In what could be considered an April Fool’s joke, the Montana state legislature passed several laws mandating densification of cities. Apparently, the legislature believed the nation’s fourth-largest state, with the third-lowest population density, was running out of land and could only accommodate growth by building high-density apartment buildings in all major cities.
In a failed effort to make housing more affordable, Bozeman has subsidized the construction of four-story apartment buildings such as this one. Similar buildings would be mandated in other Montana cities if the laws challenged by this lawsuit go into effect.
These laws were passed in response to a “housing crisis” that resulted when Bozeman (Gallatin County), Kalispell (Flathead County), and Missoula (Missoula County) passed the functional equivalent of urban-growth boundaries, making housing in those counties unaffordable (value-to-income ratios greater than 5 in 2022). Billings (Yellowstone County), Great Falls (Cascade County), and Helena (Lewis & Clark County) have not, and housing in those counties remains affordable (value-to-income ratios below 5 and mostly below 4).
In response to the “crisis” of unaffordable housing in three out of 56 counties, the legislature passed several laws requiring cities in the state, unaffordable or not, to allow accessory dwelling units in single-family zones, high-density housing projects, and other imagined remedies. This led to the formation of Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, which filed a lawsuit to overturn those laws.
In December, a judge in Bozeman issued a preliminary injunction halting the implementation of two of those laws. Although the case has yet to be heard in full, his order concluded that “Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of this claim.”
Last week, in support of the lawsuit, Helena attorney and land-use consultant Andrew Thomas filed an amicus brief arguing that increased densities do not make housing more affordable and that the real goals of densification proponents are to reduce driving and single-family housing for ideological reasons. Appendix H to the brief, written by Thomas himself, argues that “a variable property right exists in having land use maintained in a certain way around one’s property” and that single-family zoning and protective covenants are two ways of expressing that right.
Two other appendices to the brief are also worth reading. Appendix A is a report by the Antiplanner, “Why Ending Single-Family Zoning Will Harm Montana.” Appendix B is a 2014 paper by Portland State University Associate Professor Gerard Mildner arguing that Portland’s “density at any cost” mentality has only made the Northwest city less affordable.
A dark day for freedom indeed. Americans DO NOT WANT to live in apartment buildings or accessory dwellings. That’s why it’s so important that local cities have the power to outlaw them.
You’re confusing “mandating” with “allowing” again.
“the Montana state legislature passed several laws mandating densification of cities”
“several laws requiring cities in the state, unaffordable or not, to allow accessory dwelling units in single-family zones”
Jane, if you were correct that Americans don’t want to live in such places, there would be no need to outlaw them. What you’re really saying is that existing residents don’t want them built near them, so they should be outlawed. Which is the exact opposite of freedom.
You do that a lot.
From the amicus:
“One study involving New Hampshire cities observed that laws permitting ADUs resulted in few units being constructed”
This is why it’s so urgent that we outlaw ADUs! What if we legalized them and few ended up being constructed? What a disaster that would be.
“At nearly every workshop and interview participants made the statement,‘one size does not fit all’ when referring to the current growth planning
framework.”
So true! “One size does not fit all”.
Well, except within a single-family-only neighborhood where that does not apply at all, for some reason.
“One approach to addressing
this would be to develop a system of “contiguous rights” See Appendix H. or variable
interests in land that is adjacent to an individual parcel.”
This is genius. All we need is to develop a new legal framework that lets me dictate what my neighbors should be able to do with their property.
“Density advocates also argue that people living in apartments will use less residential energy than people living in single-family homes. This also turns out to be wrong. The Department of Energy also estimates that people living in multifamily use 42 percent more energy per square foot on their housing than people living in single-family homes.”
Energy use is less per person or family with multifamily housing than single-family housing, and thus total energy usage is less with multi-family housing too.
Somehow the Antiplanner failed to mention that – hopefully Montanans Against Density can resubmit the appeal with that addition. I’m glad to help by catching it!
Whatever happened to Market urbanism where private sectorbbuilds these traditional neighborhoods with ADUs, granny flats. Modern zoning has made illegal? Amd the types of working class housing that allowed family growth.
Bungalows
Cape cods
Saltboxes
Ranchers
“They dread waking up in the morning, with no notice, and a new, more dense, building is being erected in their family neighborhood. As noted above, this injury would be irreparable.”
I can’t imagine the terror of waking up one morning to find that people that can’t afford a single family home live in my neighborhood.
A recent 2023 study by Lending Tree found that America’s largest metropolitan areas have a combined 5.5 million vacant houses. We don’t have a housing shortage….. I don’t have a problem with people owning 2 or 3 homes and renting them out. The problem with corporations and short-term rentals. Now that Air BNB is failing, I’m hoping this stupid fad will die.
Isle of Palms in SC was changing laws because people were selling houses to investors or turning their own houses into beach front short-term rentals. There are alot of short-term rentals in neighborhoods that people use for party houses.
As far as corporations, I have problems with them because no matter how much a person bids on a house, corporations can outbid and pay in cash so normal people don’t have a chance. Housing shortage is artificial…..
1) Lack of supply (especially in areas of rising demand) due to artificially induced real estate markets
2) Inflation of material, land and maintenance costs
3) Home ownership is out of reach (raising the demand for rental properties)
4) Parking minimums
5) Outdated zoning limitations which restrict small startup homes, ADU’s which help supplement mortgages (A Common practice well into the 1960s-1970s)
NIMBYism isn’t even on the top of the list.
The Housing market crash of 2008 was a Perfect storm that had several variable causes, that happened to occur simultaneously.
1: Cities/regions whom established decades urban growth barriers which artificially raised urban land prices sparking a building boom of HIGH rises.
