HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-24 Public Comment - S. Kirchhoff - Application 24-107 public commentFrom:Steve Kirchhoff
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Application 24-107 public comment
Date:Friday, December 13, 2024 3:08:32 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.
Dear Interim Development George:
I am writing in regard to Application 24-107 at 805 N. Ida.
I would like to address the applicant’s use of shallow incentives, the mass and scale of theproposed south building, the vacation or re-routing of N. Ida, and the take-over of the public
park, often referred to as Northern Pacific Park, by the property owner.
At the time of this writing, apartments.com lists 1,183 apartments for rent in Bozeman. Myreason for citing this number is to point out that the need for new rental housing is low. Thecurrent vacancy rate in rental housing is over 7% and that number more than doubles to over15% in luxury rental housing. The need to stimulate luxury apartments is arguably nihil. Theseobservations weaken the argument for granting “shallow incentives” to a proposed buildingthat does next to nothing to alleviate the profound need for equity housing for working people.Supposedly the shallow and deep incentive programs are manifestations of the city’s oftenexpressed desire to increase affordable housing, both rental and equity housing. A reasonableperson would not consider the housing offered by this building to be an answer in any way tothe city’s desire.
Moreover, the mass and scale of the building, its hyper-non-contextual appearance of anindustrial ski lodge set in the midst of the modest 19th residential and humbly heterogeneous
mixed-use historic northeast neighborhood, militate against approving the building asproposed. The two units of affordability offered in exchange for an extra storey in height are
not enough. I do not know how many units would suffice. Maybe the entire building offered at40% of AMI for a term of 100 years. As it is, the sole beneficiary of the shallow incentive is
the project development team.
As designed, the building is indifferent to the essence of the neighborhood which in part drivesthe capitalization of the whole project. The building is the architectural equivalent of breakinggrandma’s piggy bank to start a pay-day loan business. The project site is already undulybenefitting from a wild-hare investment of nearly $4 million in TIF monies. I know this is theseason of giving, but wow!
I am wanting to suggest that this building, like other recent projects already enjoying the
bonuses of shallow and deep incentives, leave citizens wondering why the city spends such aninordinate amount of time protecting developers’ bottom-lines. It makes one ask: What is the
desired social order of the city commission, really? A continuous proliferation of platformbuildings for the rootless and moneyed class to use for extracting rents from others in the
moneyed class?
Whether they admit it or not, in projects like 24-107, commissioners are perpetuating an elite
culture based on exploitation through rents. Rather than a building, 24-107 is monetizablespace. It is rentable space, commodified space for extracting rents from transitory occupants.
This concern for the social order we are building should be everyone’s concern. This concernis intimately connected to decisions you and the planning staff and econ development
personnel and the commissioners make every time they review development projects. Eachdecision creates a society from the ground-up, and we cannot pretend that decisions are
justified if they hasten the pace in reaching the (supposedly communal) goal of housingequity. In this project and others, more is being taken by developers than given by them to the
city.
Finally, project 24-107 appears to be engulfing Northern Pacific Park and converting it (atleast visibly, perceptually) from a public to a private park. Stripping the park of two sides ofwhat are now four sides of public right-of-way contradicts BMC that calls for 100% publicROW bounding public parks. Additionally, North Ida is slated to be partially abandoned tohelp the building open its maw and consume the public park. Perhaps the sidewalk runningalong the western edge of the park constitutes access, but the sidewalk seems beholden to 24-107; it seems to be an adjunct to the private domain. That is why I say this park will appear tobe private and will ward members of the public off. This will constitute a decline in quality oflife for the neighborhood as it improves the amenities of 24-107.
Have these contemplated actions—the partial vacation of Ida and reduction in public rights of
way fronting the park—gone through the commission—as called for by BMC?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Best of luck and best wishes. And happy holidays.
Sincerely
Steve Kirchhoff