HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-25 Public Comment - N. ten Broek - The Guthrie AppealFrom:Noah ten Broek
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]The Guthrie Appeal
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 5:01:06 PM
Attachments:The Guthrie Public Comment 33125.pdf
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.
What is a home?Is it merely a structure to store your belongings—a roof over your head that allows you to
survive? Or is it something more?
For me, the difference between a "home" and just a structure is community. Break down the
word itself: "com," from the Latin for with, and "unity"—togetherness in harmony. That’swhat transforms shelter into belonging. That’s what allows people not just to survive, but to
thrive.
I am a strong advocate for community and belonging, and I believe that if we’re serious about
pushing back against unchecked greed in the housing industry, we have to raise the bar forwhat counts as community benefit.
We are constantly told about developers’ pro formas and whether a project "pencils out," as ifit's our duty to accommodate their bottom lines to attract development and infrastructure. But
we’re never shown the spreadsheet. We’re simply asked to trust it—filled with FOMO for taxrevenue and infrastructure improvements. And yet, despite all the incentives and giveaways,
the actual benefit to the community seems to shrink year after year.
I’ll go as far as to say that the amenities of community life—the small joys, the shared spaces,
the sense of welcome—have been shifted from the public realm into the domain of theprivileged. As a Montanan, I can’t recall another time when access to the basic amenities of
the community I help sustain has been so closely tied to wealth—wealth that only a smallfraction of us enjoy.
We can—and must—push back against development models that extract value withoutreinvesting in people. We can demand that projects offer real community benefit—not just in
the form of tax dollars or infrastructure, but through opportunities for genuine belonging,pride, and even ownership for the people who live and work here.
We must pivot away from the “shelter” model of housing and move toward homing—investing in the people who are the lifeblood of this place. That starts by raising the bar.
Every community worth its salt stands with its residents. It protects fairness, accessibility, andthe shared right to participate in—and enjoy—all aspects of community life.
It is with deep frustration and heartbreak that I write this once again. What should be self-
evident—that this string of nearly identical development applications, enabled by the now-outdated AHO, is threatening to transforming Bozeman in ways that raise serious concerns
about equity, livability, and community character—somehow still needs to be said.
The Guthrie is the most audacious proposal I have seen in—or bordering—a core
neighborhood. Its disregard for place, its exploitation of community, and its brazen
manipulation of demographic need is not just offensive—it’s wounding. It cuts deep.
This isn’t about housing. It isn’t about affordability. It isn’t about inclusion. It’s about power.
It’s about class. It’s about the systemic inequality that persists across this nation and is nowknocking on the doors of our own neighborhoods.
The Guthrie represents classism at its most extreme—a vision of Bozeman where a privilegedfew grow wealthier from public incentives, while the communities that built this city are
pushed aside. For over a century, Bozeman’s core neighborhoods have been home to workingfamilies—railroad workers, tradespeople, teachers, service workers—people who raised
children here, knew their neighbors, and kept this town running through good times and hardones alike.
Now, those very neighborhoods seem increasingly vulnerable to changes that could supplantlongtime residents and erode the community fabric. The working class is being displaced,
ignored, and even expected to help fund its own marginalization through public incentives andstaff-endorsed concessions. This isn’t development; it’s dispossession. It’s the systematic
dismantling of a community fabric woven over generations—dressed up in design languageand staff recommendations.
What’s happening isn’t revitalization—it’s removal. It’s a quiet but calculated disassembly ofplace, memory, and belonging, facilitated not just by developers, but by city systems willing to
trade community identity for capital gains.
We’ve engaged in good faith. We’ve shown up, offered solutions, and placed our trust in aprocess we believed was meant to serve the public. But again and again, we’ve run up against
procedural barriers that don’t just complicate participation—they discourage it. What’s left isa system that feels increasingly closed off, more responsive to internal momentum than to
public input.
If the City is serious about rebuilding trust, it must start by listening—really listening—to the
people who live here. Because trust isn’t something that can be handed down from the top—it’s built from the ground up, through respect, through the recognition of community
knowledge, and through meaningful inclusion in public decision-making.
