Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-25 Public Comment - The Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Public Comment_ Affordable Housing OrdinanceFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment: Affordable Housing Ordinance Date:Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:34:20 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. Hello, Please accept the following public comment on the Affordable Housing Ordinance, submitted on behalf of The Gallatin Valley Sentinel. Thank you. On Tuesday, February 11, the City Commission will be determining the future of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). This second reading comes after their meeting on January 28 where they proposed several amendments to the ordinance that will repeal and replace the current AHO if it is approved. Rather than considering the specific incentives and code relaxations of the proposed AHO, we believe that the most effective evaluation of the ordinance comes by zooming out and asking some really important questions that we should be able to answer before moving forward with the AHO, and the UDC for that matter. The city and other proponents of the AHO often create a false choice of tradeoffs that residents must choose between. For example, we are often told that there are only so many “levers” the city can pull to create affordable housing, so we are posed with the question, “Would you rather have increased height allowances or decreased (or no) parking requirements?” For the majority of Bozeman residents, the answer to this is neither. We have lived experience now that has taught us how this plays out: reduced or no parking requirements does not change consumer behavior; people still prefer to drive, and while Bozeman’s public transit system serves a purpose for some, it is not a feasible substitute for vehicles. We’ve heard that developers won’t build multi-family apartment buildings and not provide parking, but they have. So then what? The burden of parking gets shifted to nearby local streets. So what? This isn’t just inconvenient for the people who will eventually live in the new buildings and for the neighbors nearby; it is putting additional wear and tear on our streets that are already in need of replacement in the city core. In the older parts of town that are the target of density and infill, many streets are older and unable to be plowed with regular equipment because of the risk of damaging the roads and sewer and water pipes that are just below the surface. Why, you might ask? Because the city’s practice has been to share the costs of replacing the pipes and bringing the streets to current standards with the residents who live on those streets, an expensive proposal that often gets rejected by residents (reasonably so), and so the streets continue to age for another year or five. The city has begun a pilot program for snow removal where cars are required to park on one side of the street on Tuesdays so that the city can plow, so in an area that is already short on parking, it gets reduced by half one day a week for at least a quarter of the year, likely longer. This thought process can and should continue before decisions that have permanent consequences get made. For residents that own or rent a single-family home or a home that has been converted into a multi-unit residence, they are often made to feel that if they don’t want a multi- story apartment building next door, then they don’t care about their fellow neighbor who is in need of affordable housing. This kind of thinking doesn’t serve anyone and is a private property rights issue (see our blog on SB 146). The real question is, how do we end up in a situation where the majority of structures that are on the ground are single- family homes, and yet a multi-story, multi-family building is allowed to go up next door? The issue lies with zoning. There are actually very few areas of Bozeman that are zoned for single-family housing. This might get more in the weeds of the UDC, but it ties into the AHO because zoning determines what is allowed to be built in residential neighborhoods with the use of the AHO’s incentives. In the discussion on the AHO in the Community Development Board meeting on January 13, David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager, said, “Most of the city is underbuilt to its actual zoning, including in greenfield areas … The zoning is a nice, natural transition; the actual what’s on the ground may not be, and I think that’s because we’ve zoned for where we think the neighborhoods might be going in the long-run, not necessarily where they are right now" (listen at 53:15). This issue is something that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. Who is tracking the impacts of “where we [the city] think the neighborhoods might be going in the long-run” on the people, the residents, our neighbors, who are living in and have made one of, if not the most, significant financial investments of their lives in the homes that are on the ground right now? What are those tradeoffs? We can pontificate and philosophize that neighborhood character is only made up of the people who live in the neighborhoods, but we all know that neighborhood character is not defined by just one thing. We don’t have to zone for the future that an entity, whose leaders, staff, and priorities will change over