Flathead Affordable Housing Newsletter 1

Status: Draft is complete, but the board is split (some discussions reopened). CitizenPortal.ai – Community Development Board delays action on Vision Whitefish 2045 economic development goals after a board split. 
Tea: According to Shelter WF some board edits, weakening language supporting local businesses and a year-round economy, undermining goals that serve residents (not just tourism). Word is there is debate over how much detail to include in the policy versus leaving details to future zoning (some board members want a “lighter touch” for policy-level goals). ShelterWF noted the edits benefit business owners and wealthy second-home owners, at the expense of local workers and broader community needs. The removal or weakening of language about serving residents (i.e., goods and services for the year-round population), the weakening of goals for affordable housing, and a narrow focus on the tourism/visitor economy rather than a diversified, sustainable local economy. 
Problem: The board keeps reopening this chapter, raising concerns that special interests are reshaping it. Plus, Mixed-use housing has been removed from this section.
Grade: C- content exists, but the edits favor tourism/business interests over local workers. Needs more equity lens. Removing mixed-use housing from the economic chapter is a mistake because mixed-use is one of the most effective tools we have to support affordable housing and a healthy local economy. When homes are built near jobs, shops, and services, it lowers construction costs, reduces traffic, and helps workers actually live in the community where they work. Mixed-use areas also give small businesses built-in customers and create walkable, vibrant neighborhoods that people want. Taking it out limits our ability to meet housing needs and makes the plan less realistic about how to keep the local economy strong.

Public facilities:
Status: Draft in progress-Water, sewer, and stormwater sections continue to be refined under review.
Tea: Something to consider: as public facilities planning is tied to infrastructure costs, there’s a risk that growth (especially sprawl) could drive up long-term costs. That being said, some community members worry that the facility planning may not sufficiently support the denser, more affordable growth needed to sustain affordable housing. 
Grade: B, primarily technical, but we must ensure facilities support denser, infill, affordable growth than just sprawl. One might say that suburban sprawl is the least desirable suitor of the season — a vast, sprawling arrangement that leaves homes, shops, and daily necessities scattered across great distances. A far more elegant design would be mixed-use districts, where life’s affairs are delightfully close at hand, and where promenading on foot is not merely pleasant, but entirely practical. 

Status: Done-ish Mostly drafted; hazards still debated (link) 
Tea: We keep reopening this section, which Shelter WF noted that repeatedly doing this (reopening the hazard language) gives disproportionate power to individuals rather than supporting community-wide risk planning. Which, honestly, I wasn’t there, but referencing the meeting I attended in the housing section, I can confirm re: the Suburban Sprawl vibe. The delicate waltz between safeguarding our beloved wild landscapes and welcoming the dignified march of new homes and thoughtful growth. 
Grade: B Generally solid, but repeated reopening may slow adoption. Needs a balance between protection and growth. 

Status: Daft has been released VISION WHITEFISH 2045 | Engage Whitefish
Tea: Dearest Reader, the whispers of our fair valley grow ever louder: will the newest transportation plans deliver accurate, equitable movement for all… or simply smooth the way for yet another scandalous chapter of sprawl? Society waits, breathlessly, for the answer. For beneath the charm of glossy proposals lies a truth we cannot ignore: transportation is destiny. Without intentional land-use planning, even the loveliest mobility investments can end up serving only the far-flung fringes or tourist-clogged corridors—leaving residents, especially young people and workers, stranded. And let us not forget the question of fortune. Building a truly multimodal network—one where biking, walking, and transit are not heroic feats but standard daily options—requires long-term funding, real commitments, and something more daring than wishful thinking. 
Problem: What makes this especially frustrating is that mixed-use housing was removed from this section. Mixed-use is a total transportation lifesaver. When homes, shops, and jobs are close together, people can walk to places—a wild concept—which reduces traffic, parking congestion, and gas bills. And since public transit in Whitefish and the Flathead is, let’s be honest, kind of a joke, walkability is one of the only real ways people can get around without basically living in their cars. Mixed-use neighborhoods make everyday life easier, cheaper, and more enjoyable, and taking them out ignores how people actually move through this valley. It’s essentially saying, “Let’s go back to 1994 suburbia,” which is… not the move when we’re staring down climate change and need every practical emissions-reducing tool we can get.
Grade: The current draft shows promise maybe a C+ (if we’re being generous) but it’s still unclear whether transportation, housing affordability, equity, and real-world land use are actually working together. In less Regency-era language: public transit in the Flathead is unreliable. If you’ve ever tried getting to the airport without a car or attempted to cross town after 6 PM, you already know the struggle. That’s exactly why young people need to weigh in—our lives run on shift work, school, side gigs, ski days, and lake days, and all of that depends on systems that actually function.
Housing