But trust isn’t only eroded by exclusion—it’s compromised by alignment. When the City lends
its process, its staff recommendations, or its institutional weight to entities like HomeBasePartners, it sends a message that private interests take precedence over public good.
HomeBase Partners has revealed itself not as a builder of community, but as an architect ofself-interest. They move through our city not with humility, but with entitlement—doing what
they wish, to whom they wish, when they wish—so long as the doors of power remain open tothem.
Their motivations are clear: profit without reciprocity. There is no giving back, noreinvestment in the people or places that enabled their success—only displacement and
disregard. They’ve taken what they needed and are now willing to erase the very communitythat made it possible. This isn’t development—it’s abandonment dressed as progress.
The pain we’ve experienced over the past year hasn’t been accidental—it’s been systemic.We’ve been worn down, emotionally and financially, by a system more focused on chasing
growth and wealth than on protecting the people and places that make Bozeman a community.
Too often, decisions aren’t shaped by principle, but by politics built on proximity and prestige.And what’s most disheartening is that this culture seems embedded within city staff itself.
At this point, it’s become a given—everyone I know expects that nearly every development,no matter how incompatible with the neighborhood or city vision, will be recommended for
approval. And that quiet certainty—that the outcome is predetermined—is eroding trust fasterthan any single project ever could.
Which brings us to the deeper question:We ask—how can city government pursue unchecked growth while claiming to uphold the
safety, values, and well-being of those who call Bozeman home? These goals are not naturallyaligned—they often conflict. And until that contradiction is acknowledged and addressed, it is
the community that will continue to bear the cost.
The appeal before you is not just about one project—it is a reckoning. A test of whether
Bozeman’s pattern of growth-at-all-costs will finally be held to account.
If you, as Commissioners, believe the process was sound, then show us where the staff report
meaningfully acknowledged the potential harms of this project—both to its future residentsand to the surrounding neighborhood. Show us where those concerns were clearly documented
and met with real, enforceable safeguards to prevent unintended consequences. And show uswhere staff offered recommendations for improving the code—where they recognized its
shortcomings and suggested how development could be made safer, more context-sensitive,and more in line with Bozeman’s stated values as an inclusive, community-centered city.
Because I assure you—that didn’t happen. Instead, the report dismisses well-researched,thoughtful public input as if our concerns are irrelevant or unfounded. This creates an uneven
playing field, where the City appears to stand entirely with the developer. Make that makesense. If you can’t, then those harms were ignored—and the public was sidelined.
I am a strong believer in community, inclusion, belonging, sustainability, equality, fairness,and democracy—and in your vital role as stewards of the cultural values that upholdthese principles.
Once again, and for the record, here follows a list of the many failings of this development—
each one a direct contradiction of the core values I know we all share above:
Let me walk you through a simple, real-world example—one that shows just how central the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, or NCOD, is to Bozeman’s development code.
First, it’s important to understand a foundational fact: the NCOD is not a suggestion or a loose
guideline—it’s codified law. Created in 1991, the NCOD was designed to protect the characterand integrity of Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods. It currently covers more than 4,000
properties and has long served as a tool to ensure that new development fits within theestablished scale, rhythm, and feel of these older communities.
As Section 38.340.010 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) states, the purpose of theNCOD is:
"To preserve and protect the existing character and integrity of Bozeman’s olderneighborhoods by providing standards for infill development that complement and enhance
the scale, massing, and patterns of existing structures."
Now imagine you’re a developer planning a project under the Affordable Housing Ordinance
(AHO), and you want to understand which design guidelines apply, including any possiblerelaxations. Following the process, the AHO points you to Article 5 of the UDC. So you open
it up and begin reading.
Right at the top, in the very first line, Article 5 tells you: if your project is located within the
NCOD, stop here—refer to the NCOD section instead. In other words, the NCOD takesprecedence. This isn’t buried deep in legalese—it’s the first instruction. That alone should
make its importance unmistakably clear. The NCOD isn’t just referenced—it’s elevated as theauthoritative framework for development in these areas.
