A general axiom is not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

The proposed Whetstone affordable housing project is an important public decision currently being considered on both ends of the Valley, and there are points and perspectives from people on both sides that I respect and believe are valid. They are valid because this ongoing project is certainly not perfect, but Whetstone’s intentions are, by and large, good. It is a good step toward the stated community goal of having North Valley workers live close to where they work. It provides an opportunity to preserve the vibrancy of a rapidly changing community.

Do I think the Whetstone project as proposed is too big and too dense? I do. I would be happier if about 25 to 30 percent of the 252 units were eliminated, to end up with about 175 or 190 units. I’m old enough to remember density playing a big role in the Corner at Brush Creek discussions a few years ago. After hours of public debate, the council at the time concluded that for a property of this size in this area, fewer than 200 units would be fine. The original proposal that started the fuss was for only 240 units. Even the developer said he could achieve the 156 units he wanted with some concessions – which he didn’t get – but that’s a whole other story, one about personalities as much as facts.

But this time the county is the developer, and they’re making the standard developer argument that the number of apartments needs to stay where it is to make it worth it. It’s a really expensive project, estimated to cost over $130 million, and the county has already invested over $8 million, so I get what they mean. As a city housing consultant noted this summer, building affordable housing these days is never “affordable.”

As for size, I agree with some critics that it is a disadvantage to have the largest buildings along the highway. You could put them a bank away and residents would still be near the bus stops but further away from the highway noise. I think the size of the buildings will have less to do with slowing down traffic on the highway than the approach to a roundabout.

But you know, a lot has changed in the five years since the Brush Creek discussion. Three large roundabouts are planned between CB South and Clark’s, a huge fire station is being built next to a large apartment building next to the cemetery, the school is being added on, and a major new subdivision is planned for the Oh My God curve. Add to that the rapidly growing wealth gap, where a worker earning a six-figure income probably can’t afford a home in the North Valley, and it’s appropriate to take steps to maintain the economic diversity of the population in a resort town.

Do I think the rents in Whetstone are too high? I do. Depending on how the area median income (AMI) numbers factor into the rent equation, not all of them, but the median rent is certainly above market right now. There aren’t many units that a bus driver or lift rider will live in. New ski fans need not apply. The argument that Whetstone is not meeting the need as presented in the county’s most recent needs assessment seems valid. The county is trying to keep at least 20% of Whetstone units tied to those earning the bottom 80% of AMI, and if utilities are included, that helps. I would think today’s rents will remain constant for most of the life of the project, so 2027 rental rates could look pretty good ten years from now.

Project developer John Cattles told me this week that the county “assumes that the market can support the proposed rents, as our market study shows. Additionally, the housing needs analysis shows a need for over 1,500 units across a range of incomes, so there is significant demand for housing.”

He correctly points out that most housing units house more than one person and their income, so a nurse and a construction worker probably earn enough to fall into the 130% AMI category. A restaurant worker and a CBMR worker probably earn enough to meet the 110% AMI threshold. “We did not claim, and have never claimed, that Whetstone meets all the need. Other projects will be necessary to meet the need,” Cattles said.

I imagine capitalism will come into play and rents may need to be lowered to attract people to the apartments and generate revenue. Or not. He is confident the proposed rents will work. It seems to me the worst case scenario is the county looking itself in the mirror when 130 apartments are vacant in 2030 and title restrictions are lifted to fill the apartments. However, the city of Crested Butte has a clause in their utility expansion agreement that makes it clear that at least 80% of the apartments must have title restrictions. I guess they could turn off water and sewer.

Again, Cattles is confident the county is in a solid position. “The pro forma includes several layoffs to cover costs in the event that we are unable to generate the projected rental income, whether through vacancies or reduced rents,” he said. “We have created a conservative pro forma that gives us the ability to make adjustments if necessary.”

Given the rents and density, do I think Whetstone won’t be full in the first week? I do…especially since the Mineral Point and Paradise Park housing projects, and possibly Homestead and Sawtooth, come online before Whetstone. But so far, all the affordable housing projects on both ends of the valley are filling up with waitlists, so I could be wrong.

Do I believe it is a mistake to make one of the county commissioners the primary advocate for the project? I do. Laura Puckett Daniels has indicated that given her position as an advocate at Whetstone, she probably plans to abstain from voting on the project. I hope not. She should be a voting member of the county board of commissioners, as that is the job she signed up for. By county standards, her decision to be the primary advocate for the county project rather than one of three decision makers, even though there are capable advocates who can take on the advocacy burden, is a poor choice in my opinion.

Frankly, I don’t see the conflict of interest that some see, including apparently the county’s legal department. I would have no problem with them being able to vote for or against the project at the upcoming county meeting on October 8th. These are fairly typical situations in a small community where the government is ultimately the developer of such community projects.

I’ve always thought that the conflict of interest dilemma arises when a representative can gain financial advantage by voting. That’s not the case here (unless LPD booked a flight to their new home in the Bahamas after the funding was finalized). While serving as decision makers in the planning process, all three commissioners, in fact probably 95% of all elected officials in the county, have made it clear that the need to provide public housing is a top priority.

With lessons learned from the Corner at Brush Creek process, the county has encouraged public participation and oversight over the past few years. Meetings, charrettes, focus groups, site visits, and consultants have been used to get Whetstone to this point, and changes have been made based on public opinion. Given the current climate, I would say citizen oversight will certainly be in play on November 5th. If citizens don’t like what the county has done or disagree with the path it’s taken, they can use their oversight and vote out the majority of commissioners whose policies they disagree with.

Much of the recent criticism has been directed at the Crested Butte Town Council. The town seems to have gotten pretty much everything it asked for while being protected from financial risk. The county is where things will be put to the test, and the Oct. 8 meeting is the place to voice concerns about the project.

The concerns have been raised publicly for months, and the community as a whole has not shown up to City Council or County Commissioner meetings to demand change. I watched on Monday as several local working-class kids in their mid-20s attended part of the council meeting. They could have stayed to participate in the Whetstone discussion, as they are the demographic likely to be most affected by the future of the project. They left after the Pointed Laccolith Day proclamation was approved. They seemed to think things would work out.

And that will change too. Is Whetstone perfect? ​​Absolutely not. I hope the Planning Commission and commissioners take a hard look at things like density and building location. Rents remain an issue. If there is a way to provide some units for lower AMI workers (between 60% and 80% AMI), that would be a plus. As suggested Monday, interest rates are coming down and inflation is cooling, so that will play a role in terms of timing of funding. County decision makers should still consider how to improve this project.

Whetstone’s ultimate goal of giving people the opportunity to live close to where they work and contribute to their community is good…not perfect, but good.

—Mark Reaman