Whitefish deserves better housing options
Flathead Families for Responsible Growth has a simple refrain: Whitefish deserves better. But what exactly does this mean, and better for who exactly? The group organized remarkably fast to oppose the proposed Mountain Gateway development, and given the extent of their organization, any future attempts to provide high-density housing for our local workforce.
A glance at the organization’s website reveals myriad complaints, but no solutions. In an FAQ reading, “if not this, then what?” the group fails to provide any plan, providing only a vague idea that alternatives should be discussed and “that takes time.” Time that the workforce in Whitefish does not have.
The development is proposed to contain 270 rental units. Our workforce by and large consists of renters who currently have minimal, if any, easy options for housing. Thirty-two of these rental units are proposed to be deed-restricted affordable for renters making between 60 and 80% of area median income. These rental units will not be segregated within the building. Twenty-four (24) townhomes will also be built, which will hopefully provide access to homeownership to people who are currently priced out of the market. Unfortunately, it will also contain 24 high-end condo units. None of these units would be available for short-term rentals, even after the proposed WB-1 zoning change to allow for mixed-use commercial spaces.
For a bit more context, 32 deed-restricted units is not a trivial number, especially considering that these units can no longer be mandated in Montana. The Whitefish Housing Authority’s Alpenglow Apartments on Edgewood consist of 36 rental units, so the Mountain Gateway represents nearly an entirely new affordable apartment complex based on past affordable developments. Between 2016 and June 2020, only 55 affordable units were constructed in Whitefish.
The proposed commercial space in the development will alleviate traffic concerns. Not only will people living inside Mountain Gateway not need to go into town to run every errand, but the ever-increasing number of people living on Big Mountain and Lakeshore Drive will be able to utilize these spaces, decreasing their own need to drive into town.
From a public transit perspective, there is no other location quite as suitable for a development of this nature. Existing and future transit lines can easily stop along this popular intersection to further decrease traffic demand. There is an existing bicycle path from this location into the downtown, further reducing the need for vehicle use.
Could the developers do better? Absolutely. They can and should ensure that the people displaced by this development are housed immediately. They should give first priority for townhome purchases to locals who cannot complete easy cash deals. They should scrap the idea of building “high-end” condo units, as we do not need more of these in Whitefish. Providing additional affordable units would go a long way to easing the approval process and would ensure that this community remains strong for years to come.
FFRG gives the game away on their published “talking points” document which states, “[the development] could very likely cause a devaluation of real estate north of the viaduct.” This organized opposition reeks of a Not in My Backyard campaign by its leaders meant not to protect Whitefish workers, but to protect the property values of wealthy homeowners in Iron Horse and on the lakeshore, and Whitefish certainly deserves better than that.
Nathan Dugan is a Whitefish homeowner who advocates for integrated affordable housing.