Affordable housing debate about density, not discrimination

I have lived in the valley nearly 50 years and am now a resident of Mt. Rose Estates in Palmer, located next to the proposed affordable housing project that was referenced in the February 16th front-page article titled “Debate Over Housing Development Continues”. Sadly this was a blatant misrepresentation of the concerns of the Mt Rose Community. This article portrayed this Senior Community as petty and discriminatory as did the paper’s editorial. This was an unfair and insulting appraisal.

With all due respect to Howard Bess (I have always held him in high esteem) his comments are his alone, as he clearly stated. However his comment (equating it to a ghetto) was the cornerstone of the disparaging article that painted Mt. Rose as not wanting “those types of people” next door. Only one Mt. Rose resident testified at that hearing and I am still kicking myself for not testifying and sharing my concerns.

For me this is a DENSITY issue! I am in total agreement with the need of more affordable housing. At the previous hearing many letters were submitted to the Board voicing the concerns surrounding this housing project. The primary objection was “density”. Let’s say conservatively two adults per unit makes 176, and again conservatively, add even one child per unit that’s another 88 people bringing the total to 264. At least one car (most likely two) per unit equals 88 vehicles. These numbers are too high for 9.3 acres! This high density impacts traffic on an already overburdened road. This in turn affects noise, as well as the overcrowding of surrounding schools that are at their limits. There is a drainage issue as well, but I will leave that to the engineers to rectify.

The photo depiction of the housing units on the front page of the paper looks lovely and pristine, however after visiting the two other affordable housing projects in Anchorage, built by the same developers, I found the architecture more akin to Conex metal buildings, boxy and more suitable to an industrial park. In fairness to these Anchorage communities, I found them to be neat and clean.

Again let me reiterate, this is about density! Is there no room for compromise? Wouldn’t a more modified project be more suitable to our rural community? Do we really want the density levels that Anchorage has? Isn’t that why we live in the Valley?

Perhaps the project could be cut in half…say to 44 housing units, less noise, less traffic, less people and pets. Wouldn’t this be more in keeping with the surrounding community? As it stands now I am concerned that this will become an anthill of adults, children, pets and automobiles. Certainly that is not fair to those families living in this housing project as well.

I would respectfully suggest this compromise to the developers and to the Palmer City Council, who I am sure want Palmer to remain the jewel that it is. Playing the prejudice card is unjustified and a not-so-veiled threat. This false accusation puts the Palmer City Council in a precarious position. How could they possibly not approve this project with a possible lawsuit looming over their heads? In closing, this is about density, not discrimination.

Toni Faubion-Truesdell, a 45 year resident of Alaska, is a retired educator and currently a writer and Senior Fitness Instructor. She lives in Palmer.