HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-26 Public Comment - D. Loseff - Re_ Following up on our B3 discussion From: David Loseff
To: Douglas Fischer
Cc: Mary Bateson;Amsden(albecklawyers.com;dacl2fthotmail.com;jwebster587C&gmai1.corn;
Iindasemones(ftotmail.com;Zehra Osman;mark.campanelli(@(imail.com;Jennifer Madaic; Bozeman Public
Comment
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Following up on our 133 discussion
Date: Saturday,January 24,2026 3:39:55 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.
Douglas,
I appreciate you taking the time in outlining your reasoning but frankly I find several
fundamental flaws in your three arguments which I am compelled to address. I apologize for
my bluntness in my following response but I believe that the adverse consequences of this
pending height increase to our greater downtown historic area will be significant and
irrevocable.
1. On downtown being the appropriate place to accommodate concentrated growth and
support the economic vitality of businesses......your analysis completely fails to take into
consideration the lack of adequate infrastructure....particularly on the parking side....to support
significantly increased concentrated growth. Your reasoning states...support growth "where
infrastructure exists...." but it seems abundantly clear that our downtown is struggling with
inadequate parking infrastructure and traffic congestion as is.......and in order for downtown
businesses/properties to be able to pay 20-25x the property taxes per square foot of other
commercial/retail areas across Bozeman,we need customers and our customers need more
accessible public parking or else they will go elsewhere which is what is currently taking
place. Adding more height and density into our town core may increase the city's property tax
collections but it hurts our downtown businesses. It isn't "adding vitality" it is simply killing
the golden goose.
2. Bozeman has one of the best and most coveted historic downtown core areas.......why "fix"
what isn't broken.
3. Your second argument relies on the opinions of"planning professionals and practitioners"
on proper height limits. First, virtually all of the developers/architects and real estate
professionals who gave public comment in support of the 90' height limits were all advocating
for their clients obtaining added floors for free (eg. Paine Hotel and Left Lane Hotel as the two
primary advocates). That is conflicted advice. Second, in taking inputs from so-called experts,
I would encourage you to give added weight to the inputs provided by the people who live,
work and own businesses and properties in our greater downtown area who have invested
many millions into building our successful downtown, have closest connection to customers
and will also face the most direct impacts from these policies. Frankly, over my past 24 years
we have had numerous so-called experts and consultants provide very bad advice. For
example, up until around 5 years ago these "experts" (including some conflicted local
architects and developers)were telling everyone that our downtown area had a surplus of
public parking spaces.....not a shortage....and they proposed actions such as selling off the
much needed Willson/Mendenhall parking lot to a group of shyster out-of-state developers (I
sued the city to get that action blocked) and later other so-called experts proposed that we sell
off the critically needed Carnegie lot to build a hotel based on their expert opinions that it was
the only viable location for a downtown hotel. Fortunately through the efforts of many
downtown property owners we got that initiative blocked as well. One of the downtown
consultant reports referred to all of our downtown surface lots as being "surplus city owned
land" to be earmarked for development. This may have been the same out-of-state consulting
firm who recommended that the city removes all of the "visual barriers" in Soroptomist Park
(ie. trees). Fortunately, my neighboring downtown business/property owners and I who
actually know our downtown best and will suffer the consequences of bad decisions stood our
ground to protect and preserve our scarce and much needed downtown parking and blocked
the recommendations of the so-called out-of-town experts. And the City should be thanking
its lucky stars that the position of downtown property/business owners prevailed......esp given
the irrevocable consequences of the bad proposals made by these so-called experts.
4. How do your planning professionals and other so-called experts reconcile their support for
90'heights with the fact that many, if not most, other successful historic downtown areas have
substantially tighter height restrictions along with other rules on adjacency impacts, setbacks,
historic facades, etc.? Are your planning professionals and other so-called experts right while
the planning professionals and experts in places like Burlington VT, Old Town Alexandria
VA, Old Town of Scottsdale, Boulder CO, Aspen CO, Charlotte SC, Pioneer Square Seattle,
Jackson WY, etc etc. all wrong? Note that your planning professionals and so-called experts
are supporting height allowances at 2-3x the height allowances in these other successful
historic areas.
5. Your third point on "process matters" meaning that you don't want to make any 1 lth hour
changes is effectively telling us that there was no real point to holding First and Second
Readings and taking public comments before the Commission voted on approving the UDC
because this occured at the end of the approval process. Just performance art given your
stated unwillingness to make any such 1 lth hour changes. So when was the policy change
shutoff deadline....the 5th hour, the 7th hour? Personally, I thought that the entire purpose of
holding First and Second Readings and taking public comments before formally adopting the
new UDC was to provide an opportunity to address substantive issues and concerns pertaining
to this 500+page complex code changes BEFORE it gets implemented. That IS the State
Legislative mandated process. Taking the position that you don't want to make any late stage
changes before adoption is actually disregarding the entire point of the Process. Shouldn't the
real question be.........is the proposed policy a good policy or a bad policy and will its
implementation be irrevocable or not?