And yet, despite this clarity, some have suggested that the NCOD lacks enforceability. Thatclaim is simply incorrect.
The UDC reinforces the NCOD’s authority explicitly. Article 5, Section 38.500.020.A.1states:
"For sites within the city's established Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, theprovisions of Division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article."
That means exactly what it sounds like: if a property is in the NCOD, those standards overrideArticle 5. Full stop.
In the case of The Guthrie, the staff report fails to demonstrate how the project aligns with theNCOD’s goals. Its scale, height, and massing appear to directly contradict the standards laid
out in Section 38.340.030. Allowing the project to move forward under these conditions wouldnot only disregard the intent of the NCOD—it would misapply the law and weaken the very
protections that Bozeman established to support thoughtful, respectful growth.
The NCOD is not a barrier to progress. On the contrary, it is a safeguard—a deliberate,
community-driven tool to help guide development in a way that respects the past whileaccommodating the future. Upholding it means preserving Bozeman’s identity and ensuring
that growth remains aligned with community values, character, and shared purpose.
Anecdotally, it’s important to note the deep unfairness in how the NCOD has been applied.
For generations, the city has enforced these standards on myself and my neighbors—only tonow, seemingly overnight, deem them unenforceable to accommodate HomeBase Partners.
This sudden reversal feels arbitrary, capricious, and fundamentally unjust.
We urgently need to rethink the structure of Bozeman’s appeal process. Right now, it’s notonly prohibitively expensive and bureaucratic—it also offers no meaningful pathway for
community members to advocate on behalf of future residents, especially those who will beliving in developments like The Guthrie, which will be managed by large corporate rental
agencies with little accountability and even less regard for tenant wellbeing.
Let’s be honest: the current process limits public participation. The $2,760 fee to file an
appeal, combined with the lack of a hearing, places an enormous barrier between the publicand their right to be heard. These obstacles have made it nearly impossible for working-class
residents to participate in decisions that will shape the future of their neighborhoods.
But this isn’t just an access issue—it’s a constitutional issue.
Under Montana’s Constitution, the public has a fundamental right to know and a right toparticipate in government decisions:
Article II, Section 9 guarantees the right to examine public documents and observe thedeliberations of public bodies.
Article II, Section 8 guarantees a reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in theoperation of agencies before a final decision is made.
These rights are not symbolic—they are legally protected and co-extensive, and state lawreinforces them through procedures for meaningful public involvement. See MCA §§ 2-3-103
and 2-3-111.
City staff have failed to uphold these principles. The 47-page Commission Memo—which
outlines and attempts to justify earlier decisions made by staff—was released only days beforethis hearing. That gave both the public and the appellant minimal time to read, analyze, and
respond. This kind of late-stage information dump is not transparent governance. It’s unfair.And it undermines the spirit of Montana law.
When combined with the financial barrier to appeal, the absence of a public hearing, and alack of clear, timely communication, it’s clear this process has deprived both the public and
the appellant of their right to know and participate.
This broken process cannot continue. If we are serious about protecting the rights of Bozeman
residents—present and future—we need an appeal system that is accessible, transparent, andaccountable to the people it’s meant to serve.
Let me be clear: The Guthrie is not being built with tenants in mind. It’s being built for profit,full stop. It follows a Base + Add-ons model that burdens residents with extra fees for basic
needs: laundry, parking, and even storage. Kitchens are minimal, forcing more frequentshopping trips. Storage is offloaded to paid sheds. Open space is limited. Windows don’t open.
Indoor shared spaces are too few to accommodate residents.
All of this is layered on top of high rent tied to an already elevated AMI, under the guise of
affordability.
This is not housing justice. This is commodified living, built to maximize shareholder returns
—not human wellbeing.
We need to make space in our policies for this kind of advocacy. And more urgently, we need
to stop incentivizing developments like The Guthrie that treat people like profit centers insteadof community members.
The pending approval of The Guthrie development raises significant legal concerns,
particularly regarding illegal spot zoning. Spot zoning occurs when a specific parcel of land issingled out for a use classification that differs substantially from the surrounding area,
primarily benefiting a particular owner to the detriment of adjacent property owners and thebroader community. This practice is generally deemed invalid when it lacks justification
aligned with a city's comprehensive plan and public interest.
