HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-25 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Affordable Housing should still be Quality HousingFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Affordable Housing should still be Quality Housing
Date:Tuesday, February 11, 2025 5:03:00 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.
Dear Commission,
In regards to the upcoming discussion of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, I ask the
Commission to move ahead in repealing the existing AHO, but not replace it with a stillproblematic ordinance. As has been mentioned many times, residents of Bozeman do not need
to be convinced that housing is an issue. However, we do need to be convinced that the AHOincentives being offered are actually positively contributing to the solution.
First, please do not allow the language of Sec. 38.380.050. A (on pg 18, my emphasis added):
A. The affordable dwellings must be constructed with the same features, such asappliances, as market-rate dwellings within the same development but the quality of the
features may vary between market rate and the affordable dwellings.
Allowing the affordable units to be of lesser quality will undoubtedly result in affordable unitsof lesser quality. I understand the desire of a developer wanting to market "luxury units" to be
able to charge a premium for their market-rate units, but then all of the units in the complexshould be equally nice. I also understand that fellow residents struggling to find any decent
and affordable housing probably won't have particular counters or fixtures at the top of theirpriorities in their housing search, but we should not allow tiers in our housing where
developers are allowed to trim down the quality of the affordable units in the complex. Allpeople, regardless of their AMI, deserve dignified housing, and no one should be able to tell
which units are the "affordable units" vs the "normal units." This is part of the reason everyoneloves the Bridger View Homes concept - because there was the intentional effort to make sure
the affordable homes are indistinguishable from the neighborhood’s other homes and locatedthroughout the development. While it will be incredibly hard to replicate the financing model
of the Bridger View neighborhood, all of the homes being equally high quality is a modelworth replicating.
I also believe that having all units being of equal quality could be a win-win for tenants and
the property management if it provides more flexibility. For example, if a household crossesthe income threshold for affordable units (perhaps gets a raise or adds another income),
instead of evicting the tenants, perhaps the property management can rent out a different,comparable unit as an affordable unit instead to stay in compliance.
Some other concerns about the proposed AHO:
These incentives continue the same approach of focusing only on funding as many newunits as possible, but does not fund the maintenance. We are never going to be able to
catch up if we keep losing affordable units.Allowing the cash-in-lieu option is a dangerous game to play. As Commissioner Fischer
alluded to during discussion, the potential harm built into this is that certain areas willbe for the rich, while other areas will be for the working class. Perhaps some level of
cash-in-lieu is worth this trade-off, but then it really needs to be a meaningful rate, andbased on the back-of-the-napkin math shared during public comment, it doesn't appear
the cash-in-lieu is a meaningful rate.Why does the City use the 2-person household figure to calculate the rent for a 1-
bedroom? This makes a 1-bedroom more out of reach for an individual or single parent.
Finally, in last month's discussion, there was a lot of concern about providing stability for
developers in the pipeline. Putting aside the fact that a lot more stability could have beenprovided for both residents and developers if the current AHO had been repealed last year as
the City and community took time to figure out how to adjust it, we mustn't think that projectssuch as Hidden Creek are reliant on the existence of something like the Type C incentives.
The Hidden Creek project has stacked an unimaginable and unreplicable amount of subsidy(9% LIHTC, 4% LIHTC, Gallatin County ARPA funds, donated and upzoned land, Housing
Impact Funds, exemptions for project-based vouchers, to name a few). If the lack of Type Cincentives is what causes this project to not pencil, the specific variances needed for this
project could be requested from the City. While the City continues to celebrate the 1000+affordable units in the pipeline, I think the conversation should be more honest with how many
of those projects could've still happened without the incentives and also how "affordable"some of those units will be.
As always, thank you for your time and consideration,
Natsuki Nakamura