6. Incidentally, increasing the B3 height from 70' to 90' is making the substantive change.
Keeping the height at its current status quo level of 70' is not making the change. Suggesting
that NOT increasing the height to 90' as being a change is backward reasoning.
7. With respect to your prior email in which you referenced the College St. project as being
the "masterclass" on public policy making......tell me.....did the City first implement the
changes and then hold public/community meetings to discuss the proposed changes or did you
do it the other way around. I suspect that your "masterclass" entailed first holding public
meetings/discussions on the College St. issue which then resulted in an agreed upon policy
which then got approved at a recent Commission meeting. What you have proposed on the B3
height increase is the opposite approach......let's approve the increase to 90' now, spend the
next few months seeing how it works out and then hold your kick the can down to road
meeting to discuss the height. That isn't any masterclass approach.
Again, sorry for my bluntness but after spending the past 25 years and investing millions of
my personal savings into restoring the Baxter matched by the substantial personal investments
similarly made by my tenants and my neighbors where we will all directly and personally face
the bad policy decisions made by the City Commission and its so-called experts, I am
compelled to speak up on what I see as a decision which will have very bad and irrevocable
impacts on our greater historic downtown areas. Thank goodness the other downtown
property and business owners and I strongly opposed the prior initiatives by the City to sell off
and/or develop our desperately needed downtown surface parking lots when the planning
professionals and experts (including Pertzborn) claimed that we had an excess of downtown
parking spaces. Fortunately they subsequently discovered several years ago that they were
wrong.......but this increased height and density issue in the B3 is simply another form of
exacerbating our downtown parking problems. City planners, city managers, City
Commissioners (such as Andrus) and Parking Commission people (eg. Egge), may come and
go but as downtown property and business owners with the direct consequences of their
decisions. Please listen to us.
Respectfully,
David Loseff
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 12:56 AM Douglas Fischer<Douglas.Fischernbozemanmt.gov>
wrote:
Dear Mary(and all),
Thank you for the thoughtful follow-up and for laying out your concerns so clearly. I
appreciate your continued engagement on this issue.
You asked for further explanation of the reasoning behind my position. I'll try to be clear
and concise.
At a high level, my support for the current B3 height limit rests on three considerations.
First, I believe downtown is the most appropriate place for Bozeman to accommodate
growth. Concentrating development where infrastructure already exists reduces pressure to
sprawl outward, supports local businesses, and helps maintain activity and vitality in the city
center. In that context, modest additional height is one of the few tools available to absorb
growth without expanding the city's footprint.
Second, I weighed competing claims about the impacts of additional height. I take seriously
the concerns you raise about sunlight, wind, scale, and sense of place. I also hear from
planning professionals and practitioners that a 90 foot limit—when paired with other
changes to the UDC—does not inevitably produce the harms that are often associated with
much taller or more uniform high-rise development. Faced with these differing expert
opinions, my judgment is that the risks are real but not as certain or harmful as they are
sometimes framed.
Third,process matters. The 90-foot limit emerged from a long and public drafting process
for the UDC, informed by staff analysis and advisory board review. Reversing that decision
on the eve of implementation would substitute a last-minute Commission judgment for a
more deliberative public process—and I am convinced that is a poor way to make policy.
You are right that buildings, once constructed, are lasting. That permanence is precisely why
I am cautious about making abrupt changes under deadline pressure. Both 70-foot and 90-
foot buildings shape the city for decades; the question is which set of tradeoffs we are
prepared to accept, and how intentionally we make that choice.
I have encouraged staff to track how the code functions in practice and to surface issues that
merit adjustment—including height and transitions. If problems emerge, I expect us to
address them through the same public, advisory-driven process that produced the UDC in
the first place.
I respect that you and I may ultimately disagree on where the appropriate line should be
drawn. I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach this question, and I remain
committed to continued public engagement as we evaluate how the new code performs.
Best,
Douglas
Douglas Fischer I Deputy Mayor
Bozeman City Commission
121 N. Rouse St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
On Jan 19, 2026, at 5:25 PM, Mary Bateson<mbateson5&gmail.com>wrote:
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 Deputy Mayor Douglas Fisher,
I have read and reread your email of Jan 15. 2026, and I would like to
engage further. Below I include the passages from your email (DF), and my
comments and questions (MB) about what you have said.
(1) Governance
DF - 1 would suggest that neither I nor the City Commission is well-
positioned to resolve disputes like this at the 11th hour from the dais."
MB -The City Commission is uniquely positioned to resolve these disputes. It
is the job of the City Commission to do so.
(2) Reasons
DF -"...there are many compelling reasons for a taller limit— as well as
evidence and arguments that suggest the risks may be less severe or
less certain than they are sometimes framed.