In Montana, the Supreme Court has established a three-pronged test to evaluate whether a
zoning action constitutes illegal spot zoning. While these cases do not address the AffordableHousing Ordinance (AHO) directly, the framework they provide is instructive and applicable
here. This test, articulated in Little v. Board of County Commissioners (1981) and reaffirmedin Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Board of County Commissioners (2001), considers the
following:
1. Significant Difference in Use: The proposed use must be substantially different from
the prevailing uses in the surrounding area.
2. Small Land Area with Limited Beneficiaries: The application of the AHO in this case
functions as a form of de facto rezoning—or “un-zoning”—that impacts a narrowlydefined geographic area and appears to benefit a limited number of landowners, rather
than serving the broader public interest.
3. Special Treatment Favoring Specific Owners: The zoning action appears tailored to
benefit one or a few landowners, potentially at the expense of neighboring propertyowners or the broader community.
Though the AHO is framed as a citywide tool, its application in this instance raises the sameconstitutional and planning concerns that Montana courts have associated with spot zoning:
unequal treatment, misalignment with the city’s comprehensive plan, and preferential benefitto select private interests.
Application to The Guthrie Development
Significant Difference in Use:
The Guthrie's proposed scale and design are incongruent with the established character of theNCOD. The NCOD was created to preserve the historical and architectural integrity of
Bozeman's older neighborhoods by ensuring that new development complements existingstructures in terms of scale, massing, and pattern. The Guthrie departs from these standards,
introducing a form and intensity of use that is significantly out of step with the prevailingresidential character of the surrounding area.
Small Land Area with Limited Beneficiaries:Although the AHO is a citywide tool, its application in this instance functions as a form of de
facto rezoning for a single parcel, producing benefits that accrue primarily to one privatedeveloper—HomeBase Partners. This targeted application contrasts sharply with the NCOD’s
broader intent to protect neighborhood character and indicates that the policy, as used here,serves the interests of a limited party rather than the community as a whole.
Special Treatment Favoring Specific Owners:By allowing The Guthrie to circumvent NCOD guidelines, the city effectively extends
regulatory privileges to one developer that are not afforded to other property owners within thesame overlay district. This differential treatment undermines the consistent application of
zoning laws and suggests that the development has been granted favorable treatment at theexpense of surrounding residents and the core principles enshrined in the NCOD.
Montana courts have consistently held that such treatment—wherein zoning policy is appliedin a way that benefits specific landowners while departing from established planning standards
—can constitute illegal spot zoning. In Little v. Board of County Commissioners, the Courtemphasized that spot zoning is invalid when it grants preferential treatment to one or two
individuals to the detriment of the general public, regardless of the tract’s size. Similarly, inGreater Yellowstone Coalition, the Court struck down a zoning amendment that favored a
specific developer, affirming the importance of maintaining consistency with a community’scomprehensive plan and the public interest.
By approving The Guthrie without applying the NCOD’s binding design standards, the Cityhas effectively removed the property from its established regulatory framework. This action
undermines the integrity of the NCOD and sets a concerning precedent for futuredevelopment, weakening protections designed to safeguard Bozeman’s historic
neighborhoods.
The approval of The Guthrie meets all three criteria identified by the Montana Supreme Court
for unlawful spot zoning: it introduces a use substantially different from prevailingneighborhood norms, applies to a small area with limited beneficiaries, and grants preferential
treatment to a single entity. For these reasons, the project should be reconsidered in order touphold the integrity of Bozeman’s zoning laws and to support a vision of growth that is
equitable, lawful, and community-centered.
Out of respect for your time—and in recognition of the many thoughtful and candid comments
already submitted by my neighbors and fellow community members—I will conclude mywritten arguments against The Guthrie here.
Thank you for your attention, and for your responsibility in weighing the full impact of thisdecision on Bozeman’s neighborhoods, values, and future. And thank you for the hard work
that goes into your deliberations and making Bozeman the wonderful place we each callhome.
