Arguing a housing opportunity with Diem…

Maybe it’s my allergies making me want to do a crazy thing, but I’ll go out on a limb and argue a bit with Ben Diem’s letter in the paper this week. That guy is on a roll, a good roll. A good sushi roll? Sorry. Ben’s letter on page 6 is about support or lack of support for proposed residential developments in the North Valley. He makes the case that local officials should not oppose but rather guide and shape potential developments. I agree. He postulates that with a lot more available vacant lots and/or available houses, there is a better chance working locals can break into the free market and get one on their Valley wage. I’ll argue against that, understanding that arguing with Ben right now is not the smartest decision one can make, but it’s July, things are blowing up and my allergies are going off, so I’ll dip my toe in the water… 

I agree that deed restricted housing can be a blessing but also a heavy yoke on working locals who make this place what it is. It is no doubt hard to see those who got in early living in a shack worth millions of dollars while you are scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck to use 30% of your income to make rent or pay a mortgage in a house that has limited equity opportunities. Ben says, “we need ownership models that let locals share in the town’s success.” I agree and here is where we differ. 

Despite charges of being a leftwing socialist, I believe in the power of the free market with compassionate and common-sense guardrails. Unbridled Ayn Rand capitalism goes too far. Few could argue that the free market is out of whack here at the moment. It is so geared to the top end that few working locals can break in. When vacant lots in town are selling for seven figures, the idea of getting a little piece of property and building a working-class home for six figures just isn’t feasible. 

Ben’s economic theory that having hundreds more lots and homes on the market will lower prices is probably not wrong — except that we are in an out-of-whack free market in an out-of-whack beautiful place where rich folks love to be and not only escape the growing heat but be surrounded by beauty while having tons of existing amenities available year-round. People will keep coming here.

I would argue that having to have a constant supply of free-market housing to keep prices in check simply grows the population and all the things that come with it, including more traffic, crowded classrooms, packed trailheads and the need for more workers to serve the workers.

So, I would suggest the development of a “manufactured free market” deed restriction that eliminates the out-of-whackiness element. For any new development proposal, first, make sure it is not simply turning the valley from small town into small city. Make sure the development adequately buys into what’s already here and is not just sliding into a growing sweet spot. Then enact a mandate that says 20% of every development include deed restricted housing. 

The real kicker then is to put a significant number of those units under the lightest of possible deed restrictions that basically limits sales and resales to those who live in the valley full-time. That’s it. Only those who have chosen to make this place their community are eligible for purchasing those particular properties. Been here a few months? You don’t qualify. You’re rich or middle class or poor? Doesn’t matter — what matters is that you are a part of the community and have obviously proven a commitment to be here. 

I know, it sounds too simple and there will no doubt be some who take advantage of it. The experts will contend it can’t possibly work and be fair. Perhaps a rich person will nab one of the lots and build a McMansion — but then that person has to sell to the same limited market so prices are controlled by the “manufactured free market.” It would be a free market made up working people, business owners, middle managers, or retirees who love it here and participate.

Such a limited but economically sound market would eliminate a big part of the wealth demographic that pushes prices so high that working locals have no chance. It addresses the “missing middle” demographic. It creates an opportunity to accrue equity in a resort town. It might not gain a million dollars in value every summer, but it probably would go up more than the typical deed-restricted limit of 3% a year.

Places like Mineral Point and Anthracite Place are needed for low-income working people. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are fantastic for singles or couples with a bit more income. Paradise Park, Whetstone and Homestead all can fill various needs. But having a niche for those who want to work a little harder and save a little more to get into an “almost” free-market situation could do so if local officials provide such an opportunity. 

So, Ben and I agree there should be a path of potential success for everyone who contributes soul to this community to be able to live — and thrive — here, both spiritually and economically. I will argue it can be done without constant expansion that too quickly changes the small community vibe.

I have argued for years that a tiered system of deed-restricted housing can work effectively and if crafted right, can come with equity opportunity. Every element of this community should have an opportunity to make a life here…so I’ll agree with Ben’s advice not just applied to recent development proposals, but to the community path in general — implement ideas that shape it, guide it, and use it to make it work for the people who actually make this town run.

—Mark Reaman