The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
A common axiom is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The proposed Whetstone affordable housing project is a major public decision being mulled over at both ends of the valley right now, and there are points and perspectives on both sides by people I respect that I find valid. They are valid because this work in progress is certainly not perfect, but Whetstone’s big picture intention is good. It is a good step toward the stated community goal of having workers living in the North Valley near their place of work. It provides an opportunity to retain vibrancy in a quickly changing community.
Do I think the Whetstone project as proposed is too big and too dense? I do. It would feel more comfortable to me if about 25%-30% of the 252 units were eliminated to come in at around 175 or 190 units. I’m old enough to remember that density was a big deal in the Corner at Brush Creek discussions a few years back. Through hours and hours of public debate, the community at the time made a decision that for a parcel that size, in that general location, fewer than 200 units was in the right ballpark. Heck, the original proposal that started the brouhaha was just 240 units. Even the developer said he could make the desired 156 units work with some concessions —that he didn’t get — but that’s a whole other story involving personalities as much as facts.
But the county is the developer this time and they are making the standard developer argument that in order to pencil out, the unit numbers have to be where they are. It is a reallllly expensive project estimated to be more than $130 million and the county is already $8 million+ in so I see their point. As a town housing consultant noted this summer, building affordable housing these days is never “affordable.”
As for size, I agree with some critics that having the biggest buildings along the highway is a detriment. They could be placed one bench down and residents would still be close to the bus stops but farther away from the highway noise. Building size will, I think, have less to do with slowing down traffic on the highway than the approach of a roundabout.
But you know, things have changed in the five years since the Brush Creek discussion. Three big roundabouts are on the drawing board between CB South and Clark’s, a giant fire station is going up by the cemetery next to a big apartment building. The school is adding on, and a major new subdivision is being proposed for the “Oh My God” curve. Add in the quickly growing wealth gap where a working person making six figures probably can’t afford to buy a home in the North Valley and it is appropriate to take action to keep the economic diversity of the population in a resort town.
Do I think the Whetstone rents are too high? I do. Depending on how AMI (Area Median Income) numbers figure into the rental equation, not all, but the average rent is certainly above market rate at the moment. There aren’t many units where a busser or lift op will be living. New ski bums need not apply. The argument that Whetstone isn’t serving the need as presented in the county’s latest Needs Assessment survey seems valid. The county is trying to get at least 20% of the Whetstone units tied to those making the lower-end 80% AMI and with utilities included, that helps. I would think the rents of today will stay consistent for most of the life of the project, so the 2027 rental rates might look pretty darn good in ten years.
Project developer John Cattles told me this week that the county “believes the market can sustain the proposed rents as our Market Study shows. Also, the housing needs assessment indicates a need of over 1,500 units at various incomes so there is significant demand for housing.”
He rightly points out most units will house more than one person and their incomes, so a nurse and construction laborer probably make enough to be in the 130% AMI category. A restaurant worker and CBMR employee probably pull in enough to meet the 110% AMI threshold. “We are not and never have claimed that Whetstone meets all of the need, other projects will be necessary to meet the need,” Cattles said.
I imagine capitalism will come into play and rents might have to come down to get people in the units to generate revenue. Or not. He is confident proposed rents will work. Seems to me the worst-case scenario is the county looks itself in the mirror when 130 units are sitting empty in 2030 and they lift the deed restriction to fill the units. The town of Crested Butte however has a clause in its utility extension agreement making clear that at least 80% of the units have to be deed-restricted. I guess they could shut off the water and sewer.
Again, Cattles is confident the county is in a solid position. “The proforma does include several redundancies to cover expenses in case we aren’t able to generate the rent revenue that is projected whether that be from vacancies or reduced rents,” he said. “We have built a conservative proforma that will give us opportunity to make adjustments if necessary.”
Do I think given the rents and density that Whetstone might not fill up in the first week? I do….especially with the Mineral Point and Paradise Park housing projects, along with possibly Homestead and Sawtooth coming online before Whetstone. But so far all of the affordable housing projects in both ends of the valley are filling up with waiting lists, so I could be wrong.
Do I think having one of the county commissioners be the main point person of the project is a mistake? I do. Laura Puckett Daniels has indicated she probably plans to recuse herself from voting on the project given her advocacy position with Whetstone. I hope not. She should be a voting member of the board of county commissioners since that’s the job she signed up for. Under county standards her choice to be the prime advocate for the county project instead of one of three deciders, when there are capable point people to carry the advocacy load, is a poor choice in my opinion.
Frankly, I don’t see the conflict-of-interest some are seeing, including apparently the county legal team. I wouldn’t have an issue with her being in a position to vote for or against the project at the upcoming county meeting on October 8. Those are fairly typical situations in a small community where governments end up being the developer of such community projects.
It’s always been my understanding the conflict-of-interest dilemma comes when a representative stands to make a financial gain as a result of a vote. That isn’t the case here (unless LPD has a flight booked to her new house in the Bahamas after the financing is completed). While acting as deciders in the planning process, all three commissioners, in fact probably 95% of all elected officials in the county, have plainly stated that the need to provide public housing is a top priority.
With lessons learned from that Corner at Brush Creek process, the county has encouraged public participation and oversight over the last several years. Meetings, charrettes, focus groups, site tours, consultants all have been used to get Whetstone to this point and changes have been made based on public input. Given current timing reality, I would say that citizen oversight is certainly in play on November 5. If citizens don’t like what the county has done or they disagree with the path they are on, they can use their oversight and vote out the majority of commissioners whose policies they disagree with.
Much of the most recent vocal criticism has been directed to the Crested Butte council. The town seems to have gotten pretty much everything they asked for while protecting the town from financial risk. The county is where the rubber meets the road, and that October 8 meeting is the place to air project concerns.
Concerns have been publicly aired for months with the town and the community as a whole has not been showing up at town council or county commissioner meetings to demand change. I watched Monday as several local working kids in their mid-20s attended part of the council meeting. They could have stayed to be part of the Whetstone discussion since they are the demographic probably most affected by the project’s future. They left after the proclamation for Pointed Laccolith Day was approved. They seemed to believe things will work out.
And things will. Is Whetstone perfect? Heck no. I hope the planning commission and commissioners take a hard look at things like density and building location. Rents remain a concern. If there is a way to dedicate some units to lower AMI workers (between 60-80% AMI), that would be a plus. As suggested Monday, interest rates are coming down and inflation is cooling so there’s that in terms of financing timing. County deciders should still be looking at how to improve this project.
The big picture goal of Whetstone to provide an opportunity for people to live up here near their jobs and contribute to their community is a good one…not perfect, but good.
—Mark Reaman