time, envisions. We can, alternatively, zone for what is on the ground. This was done with the former rest home, which is now the site of the future Guthrie development. We’ve been told that it was zoned based on the rest home that was on the ground at the time, not to what the city commission at the time wanted to be on the ground many years later. When thinking about the AHO and the UDC, one needs to remember the saying, “What you permit, you promote.” This is why we look around and see apartment buildings everywhere. The city, through the AHO, zoning, and UDC, have permitted these developments, and, therefore, have promoted them. We are now sitting at a vacancy rate in these apartments between 12 to 15 percent. If the new AHO is passed, the city will continue to promote and incentivize the development of more apartments that no one really wants and the city doesn’t really need. So what do we really need, and how do we get there? Bozeman needs more single-family homes – not luxury homes, not luxury apartments, not “affordable” apartments, not duplexes, not ADU’s. So why not create a UDC and “incentives” that permit, and therefore promote, this type of development? This is the type of development that makes a real investment into the future of our community. Forcing density into the existing downtown neighborhoods has proven not to create more affordable housing. In fact, it has driven up land prices. The new cash-in-lieu option for developers to pay the city a fee to get the benefits of the AHO without actually providing affordable units furthers this problem. Let’s turn the tradeoff tables, shall we? Do you want affordable housing, or do you want density and infill? You can’t have both. Driving development into the high-demand city core only drives the price of land up. If you want more affordable homes, these need to be incentivized in areas where the land is cheaper. If you really care about affordable housing, let’s take a pragmatic approach, rather than focus on ideals of a future Bozeman where few people drive cars and where no one commutes to work or shops outside of a three-block radius. Let’s make Bozeman user-friendly again, where there is adequate parking, traffic moves more freely, and where neighborhoods don’t suffer under the consequences of developers who smartly take advantage of the city’s loose policies and incentives. Where do we start? 1. Repeal, and do not replace, the current AHO. 2. Pause the UDC for just a few more months. 3. Focus first on the Community Plan / Growth Policy. The state mandates that this should be reviewed every five years, so it is due for a review this year. A lot has changed since the 2020 Community Plan was adopted, and residents (the commission’s constituents) have a lot to say about how Bozeman has grown and how they want it to grow in the future. The Community Plan is the document that feeds almost all of the city’s other plans, including the UDC. Let’s start there, where we should (not to mention where we are legally required to start), and really think about the future. Decisions are being made that will forever change the form, function, and lifeblood of our community, and the least that our elected body can do for us is to start with reviewing the Community Plan. We’ve been told that if a new AHO is not adopted, there are a few projects in the housing pipeline that will not be able to be developed without the incentives. One of these projects is the Hidden Creek project, which is a joint effort between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, United Housing Partners, and HRDC. The owner of United Housing Partners called in and gave public comment in support of the new AHO at the January 28 City Commission Meeting, where he said, “We’ve carefully designed our project to meet the existing AHO zoning rules … Changing those rules now and repealing the AHO will threaten the financial feasibility of Hidden Creek” (listen at 4:05:20). Can the city, who has a vested interest in this project coming to fruition, fairly, and without bias, make any decision on the AHO other than to approve it? Furthermore, a real study needs to be done to determine how much Bozeman is subsidizing MSU’s growth by incentivizing the creation of affordable housing. How many of the “affordable” units that the city says are needed are for students? These numbers have not been studied. Commissioner Emma Bode and Deputy Mayor Joey Morrison, in the most recent commission meeting, focused on separating out survey data collected from renters and homeowners. Previous data collected on “affordable” housing needs should be drilled down to learn how much of that housing is for students. MSU needs to be held accountable for providing housing for its growth in student population. That is not the responsibility of the residents of this city, nor should it come at their expense, both literally and figuratively. Please repeal and not replace the AHO, and before spending any more time and money on the UDC, start at square one with reviewing the Community Plan. We have until May 2026 to comply with Senate Bill 382, so there is no reason to rush the process of the UDC. No one is saying not to update the UDC. We are just saying to address first things first and review the Community Plan before any more decisions are made. It’s the only way. Click here to learn more about our take on the UDC with our original video content.