Warm Regards,
Noah ten Broek
410 N 5th Ave
What is a home?
Is it merely a structure to store your belongings—a roof over your head that allows you to
survive? Or is it something more?
For me, the difference between a "home" and just a structure is community. Break down the word
itself: "com," from the Latin for with, and "unity"—togetherness in harmony. That’s what
transforms shelter into belonging. That’s what allows people not just to survive, but to thrive.
I am a strong advocate for community and belonging, and I believe that if we’re serious about
pushing back against unchecked greed in the housing industry, we have to raise the bar for what
counts as community benefit.
We are constantly told about developers’ pro formas and whether a project "pencils out," as if it's
our duty to accommodate their bottom lines to attract development and infrastructure. But we’re
never shown the spreadsheet. We’re simply asked to trust it—filled with FOMO for tax revenue
and infrastructure improvements. And yet, despite all the incentives and giveaways, the actual
benefit to the community seems to shrink year after year.
I’ll go as far as to say that the amenities of community life—the small joys, the shared spaces,
the sense of welcome—have been shifted from the public realm into the domain of the
privileged. As a Montanan, I can’t recall another time when access to the basic amenities of the
community I help sustain has been so closely tied to wealth—wealth that only a small fraction of
us enjoy.
We can—and must—push back against development models that extract value without
reinvesting in people. We can demand that projects offer real community benefit—not just in the
form of tax dollars or infrastructure, but through opportunities for genuine belonging, pride, and
even ownership for the people who live and work here.
We must pivot away from the “shelter” model of housing and move toward homing—investing
in the people who are the lifeblood of this place. That starts by raising the bar.
Every community worth its salt stands with its residents. It protects fairness, accessibility, and
the shared right to participate in—and enjoy—all aspects of community life.
It is with deep frustration and heartbreak that I write this once again. What should be self-evident
—that this string of nearly identical development applications, enabled by the now-outdated
AHO, is threatening to transforming Bozeman in ways that raise serious concerns about equity,
livability, and community character—somehow still needs to be said.
The Guthrie is the most audacious proposal I have seen in—or bordering—a core neighborhood.
Its disregard for place, its exploitation of community, and its brazen manipulation of
demographic need is not just offensive—it’s wounding. It cuts deep.
This isn’t about housing. It isn’t about affordability. It isn’t about inclusion. It’s about power. It’s
about class. It’s about the systemic inequality that persists across this nation and is now knocking
on the doors of our own neighborhoods.
The Guthrie represents classism at its most extreme—a vision of Bozeman where a privileged
few grow wealthier from public incentives, while the communities that built this city are pushed
aside. For over a century, Bozeman’s core neighborhoods have been home to working families—
railroad workers, tradespeople, teachers, service workers—people who raised children here,
knew their neighbors, and kept this town running through good times and hard ones alike.
Now, those very neighborhoods seem increasingly vulnerable to changes that could supplant
longtime residents and erode the community fabric. The working class is being displaced,
ignored, and even expected to help fund its own marginalization through public incentives and
staff-endorsed concessions. This isn’t development; it’s dispossession. It’s the systematic
dismantling of a community fabric woven over generations—dressed up in design language and
staff recommendations.
What’s happening isn’t revitalization—it’s removal. It’s a quiet but calculated disassembly of
place, memory, and belonging, facilitated not just by developers, but by city systems willing to
trade community identity for capital gains.
We’ve engaged in good faith. We’ve shown up, offered solutions, and placed our trust in a
process we believed was meant to serve the public. But again and again, we’ve run up against
procedural barriers that don’t just complicate participation—they discourage it. What’s left is a
system that feels increasingly closed off, more responsive to internal momentum than to public
input.
If the City is serious about rebuilding trust, it must start by listening—really listening—to the
people who live here. Because trust isn’t something that can be handed down from the top—it’s
built from the ground up, through respect, through the recognition of community knowledge, and
through meaningful inclusion in public decision-making.