The 90-foot limit was reviewed by various experts and stakeholders—
from staff to downtown associations to the Community Development
Board — before the prior Commission switched it at the last minute, and
then switched it back. That review did not produce unanimity, but it did
surface tradeoffs
From my conversations with staff and others, I don't think our town's
heritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for affordability is at
dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted the many
benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit."
MB - I would like to hear the reasons that have influenced your decision. I do
not see these reasons explained here, just your statements that reasons
exist.
(3) "See how it works"
DF - 1 want to be clear: after such consideration, I do not support rolling
the B3 height limit back to 70 feet at this time. ...We owe that process
and the community time to see how it works. ...I have suggested to my
fellow commissioners that we give staff four months to work with the UDC
as-is. As staff(and the public) encounter sticking points or problems,
suggest we put those aside in a basket that we then take up and
examine. We already have a few items in that basket now: Transitions
and this B3 discussion. Once we have a better picture, we can prioritize
and chart a path."
MB - Seeing how a 90-foot building works is an experiment that cannot be
retracted. Once we see that "it does not work," we must live with the 90-foot
building and its consequences, whether positive or negative. Better to have a
real conversation about it before the buildings go up. It is especially
important to have the discussion on what codes are in place before the
MLUPA rules change the way in which development projects are reviewed,
which will virtually eliminate substantive public involvement.
Thank you for engaging with me and others (who are included on this reply)
on this issue. I look forward to further explanation, and I hope that you are
willing to reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:53 PM Douglas Fischer
<Doug]as.Fischer(a�bozemanmt.gov>wrote:
Dear Jim, Daniel, David, John, Linda, Mark, Mary, and Zehra,
Thank you again for taking time out of your Saturday to meet with Jen and me and
share your concerns about the 90-foot height limit in the B3 zoning district.
I heard several serious and urgent concerns from all of you—namely that we risk
the livability, culture and history of our town with a 90-foot limit,rather than 70
feet; and that we are foregoing millions of dollars in affordable housing revenue by
allowing the extra 20 feet by right.
You have asked me to consider these carefully, discuss with my fellow
Commissioners, and roll the B3 height limit back to 70 feet while we further debate
the plusses and minuses of tall buildings downtown.
I have had a number of conversations with stakeholders both for and against this,
as well as with staff and my fellow commissioners. I want to be clear: after such
consideration,I do not support rolling the B3 height limit back to 70 feet at this
time.
First, as you have shown,this is a complex issue with significant consequences on
both sides. While you have made compelling arguments for a shorter limit, there
are many compelling reasons for a taller limit—as well as evidence and arguments
that suggest the risks may be less severe or less certain than they are sometimes
framed.
Second, I would suggest that neither I nor the City Commission is well-positioned
to resolve disputes like this at the 1 lth hour from the dais. We have learned,time
and again,that complex land-use questions are rarely well-served by last-minute
decisions from the dais.
The 90-foot limit was reviewed by various experts and stakeholders—from staff to
downtown associations to the Community Development Board—before the prior
Commission switched it at the last minute, and then switched it back. That review
did not produce unanimity,but it did surface tradeoffs that deserve more than an
up-or-down vote under deadline pressure.
Several of you were present this Tuesday evening as the Commission considered
the College St. renovation. That work session offered a master class in good
policymaking: Staff took a proposal to the community, listened,had a back-and-
forth with stakeholders, incorporated concerns and found compromises.
The process worked not because everyone agreed,but because it allowed concerns
to be tested,refined, and improved before decisions were locked in. We were not at
the dais deciding where to put stop signs and crosswalks.
The B3 discussion, if we re-open it,would be the opposite: The five of us would be
debating, again at the 1 lth hour, a technical and consequential issue based on
limited, one-way feedback.
Finally,we spent almost three years drafting the UDC. It is a good code but a
complex one. We owe that process and the community time to see how it works.
I have suggested to my fellow commissioners that we give staff four months to
work with the UDC as-is. As staff(and the public) encounter sticking points or
problems, I suggest we put those aside in a basket that we then take up and
examine. We already have a few items in that basket now: Transitions and this B3
discussion. Once we have a better picture,we can prioritize and chart a path.
I share your deep attachment to downtown Bozeman—its scale, its walkability, and
the sense of place that makes it feel like home rather than just a real-estate market.
My guiding belief is that Bozeman should accommodate growth deliberately and
transparently in places already built to handle it,rather than pushing it outward or
freezing decisions out of fear.
Bottom line: I hear the urgency and concern by you and other residents about a 90-
foot height limit downtown. From my conversations with staff and others,I don't
think our town's heritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for
affordability is at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted the
many benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit. I see consequential
downsides to a snap decision, and I want to let staff and this community work with
the code as-is for a few months before we make changes.
This is not the answer you want,but I deeply appreciate your engagement on this.
Douglas
Douglas Fischer
Bozeman City Commission
dfischer&bozeman.net
406-595-5721