Weak stuff from Councilor Sweeney last night, who apparently doesn't want a lifelong local voice with a different perspective on housing issues to be on the Community Development Board. We all call ourselves Democrats, but the generational divide here is stark.

Two Trump policy dreams that have the complete opposite effect and cost us more money. Not a lot of good stuff in here, unsurprisingly. www.npr.org/2024/11/22/n...

Whitefish's current model projects the following population increases, well below historical and recent averages. C'mon man. This is cherry-picking the worst model to obtain the desired outcome, limited growth well into the future.

The fine print: we might build some housing for our workforce...as long as it is on agricultural land outside of our precious city.

It's common political rhetoric in Whitefish that people who work here, especially in our service industry, should be able to live here. The number of jobs in Whitefish isn't in the report, but it's estimated that 76% of workers commute into Whitefish. I'm sorry, that's more than 2,145 people.

We're cooked. A thread.

These economics don't work. If you're saying to yourself, "$5,000 doesn't seem like that much extra money," then compare housing costs. More income + cheaper housing = younger people looking for opportunity elsewhere.

One reason why young people choose to live elsewhere.

The aging of Montana is a big story with serious ramifications that not many people talk about. This is a direct consequence of high housing costs and little economic opportunity for younger people. As a home health PT, it's a boon for me, but for most others, it isn't.

One of the biggest challenges that we face when trying to advance housing policy to meet the needs of 2024 is that many of the people holding elected office first came to Montana (or came of age) when there were 40-50k (30-40%) fewer people in their county.

New MAID brief just dropped. It's very long. Stay tuned.