But trust isn’t only eroded by exclusion—it’s compromised by alignment. When the City lends
its process, its staff recommendations, or its institutional weight to entities like HomeBase
Partners, it sends a message that private interests take precedence over public good.
HomeBase Partners has revealed itself not as a builder of community, but as an architect of self-
interest. They move through our city not with humility, but with entitlement—doing what they
wish, to whom they wish, when they wish—so long as the doors of power remain open to them.
Their motivations are clear: profit without reciprocity. There is no giving back, no reinvestment
in the people or places that enabled their success—only displacement and disregard. They’ve
taken what they needed and are now willing to erase the very community that made it possible.
This isn’t development—it’s abandonment dressed as progress.
The pain we’ve experienced over the past year hasn’t been accidental—it’s been systemic. We’ve
been worn down, emotionally and financially, by a system more focused on chasing growth and
wealth than on protecting the people and places that make Bozeman a community.
Too often, decisions aren’t shaped by principle, but by politics built on proximity and prestige.
And what’s most disheartening is that this culture seems embedded within city staff itself.
At this point, it’s become a given—everyone I know expects that nearly every development, no
matter how incompatible with the neighborhood or city vision, will be recommended for
approval. And that quiet certainty—that the outcome is predetermined—is eroding trust faster
than any single project ever could.
Which brings us to the deeper question:
We ask—how can city government pursue unchecked growth while claiming to uphold the
safety, values, and well-being of those who call Bozeman home? These goals are not naturally
aligned—they often conflict. And until that contradiction is acknowledged and addressed, it is
the community that will continue to bear the cost.
The appeal before you is not just about one project—it is a reckoning. A test of whether
Bozeman’s pattern of growth-at-all-costs will finally be held to account.
If you, as Commissioners, believe the process was sound, then show us where the staff report
meaningfully acknowledged the potential harms of this project—both to its future residents and
to the surrounding neighborhood. Show us where those concerns were clearly documented and
met with real, enforceable safeguards to prevent unintended consequences. And show us where
staff offered recommendations for improving the code—where they recognized its shortcomings
and suggested how development could be made safer, more context-sensitive, and more in line
with Bozeman’s stated values as an inclusive, community-centered city.
Because I assure you—that didn’t happen. Instead, the report dismisses well-researched,
thoughtful public input as if our concerns are irrelevant or unfounded. This creates an uneven
playing field, where the City appears to stand entirely with the developer. Make that make sense.
If you can’t, then those harms were ignored—and the public was sidelined.
I am a strong believer in community, inclusion, belonging, sustainability, equality, fairness, and
democracy—and in your vital role as stewards of the cultural values that uphold these
principles.
Once again, and for the record, here follows a list of the many failings of this development—
each one a direct contradiction of the core values I know we all share above:
Let me walk you through a simple, real-world example—one that shows just how central the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, or NCOD, is to Bozeman’s development code.
First, it’s important to understand a foundational fact: the NCOD is not a suggestion or a loose
guideline—it’s codified law. Created in 1991, the NCOD was designed to protect the character
and integrity of Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods. It currently covers more than 4,000
properties and has long served as a tool to ensure that new development fits within the
established scale, rhythm, and feel of these older communities.
As Section 38.340.010 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) states, the purpose of the
NCOD is:
"To preserve and protect the existing character and integrity of Bozeman’s older neighborhoods
by providing standards for infill development that complement and enhance the scale, massing,
and patterns of existing structures."
Now imagine you’re a developer planning a project under the Affordable Housing Ordinance
(AHO), and you want to understand which design guidelines apply, including any possible
relaxations. Following the process, the AHO points you to Article 5 of the UDC. So you open it
up and begin reading.
Right at the top, in the very first line, Article 5 tells you: if your project is located within the
NCOD, stop here—refer to the NCOD section instead. In other words, the NCOD takes
precedence. This isn’t buried deep in legalese—it’s the first instruction. That alone should make
its importance unmistakably clear. The NCOD isn’t just referenced—it’s elevated as the
authoritative framework for development in these areas.
And yet, despite this clarity, some have suggested that the NCOD lacks enforceability. That
claim is simply incorrect.
