HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-25 Public Comment - S. Kirchoff - Reclaim Review of the second Guthrie application!From:Steve Kirchhoff
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Reclaim Review of the second Guthrie application!
Date:Monday, December 30, 2024 3:25:38 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 Mayor Cunningham and Commissioners:
I am writing in connection to the development incentives program and its relation to review
and approval processes.
The development incentives program puts the city into a negotiation with private parties, and
it converts certain qualities of the built environment, which are laid down in the zoning code,
into tradeable assets. Design and material quality, building mass and bulk and height, open
space, and parking are some of these now tradeable qualities—or, more accurately, assets—
of the built environment that rightly elicit intense interest from citizens. These assets do not
belong to the City of Bozeman; they belong to the public and are held in trust for them by you,
the citizens’ legal agents.
Bozemanites care deeply about social justice and access to housing. Housing is a fundamental
necessity, a public good that should not be considered as just another commodity—and yet,
not only our state but also our federal government (and many other nation-states globally) are
failing to correct a housing marketplace that is obscenely prejudicial against working people.
Now, the people of Bozeman, particularly longtime and working-class residents, did not create
and do not contribute to the housing affordability crisis, and yet their interest in these
community assets is being traded with developers in exchange for some affordable rental
apartments.
What I mean to say is, the incentives program needs more critical scrutiny than it has received
from the city commission so far. The circumstances governing the trade of public assets for
affordable housing is one dimension needing stricter control to ensure that public assets are
used in fair trades for affordability. The commission must provide this scrutiny in an open and
transparent process including public hearings.
The public needs to hear and understand the city’s rationales, not read in the newspaper after
the fact that a project was approved because a department director believed it “checked all
the boxes.” Major projects present many variables for consideration and therefore ample
room for reviewers to apply valid and differing judgments. In its first iteration, the Guthrie was
narrowly defeated, 3-2, in a close vote taken after prolonged discussion.
Beyond the concern about review procedures for proposed development projects are other
equally important ones. Since the incentives are a response to housing market conditions,
which are themselves subject to fluctuations, the very need for the incentives will itself
fluctuate as market conditions change. “Supply and demand” is the guiding principle used by
the city to explain price, but to my knowledge the city does not have a metric that describes
when markets are “under” or “over” or “sufficiently” supplied.
Having such a metric seems important, because one can imagine—and should imagine!—
conditions under which providing incentives is not appropriate—such as a situation of over-
supply. What would be the point in trading away open space or quality materials to a project
when an over-supply of apartments already exists?
Lastly, public hearings are important because neighbors of proposed project sites often have
more detailed knowledge of the history and actual conditions of the area surrounding the
project site than applicants and city staff possess. Neighbors are motivated. They are often
scrupulous readers of submittal documents—a quality which, when added to their
background knowledge, makes them uniquely positioned to spot errors and insufficiencies and
misrepresentations in development applications. Without a public hearing process, it can be
difficult to know if neighbors’ input into a project has been duly considered by city personnel
charged with reviewing the project.
For instance, in Guthrie I, applicant mis-characterized studio apartments as single-bedroom
units, an error that was corrected after neighbors who detected it brought it to the city’s
attention. This was a significant error. In Guthrie I, applicant maintained that the goals of the
MURD should take precedence over provisions of the NCOD, which was incorrect. Again,
neighbors caught this mistake. And after applicant failed to conduct due diligence on the
viability of the convalescent center occupying the project site, neighbors were there to insist
that it be conducted properly.
These are a few of the missteps in Guthrie I. More recently, while moving Guthrie II through
the process, applicant was granted a release from a stay on demolition of the convalescent
center after mis-stating he had met with “a community group” empowered to speak for the
neighborhood. The two individuals with whom applicant met, Emily Talago and Noah ten
Broek, are not leaders of an official or unofficial community group and were not authorized by
any group to speak on its behalf.
In Guthrie II applicant uses circular logic to declare that the surrounding neighborhood is
urban. Applicant claims the Sapphire Motel, a single-storey mid-century structure fronting
North 7th, will be 4.5 stories in the future, and applicant says the spire of a church near the
Guthrie site qualifies it as a three-storey structure. On this basis, applicant maintains that the
four-storey Guthrie II is in keeping with the neighborhood’s urban character.
Clearly the “vetting” done by motivated neighbors is critical in assembling a clear picture of
the facts and all that is at stake in a development proposal. For these reasons, I urge you to
maintain a strong commitment to public process on all development in our city—and most
particularly on all projects that proceed through the incentives program.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Good luck with this and with all matters that
come before you.
Sincerely,
Steve Kirchhoff