2: Contemporary Zoning laws which failed to address working class economic capacity for housing and restricted Accessory rental dwellings
3: Investors who used real estate market as their latest investment scheme; as a cash out slot machine.
4: Failure of government to address/concern/explain disparities in racial IQ differences. Disparities in racial rates of home ownership were ascribed to racism, and banks were forced to make loans to unqualified members in BIPOC community with houses who natural/artificial prices were way beyond their income bracket. This destroyed the lives of millions of blacks/hisp.
5: Appraisors who artificially inflated housing values, buy 150K house year ago, add improvements/clean up and try sell 450K to gullible by saying the “BLOCK IS HOT” There’s two great episodes of King of the Hill “Lady and Gentrification” and “Square footed Monster” dedicated to this topic.
6: Single largest indiviual culprit of the housing crisis, was FLIPPERS. Only justice here is they’re the ones who got screwed the worst in the end. Unlike banks got no bailouts. Wealthy or middle-class house-flipping speculators who blew up the bubble to cataclysmic proportions, and then wrecked local housing markets when they defaulted. Why were relatively wealthier folks borrowing so much? Cuz they wanted to turn the housing market, into their stock market.
The biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score distribution—and that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults.
By 2007, Investors accounted for 43% of the total mortgage balance.
The sub-culture of people who thought they could earn INCOME off real estate market instead of investment.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/7998+Tower+Bridge+Dr,+Pasadena,+MD+21122/@39.1304627,-76.5221149,127a,35y,285.02h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89b7fec0e8b4fa3b:0x5753f07218b4ef4a!8m2!3d39.1305558!4d-76.5233254!10e5?entry=ttu
My old neighborhood, Single detached homes, row homes split into permeable blocks AND………Apartments, THE HORROR.
The fact that older US cities with prewar street grids (like New York, San Francisco, and Chicago) have the highest levels of both transit utilization even in it’s suburbs is no coincidence; and more walkable.
In any case, Me thinks the real reason average person is afraid high density is usually experience of living VASTER urban density and watching decline in public services and rise in crime. NO one’s talking about Manhattan being built in Montana. But lot of cities have lovely scenic views.
You can solve affordable housing issue in Montana, lot big states. Bring back the street grid and use landscaping to discern housing types. When communities develop, tree’s are often planted, eventually they grow tall enough, by time over new developments look rustic. When We see brand new suburban development, it is often tree-less. Then they start over. Meanwhile older suburban neighborhoods have had 20-30 years for tree’s often fertilized to grow. By planning street grids, large trees can be left alone.
Did anyone see movie death wish 1974? When CHarles Bronson’ character and big western developer, decides best he doesn’t wanna bulldoze area flat for boring housing.
“I don’t wanna change these hills, don’t wanna bulldoze them flat.
You’ll waste a lot of building space.
Wasting space; Those are words you big developers have to change for something else.
Such as?
Space for life. Like old Judd up there. Space for people, for horses, cows. I got funny ideas about building things.”
Various US Cities have different block sizes, For Montana, issue simply build in design that features least amount of demolition/bulldozing. From Miletus (473 BC) to New York (1811), Barcelona (1859) and Portland (1867), the grid has resurfaced in many alternative sizes of square or rectangle or even blobby blocks.
.In that case; best use is via what Europe done for 2000 years, the Organic style grid.
https://munsonscity.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/organic-01.jpg
Unlike conventional streetgrids which are straight and uniform. Thanks to GPS, laser surveying, the Intersections of grid streets can be planned to point perfectly.
https://www.newgeography.com/files/veins-and-fez.jpg
with City block plan, developers can effortlessly integrate various housing types, away from one another for sake of distance with green space in between to adjacent and hide one another, In essence, a Wooded blob, or city block is like a privacy curtain. Tree’s and vegetation break up the monotony of urban form.
Now your blocks can contain single detached houses.
Another block for attached single homes (row houses) of various width sizes.
And lastly hidden by green between apartments.
And for them Revive the Savannah block system.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Savannah_Portland_NewYork_City_Blocks_FG.jpg
Achieving a fair balance between the need for privacy offered by housing and the need of interaction and expression in the wider community whilst holding onto the scenic views of Montana.
https://mcdonoughpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Schiphol_02-2048×1152.jpg
“They dread waking up in the morning, with no notice, and a new, more dense, building is being erected in their family neighborhood. As noted above, this injury would be irreparable”
I wish the judge would have gone into more detail about the irreparable harm and injury that a multifamily building in a neighborhood causes. Is it psychological harm? Spiritual? Metaphysical?
My daughter is selling her home because she does not want to live next door to a 5 story apartment.
With half the parking needed for the tenants and blocking the sun into their yard.
sprawl, you should have your daughter talk to a lawyer. Deprivation of both sunlight and parking can be a serious health risk. She may be able to sue the developer and collect millions for the irreparable harm and damage.
This is near a light rail line and was rezoned years ago,
much easier and cheaper to move.
The point is, forcing high density into existing neighborhoods will encourage thoses that can, to move. Supporters of these policies, are blind to the unintended consequences of free people to choose to move away from planners and their mandates
TH
One consideration I just thought of is that every human being emits infrared radiation (it’s how night-vision goggles work). By concentrating humans too close together with dense living conditions, you are exposing them to potentially lethal levels of radiation. I think this is what the judge was getting at with the irreparable harm associated with having apartment buildings in a neighborhood.
As a joke…. bad.
Infrared radiation poses no biological or radiological threat. Only high energy ionizing radiation like UV, XRAY, GAMMA rays have capacity to destabilize DNA
LazyReader, infrared radiation poses no risk THAT WE KNOW OF. Let’s keep apartments banned in Montana and everywhere else until the science is settled on this contentious open question.