Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At Whitefish work session, debate centers on whether density alone will produce workforce housing
Summary
A public exchange at the Vision Whitefish 2045 work session highlighted disagreement: a nonprofit leader called consultant wording on posters an opinion that could bias feedback, while consultants and others said increased density permitted under state law must be paired with targeted finance or programs to produce affordable housing.
A sharp exchange about whether market-rate density can deliver workforce housing unfolded during a City of Whitefish work session on Vision Whitefish 2045, with nonprofit and public commenters urging clearer messages at an upcoming open house and consultants pressing for paired policy tools.
Keegan Sebenaler, executive director of ShopRWF, told the council he was concerned by a poster preview that states density allowed under the Montana Land Use Planning Act "is unlikely to produce new affordable and workforce housing." He said placing that wording on public materials before broader community comment risks prejudicing feedback.
"That is an opinion," Sebenaler said. "I think it is not supported by most of the economic research...If you're building market-rate housing in the places in Whitefish and doing it densely, then you can adequately address quite a bit of workforce housing need through the market." He urged the council to direct consultants to remove or revise the statement on posters.
Thomas of consulting firm CZB responded that MLUPA does permit additional density but cautioned that density without targeted mechanisms could lead primarily to market-rate development. "Our concern is that if not coupled with a proactive housing mechanism, whether that's money or the Legacy Homes program, you could see market-rate housing proliferate in those areas," he said, and confirmed the consultants will include recommendations about incentives and financing in the housing element.
Several councilors and participants echoed that local tools matter because the state has removed some authorities, and they asked the report to recommend options such as resort-tax funding, public–private partnerships and creative incentives. One councilor noted that past growth had produced mostly market-rate units.
A public commenter identified as Nathan defended the role of the market, saying many current residents purchased homes at market rate and that market incentives can be used to meet community needs given scarce subsidy dollars.
The session produced no policy decision; consultants said materials would appear at the open house and that draft recommendations on financing and programmatic tools will be included in forthcoming housing-element materials and in staff recommendations to the planning commission and council.
