that (1) allresidential developments of three or more units may only be allowed to issue a payment to the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights if the development contains 33% or more of affordablehousing. Moreover, the proposed amended code (2) does not allow developers to pay for or otherwise contribute to offsite water efficiency and conservation measures because doingso would be a loophole to stipulation (1). The proposed amended code reads as follows, as excerpted from the full Bozeman Water Adequacy ballot initiative (unchanged text isexisting code, cross-outs are deletions, and underlines are additions): “Sec. 38.410.130. - Water adequacy D. The city will determine the estimated increase in annual municipal water demand attributable to the development. The applicant must offset the estimated increase in annualmunicipal water demand attributable to the development through one or more of the following means: 2. Implementation of onsite and/or offsite water efficiency and conservation measures that reduce the estimated annual municipal water demand attributable to the development by oneor more of the following methods: 3. A Ppayment to the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights for that portion of the estimated annualmunicipal water demand attributable to the development that is not offset under subsections D.1 and D.2. a. Residential developments of three or more units may only be allowed to issue a paymentto the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights if the development contains 33% or more of affordable housing deed-restricted for 75 years or more for sale at 100% AMI or for rent at 60% AMI. The affordable units must be of the same quality and size as those sold or rented at market rate.” Part III. Conclusion If Steps 1, 2, and 3 were all implemented simultaneously, the result would be to (1) provide a substantial amount of affordable housing for Bozeman’s workforce, (2) protect thehistorical character and sense of place of Bozeman’s downtown core within the NCOD, and (3) help conserve the City’s finite water supply. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Daniel Carty213 N. 3rd Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 cc: Mayor Terry Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Joey Morrison, and Commissioners JenniferMadgic, Douglas Fischer, and Emma Bode. P.S. I have cc'd all of the Commissioners because the City's website does not specify which Commissioner is the liaison to the EVB.