ADU in Kalispell Public Comment from Rebecca KingmanAimee Brunckhorst
From: Becky Schaer <rschaer626@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Adu in kalispell
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Density ( services and parking) is mentioned as a concern. And lack of pride of ownership.
1. With The influx of people means you have more density no matter what. This option of adu within kalispell city limits
merely gives options for where some of these people moving into the area can go. Many come to the flathead area be
of family or friends.
2. 1 totally agree w having the adu s with Few if any restrictions.
3. Property values are Not dropping with all these people moving here thus driving up prices. The idea that property
prices are going to drop is rather ridiculous.
3. The idea that there won't be pride of ownership is also a fallacy. The people who don't take pride now are the same
ones who won't take pride later. The places that are decently kept up now will be decently kept up w an adu on the
property. It is a slam to say you won't keep up your property if we allow you to have an adu on your property ! If it
bothers the city council that much , go take a drive and see how the owner keeps the lot up currently. If it is basically
respectable then allow it. Another thing... good tenants or respect for ones parent(s) either one , necessitate a decent
place to live including upkeep of the property that the adu sits on. Therefore again there would be an incentive to make
and keep your place nice. No one wants lousy tenants.
4. Services. Where are all these people going to if they want city services ? Builders can only build so fast but more
importantly if you don't want houses eating up the entire flathead area that is close to kalispell and whitefish then this
option allows for existing ground to absorb more of these 1 and 2 person family units moving into the area without
requiring a whole new infrastructure. Instead it would be utilizing existing infrastructure. You can't stop the influx of
people and they have to go somewhere. And housing/ LAND is getting Very expensive. (Not new news to the council. )
5. the gov. ie the city council needs to back off and let good people who take care of their property make the decision
as to what they should be able to do w their property. Gov does NOT know what is best. They only think that they do.
There are people that don't keep their places up , that is true, but by and large people do. And no one who cares about
their place is going to let a tenant make their property be run down without stepping in and resolving it. The City council
needs to trust people so that they are better able to provide income for their property as they so choose. Not everyone
will ! ! Many hate dealing w tenants ! But they would like to have an affordable smaller place for house guests ,
parent(s) , family member to live.
Additionally for those that do this it could help supplement their income. And as far as property taxes That income
could also mean keeping their property as neither the city nor the state it would seem, have any problems w raising
property taxes every 2 yrs and what is or has already inevitably resulted in folks not being able to afford to keep their
place.
On a side note -
The city and state need to pass a law that restricts how much taxes can go up in a 10 yr period and also for the time that
the same person owns their home. Right now the taxes are a free for all for the state. It is ridiculous.
Allowing adu on properties for those that choose to build one, it could help offset the property tax insanity that has
been happening in the past 4 to 6 yrs and what is continuing to escalate in an excessive manner.
Lastly on another side note this whole thing also applies to single wide mobile homes. The idea that they bring down
property values as well as potentially the adu's is also ridiculous. there are a lot of super nice single wides and this too is
a far more affordable housing option than building a stick -built house and the city and county need to allow many more
lots to have these placed on lots. And if it is required that they be 1990 and newer they would have a pitched roof .
Affordable Housing is a Major Major problem in this county and both allowing adu and sw mobile homes ( even though
this discussion isn't about mobile homes ) would both greatly assist w this problem.
Thank you for your time. I sure hope that that these things are given equal time and thought and not just ignored.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Kingman.
2