The UDC reinforces the NCOD’s authority explicitly. Article 5, Section 38.500.020.A.1 states:
"For sites within the city's established Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, the
provisions of Division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article."
That means exactly what it sounds like: if a property is in the NCOD, those standards override
Article 5. Full stop.
In the case of The Guthrie, the staff report fails to demonstrate how the project aligns with the
NCOD’s goals. Its scale, height, and massing appear to directly contradict the standards laid out
in Section 38.340.030. Allowing the project to move forward under these conditions would not
only disregard the intent of the NCOD—it would misapply the law and weaken the very
protections that Bozeman established to support thoughtful, respectful growth.
The NCOD is not a barrier to progress. On the contrary, it is a safeguard—a deliberate,
community-driven tool to help guide development in a way that respects the past while
accommodating the future. Upholding it means preserving Bozeman’s identity and ensuring that
growth remains aligned with community values, character, and shared purpose.
Anecdotally, it’s important to note the deep unfairness in how the NCOD has been applied. For
generations, the city has enforced these standards on myself and my neighbors—only to now,
seemingly overnight, deem them unenforceable to accommodate HomeBase Partners. This
sudden reversal feels arbitrary, capricious, and fundamentally unjust.
We urgently need to rethink the structure of Bozeman’s appeal process. Right now, it’s not only
prohibitively expensive and bureaucratic—it also offers no meaningful pathway for community
members to advocate on behalf of future residents, especially those who will be living in
developments like The Guthrie, which will be managed by large corporate rental agencies with
little accountability and even less regard for tenant wellbeing.
Let’s be honest: the current process limits public participation. The $2,760 fee to file an appeal,
combined with the lack of a hearing, places an enormous barrier between the public and their
right to be heard. These obstacles have made it nearly impossible for working-class residents to
participate in decisions that will shape the future of their neighborhoods.
But this isn’t just an access issue—it’s a constitutional issue.
Under Montana’s Constitution, the public has a fundamental right to know and a right to
participate in government decisions:
•Article II, Section 9 guarantees the right to examine public documents and observe the
deliberations of public bodies.
•Article II, Section 8 guarantees a reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the
operation of agencies before a final decision is made.
These rights are not symbolic—they are legally protected and co-extensive, and state law
reinforces them through procedures for meaningful public involvement. See MCA §§ 2-3-103
and 2-3-111.
City staff have failed to uphold these principles. The 47-page Commission Memo—which
outlines and attempts to justify earlier decisions made by staff—was released only days before
this hearing. That gave both the public and the appellant minimal time to read, analyze, and
respond. This kind of late-stage information dump is not transparent governance. It’s unfair. And
it undermines the spirit of Montana law.
When combined with the financial barrier to appeal, the absence of a public hearing, and a lack
of clear, timely communication, it’s clear this process has deprived both the public and the
appellant of their right to know and participate.
This broken process cannot continue. If we are serious about protecting the rights of Bozeman
residents—present and future—we need an appeal system that is accessible, transparent, and
accountable to the people it’s meant to serve.
Let me be clear: The Guthrie is not being built with tenants in mind. It’s being built for profit,
full stop. It follows a Base + Add-ons model that burdens residents with extra fees for basic
needs: laundry, parking, and even storage. Kitchens are minimal, forcing more frequent shopping
trips. Storage is offloaded to paid sheds. Open space is limited. Windows don’t open. Indoor
shared spaces are too few to accommodate residents.
All of this is layered on top of high rent tied to an already elevated AMI, under the guise of
affordability.
This is not housing justice. This is commodified living, built to maximize shareholder returns—
not human wellbeing.
We need to make space in our policies for this kind of advocacy. And more urgently, we need to
stop incentivizing developments like The Guthrie that treat people like profit centers instead of
community members.
The pending approval of The Guthrie development raises significant legal concerns, particularly
regarding illegal spot zoning. Spot zoning occurs when a specific parcel of land is singled out
for a use classification that differs substantially from the surrounding area, primarily benefiting a
particular owner to the detriment of adjacent property owners and the broader community. This
practice is generally deemed invalid when it lacks justification aligned with a city's
comprehensive plan and public interest.
