Does Whitefish really want low-income housing?

Citing high and constantly rising housing costs, the cabal that runs Whitefish frequently and vocally proclaims its intent to promote construction of low-cost housing in Whitefish, but never seems quite willing to do anything significant to accomplish it. In fact, recently it sabotaged and then killed an effort to bring affordable workforce housing to the city.

Concerned about a significant shortage of affordable workforce housing, in January the City Planning Department formulated and advanced a sensible proposal to amend the city’s zoning ordinance to permit the construction of multi-family housing in the WB-2 zoning district, where it is presently prohibited. This is the commercial zoning district running along U.S. 93 south of the Whitefish River to the southern boundary of the city. Frequently, greater density is permitted in commercial zones than in residential zones, where neighbors raise legitimate concerns about traffic and noise accompanying more dense developments. Usually this is a lesser concern in commercially zoned districts.

In January the City Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Planning Department’s proposal.

Heartened by this proposal and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted, we preliminarily designed, and were prepared to propose, an affordable 15- to 20-unit apartment project on land we own in the WB-2 district.

In early February the Planning Department’s proposal advanced to the City Council for public hearing and approval. During the hearing, three or four people (one of whom does not reside in or near Whitefish) vocally opposed the proposal on the ground that an amendment to the zoning ordinance is unnecessary, and consequently ill advised, because a developer can potentially gain approval of a residential project in the WB-2 through the planned-unit development process.

Last year, after spending over $15,000 in an effort to design a residential project on our property in the WB-2 zone, we eventually abandoned it because it became clear that the cumbersome planned-unit-development process is not designed to accommodate such an effort. PUDs are typically large mixed-use projects that form an integrated community—hence the title “planned development.” For example, the Whitefish city ordinance regarding planned-unit developments requires that they comprise at least two acres (our property is short of that as are most properties in the WB-2 zone). To fit a one-off residential project into a PUD is a frustrating attempt to put a square peg in a round hole. We found that we were using a process for a project it simply was not intended or designed to accommodate.

Further complicating matters, in order to secure approval of a planned-unit development, the city ordinance requires the developer to confer a “public benefit” (nobody seems to have the slightest clue what that means in the real world), but during an informal meeting with city officials it became clear that the costs of the “public benefits” the city would likely require us to provide would be substantial and probably prohibitive. Rather than spend thousands more on a long-shot effort to get city approval of this project on conditions that would not render it uneconomic, we abandoned it. During the public hearing, I pointed this out to council members who, judging by their collective body language, seemed completely uninterested.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, it was time for the council to determine the proposal’s fate. Before anyone else could speak, Councillor and Vice Mayor Hildner (who is one of the most vocal proponents of low-cost housing in Whitefish) moved to table the Planning Department’s proposal. The motion was quickly seconded. Under Robert’s Rules of Order a motion to table must be voted upon immediately and without discussion. Accordingly, the motion was put to an immediate vote and passed by a margin of 4 to 1. It seemed quite obvious that this was rehearsed in advance so that the council could kill this with no discussion and as little exposure as possible for fear that their collective hypocrisy would be exposed.

The net result is that the City Council refused to give serious consideration to, or even discuss, a thoughtful proposal intended to promote low-cost housing — a proposal carefully crafted and advanced by its own Planning Department and unanimously approved by the city’s appointed Planning Board. Instead, the council quietly killed it. By contrast, the city evidently has no problem with an 83-unit all-suite Marriott in the WB-2 zone that will cater to high-income transients. Is that because, deep down inside, the council surreptitiously wants to keep low-income people out? The city’s real priorities and values should be judged by its actions, not its pretense.

The bottom-line conclusion is inescapable. The Whitefish City Council loves to weep, wail and gnash its collective teeth over Whitefish’s scarcity of low-cost housing but has little or no interest in taking meaningful action to encourage it.

Halama is a resident of Whitefish.