Status: Outlines done; chapter not finalized; public outreach: December 17th, 2025.
Tea: Dearest Reader, gather ’round for tea, for the chatter swirling through our little mountain hamlet is nothing short of piping hot. Word from Shelter WF is that the housing chapter—so desperately needed to secure affordable homes for our workers and year-round residents—may be falling dreadfully short of its promise. And I fear they are not wrong. I attended the meeting myself, and let us simply say: the tone was not conducive to the ‘future of Whitefish.’ While the room was complete, it did not reflect the young workers, renters, or families who actually live the housing crisis every day. Instead, the conversation leaned heavily toward those most invested in preserving the status quo—landowners for whom “change” is more scandalous than any plot Lady Whistledown could spill. But here is the true mystery of the season: our City Council has publicly championed affordable housing. Over and over, they’ve said it’s a priority. So why, dear reader, does the Growth Policy continue to flirt with suburban expansions—low-density, high-cost, car-dependent sprawl—when what we truly need are neighborhoods designed for life as we live it: mixed-use communities where homes, shops, transit, and green space exist together, affordable and accessible to all? Why are we planning yesterday’s solutions for today’s climate and tomorrow’s challenges?
Problem: The debate over mixed-use housing is revealing a deeper problem: the people showing up to influence the Growth Policy are overwhelmingly older landowners, the very group least affected by the housing crisis. They’re pushing a vision of Whitefish that favors low-density, suburban-style neighborhoods—prioritizing property values over the needs of workers, young families, and renters who keep this community running. Mixed-use, which is critical to affordability and to walkable, vibrant neighborhoods, is repeatedly removed from the plan because those with the loudest voices don’t want it near them. It’s very much a “District 1 doesn’t care about the rest of Panem” situation: the people with power at the table are shaping a future that works for themselves, while those who most need housing access are left out of the conversation entirely. If ever there were a moment for young people to show up, speak up, and insist on a Whitefish we can actually live in, this is it. If we are not in the room, decisions will be made about us, not with us—and I assure you, the town will not hesitate to design a future that benefits themselves first. Please come out and provide a public comment on affordability to buy and rent, as well as the general lack of availability. Grade: D Big Risk area- Without strong housing policies, affordability goals are at stake- the dream of affordability may slip through our fingers. Should we wish to see a Whitefish where young workers, families, and residents can remain and thrive, we must take action. This is not merely a matter of plans on paper—it is our future at the table. Come out and support affordable housing. The current housing unit goals are wildly inaccurate—especially considering how many workers want to live here but simply can’t afford it. As written, the “affordability goals” only pencil out if 100% of new units were subsidized, which is unrealistic and underscores how far off the projections are. Because we’ve underbuilt for so long, any new rental units will naturally be more expensive at first—new construction always is—but the bigger issue is that we’re not building anything new at all. Without supply, prices remain high, workers are pushed out, and affordability continues to slip further away.

Status: The City hired CZB, LLC to assist with writing the Land Use Element. We just had a visioning session. These visioning sessions are being used to help frame the future land‑use map — this is the part that will guide where density goes, what types of development are allowed, and how neighborhoods could evolve.
Tea: Gather ’round for tea, for the latest whispers from our mountain hamlet are nothing short of scandalous. I attended the housing meeting myself, and let us simply say: the vibe was… not giving the ‘future of Whitefish.’ While the room was packed, it did not reflect the young workers, renters, or families who actually endure the housing crisis every day. Instead, the conversation leaned toward those most invested in preserving the status quo—landowners for whom change is far more scandalous than any plot Lady Whistledown could spill. But here is the true mystery of the season: our City Council has repeatedly championed affordable housing. Over and over, they’ve said it’s a priority. So why is the Growth Policy still flirting with suburban expansions—low-density, high-cost, car-dependent sprawl—when what we really need are homes that people can afford and neighborhoods designed for life as we actually live it? Why are we planning yesterday’s solutions for today’s climate and tomorrow’s challenges? Conflict over character and density—how ‘place types’ are defined—could strongly influence where density is allowed, what building heights and setbacks are permissible, and whether mixed-use or infill growth is prioritized. Without intentional commitment to these approaches, we risk more sprawling, car-dependent development that undermines housing affordability and increases infrastructure costs. Because Land Use will guide future zoning, decisions made now carry long-term consequences. If the plan isn’t equitable or inclusive, it could lock in exclusionary development for years to come.
Problem: The loudest voices in the public comments right now are mostly older landowners who don’t want mixed-use housing anywhere near them—and because they show up, their preferences are shaping the plan. Mixed-use has already been stripped from other sections, not because it isn’t needed, but because the people at the table are the ones least affected by the housing crisis. It’s very “of course the Capitol thinks everything is fine” energy: the folks who already own property are pushing for a Kalispell-style suburban vibe. At the same time, the people who actually work here struggle to find a place to live at all. If we keep letting only one group define the vision, we’ll end up with a plan that works well for those who already have housing—and excludes everyone else.
Grade: C- Visioning done; draft expected soon. Linchpin of the plan: If density and infill aren’t prioritized, affordable housing and equity goals may fail. That said, mixed-use has already been cut from multiple sections of the plan. With the committee dominated by landowners who primarily listen to one another, other voices are getting sidelined.

Status: Real progress has been made, yet delays, power dynamics, and the repeated reopening of already-settled issues threaten equitable outcomes. Broader public engagement is limited when chapters are rehashed instead of moving forward.
Tea: Ah, the latest whispers from our mountain hamlet are simply scandalous. It seems the reins of Whitefish’s future are being held rather tightly by the wealthier and older members of the town. Here’s the inside scoop: