Taxpayers shouldn’t shoulder developers’ costs

Paring the fastest growing region in Alaska with a Mat-Su Borough Assembly that seems resolved to return to the 1950s, when this region had few rules and fewer residents, could have lasting negative consequences for the borough, its residents and its housing stock.

The Mat-Su is famous for its aversion to rules. But as much as rules are a restrictive force, they protect us, too.

In the same way we may grouse when Alaska State Troopers write us a ticket for exceeding the posted speed limit, we understand the law is the law and that speed often is listed as a contributing factor in the fatal traffic accidents we report.

Rules are generally like that. We may not like them, but as adults, we understand our commitment to abide by these agreed-upon rules or succumb to anarchy.

Around the Mat-Su Borough Assembly chambers Tuesday, there was fear assembly members would kill entirely the borough’s existing multi-family code rather than or re-work sections of it that have proven problematic.

We are pleased to see the borough seems to be moving to revise, not eliminate, this section of code.

Often, the decisions the men seated at this table make on our behalf have long-term consequences for us as a community, and perhaps none more so than this multi-family ordinance.

For many people who can afford to buy a home, it is the single biggest purchase they will make. Housing may cost less here, but you get what you pay for. Walls that aren’t straight, foundations that are crumbling and a growing number of homes built by unlicensed contractors have given the Mat-Su Valley its reputation for substandard housing.

Housing isn’t something we should skimp on as a community. It’s a long-term investment for every family and contributes beyond measure to the quality of life here.

We want houses that are well-made. We see quality homes as a huge asset to our community. We think all roads to new housing developments should meet minimum standards so emergency vehicles, snow removal equipment and school buses can access the area.

Yes, building roads is expensive. But if developers bought land here and want to subdivide it for housing, building roads that can be accessed by emergency vehicles is part of that cost. How they pass the cost on to the people who buy the subdivided lots is up to them. We don’t think it’s fair to leave that cost for taxpayers at large to shoulder at a later date.

Rolling back the rules would surely produce a burst of new construction — in the same way removing the rules for tall towers saw a boom in their construction this summer. We might get a lot of housing, but it’s anybody’s guess whether it would be habitable or survive enough Alaska winters for your children to inherit it.

We see how rolling back the rules stands to benefit housing developers. On the flip side, though, we’re concerned about the impact gutting the rules will have on the quality of the Valley’s housing stock.