NEWSFLASH: Flathead County has been sued.
Actually, that’s not really news. This county gets sued all the time. So often, in fact, it’s hard to keep track of all its alleged illegal activity.
It’s most often sued in response to rules and regulations involving property. Gravel pits, road requirements, you name it. The Montana Building Industry Association filed the latest litigation (supported by local real estate and building agencies) over subdivision regulations, which it has deemed “the most burdensome and costly in the state.”
Apparently, few solutions have been found since last year, when Montana Association of Counties Executive Director Harold Blattie said of Flathead’s knack for lawsuits, “I’d like to use whatever that silver bullet is to help” counties that always end up in court.
But this latest case still struck me. While I can’t begin to understand all the technicalities of the lawsuit itself, I will tell you what it’s not about: affordable housing. Yet as home prices drop, and the market corrects itself, that loaded phrase is being used as a rather disingenuous reason to lift restrictions on potential developments.
Lately, developers and Realtors have been getting hit from all sides. And they have plenty of reasons to sue if they feel the county is acting illegally by unduly hurting their respective businesses. But for affordable housing to be brought up ad nauseum – especially when the market is stocked with more “affordable” homes than it has been in years – is a slight stretch.
When construction was rampant around the Flathead Valley, builders and Realtors reaped the benefits. And while a few did address affordable housing concerns during boom times, scant solutions succeeded in actually getting low-income families into homes. Bigger houses were more profitable, so more of them were built. Thus, in the first half of this year home sales were down across every price range, but especially in the saturated high-end market.
A few numbers: Homes sold in Whitefish were down 31.4 percent, Bigfork 46 percent and on Flathead Lake 33.3 percent, according to a mid-year report by Jim Kelly, who runs a real estate appraisal and consulting firm in Kalispell. At the same time, the market for homes under $250,000 struggled, but remained a bit more robust.
The MBIA’s members face a daunting 2009. The agency says housing starts in the Flathead have already declined 35 percent compared to last year, and it is bracing for even bigger reductions in the coming months. When the new Wal-Mart Super Center breaks ground, and if Kohl’s and PetSmart follow, some local subcontractors should get some much-needed work. But in its latest legal riff with the county, the plaintiffs should stick to the new subdivision rules’ legality rather than drumming up the affordable housing debate.
After all, who’s to say which side those looking for cheap housing would take? If the county’s concerns are legitimate (which I’m not arguing one way or another), potential buyers may agree that builders should abide by regulations on slopes, property density and sewage treatment. Bringing low-income people into every debate over building requirements makes it appear that those with less money care little about the aesthetics or safety of their future homes.
MBIA’s argument that Flathead’s regulations illegally exceed state requirements is legitimate, if it’s true. The county shouldn’t burden any business, especially struggling builders, with dubious rules that prevent them from making money.
But if an affordable housing solution couldn’t be reached during the construction industry’s heyday, why is it being brought up when it’s struggling to recover?