In Montana, the Supreme Court has established a three-pronged test to evaluate whether a zoning
action constitutes illegal spot zoning. While these cases do not address the Affordable Housing
Ordinance (AHO) directly, the framework they provide is instructive and applicable here. This
test, articulated in Little v. Board of County Commissioners (1981) and reaffirmed in Greater
Yellowstone Coalition v. Board of County Commissioners (2001), considers the following:
1.Significant Difference in Use: The proposed use must be substantially different from the
prevailing uses in the surrounding area.
2.Small Land Area with Limited Beneficiaries: The application of the AHO in this case
functions as a form of de facto rezoning—or “un-zoning”—that impacts a narrowly
defined geographic area and appears to benefit a limited number of landowners, rather
than serving the broader public interest.
3.Special Treatment Favoring Specific Owners: The zoning action appears tailored to
benefit one or a few landowners, potentially at the expense of neighboring property
owners or the broader community.
Though the AHO is framed as a citywide tool, its application in this instance raises the same
constitutional and planning concerns that Montana courts have associated with spot zoning:
unequal treatment, misalignment with the city’s comprehensive plan, and preferential benefit to
select private interests.
Application to The Guthrie Development
Significant Difference in Use:
The Guthrie's proposed scale and design are incongruent with the established character of the
NCOD. The NCOD was created to preserve the historical and architectural integrity of
Bozeman's older neighborhoods by ensuring that new development complements existing
structures in terms of scale, massing, and pattern. The Guthrie departs from these standards,
introducing a form and intensity of use that is significantly out of step with the prevailing
residential character of the surrounding area.
Small Land Area with Limited Beneficiaries:
Although the AHO is a citywide tool, its application in this instance functions as a form of de
facto rezoning for a single parcel, producing benefits that accrue primarily to one private
developer—HomeBase Partners. This targeted application contrasts sharply with the NCOD’s
broader intent to protect neighborhood character and indicates that the policy, as used here,
serves the interests of a limited party rather than the community as a whole.
Special Treatment Favoring Specific Owners:
By allowing The Guthrie to circumvent NCOD guidelines, the city effectively extends regulatory
privileges to one developer that are not afforded to other property owners within the same
overlay district. This differential treatment undermines the consistent application of zoning laws
and suggests that the development has been granted favorable treatment at the expense of
surrounding residents and the core principles enshrined in the NCOD.
Montana courts have consistently held that such treatment—wherein zoning policy is applied in
a way that benefits specific landowners while departing from established planning standards—
can constitute illegal spot zoning. In Little v. Board of County Commissioners, the Court
emphasized that spot zoning is invalid when it grants preferential treatment to one or two
individuals to the detriment of the general public, regardless of the tract’s size. Similarly, in
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Court struck down a zoning amendment that favored a
specific developer, affirming the importance of maintaining consistency with a community’s
comprehensive plan and the public interest.
By approving The Guthrie without applying the NCOD’s binding design standards, the City has
effectively removed the property from its established regulatory framework. This action
undermines the integrity of the NCOD and sets a concerning precedent for future development,
weakening protections designed to safeguard Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods.
The approval of The Guthrie meets all three criteria identified by the Montana Supreme Court for
unlawful spot zoning: it introduces a use substantially different from prevailing neighborhood
norms, applies to a small area with limited beneficiaries, and grants preferential treatment to a
single entity. For these reasons, the project should be reconsidered in order to uphold the
integrity of Bozeman’s zoning laws and to support a vision of growth that is equitable, lawful,
and community-centered.
Out of respect for your time—and in recognition of the many thoughtful and candid comments
already submitted by my neighbors and fellow community members—I will conclude my written
arguments against The Guthrie here.
Thank you for your attention, and for your responsibility in weighing the full impact of this
decision on Bozeman’s neighborhoods, values, and future. And thank you for the hard work that
goes into your deliberations and making Bozeman the wonderful place we each call home.
Warm Regards,
Noah ten Broek
410 N 5th Ave