Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan

This looks like a great land use plan, however, I believe we need to see the background information to fully provide feedback on the land use designations as they are mapped. In particular, no information has been provided on the environment, cultural and historic resources, natural resources, hazards, infrastructure and economic conditions. I would assume the City has these map layers that could easily be shared. It would also be helpful to have the parcel layer turned on. The map is not intuitive and hard to comment on.

I see that the annexation policy has been included in the draft plan. This appears to be the existing annexation policy with no updates made to the map. Overtime we have found areas that are mapped as Annexation Area 'A' only to later find out that the infrastructure isn't really there to support the development or the property is/will be in the floodplain and therefore the city does not want to annex the property. It would be helpful to see the annexation map as a layer so it can be compared to the infrastructure, hazards, etc.

What outreach has been done to County residents and community councils? With 44% of the population in the urban area still residents of the county, the annexation policy and future land use map could effect them greatly. I see a situation in which a developer may request annexation for a subdivision (since the public process will be less with the subdivision) and surrounding neighbors are taken back by the intensity of the development only to find out that they should have commented now and no longer have the same ability to comment at the time of the development. To be inclusive, outreach must be done to county residents.

Thank you

Re: The urban high-density plan (for Franklin-to-the-Fort and other neighborhoods): as more 4-story blocks of apartments go in, the character of these neighborhoods will change dramatically — which will result in community pushback. My suggestion is to include in that zoning package design standards with enough articulation ((second floor setbacks, and varied profiles) so that they fit into the neighborhoods so the community can accept them.

Re: The urban high-density plan (for Franklin-to-the-Fort and other neighborhoods): as more 4-story blocks of apartments go in, the character of these neighborhoods will change dramatically — which will result in community pushback. My suggestion is to include in that zoning package design standards with enough articulation ((second floor setbacks, and varied profiles) so that they fit into the neighborhoods so the community can accept them.

Thank you for the comprehensive plan and approach to all the pieces in our community. Is there an opportunity to condense all urban residential to HIGH? It makes more sense to concentrate use in the urban areas and allow more types and uses or buildings.
Regional corridor, regional mixed use, community residential and community mixed use street types get confusing with many options, can these street types be simplified to just be commercial and allow for mixed uses without density limits? Thank you!

Thank you for the comprehensive plan and approach to all the pieces in our community. Is there an opportunity to condense all urban residential to HIGH? It makes more sense to concentrate use in the urban areas and allow more types and uses or buildings.
Regional corridor, regional mixed use, community residential and community mixed yse street types get confusing with many options, can these street types be simplified to just be commercial and allow for mixed uses without density limits? Thank you!

The place type 'suburban residential' is not appropriate for the Lower Rattlesnake (west side of the creek), nor for River road (Russell to Reserve). These two areas are hardly suburbs, and are very close to the city center. Yes, there are some cul de sacs, and sensitive lands, and Lower Rattlesnake has some steep hillsides and River road has flood plains. Thus, a better place type would be something like, 'Conservation' or 'Constrained' or something like that. The description for 'suburban residential' talks a lot about being 'car dependent' and the car is the 'primary mode'. That is not and should not be the aspirational vision for these two areas. Cul de sacs, while not ideal, do not have to mean 'driving dependent.' Connected foot and bike paths, with some transit, can work very well, for the future of these places.

The place type 'suburban residential' is not appropriate for the Lower Rattlesnake (west side of the creek), nor for River road (Russell to Reserve). These two areas are hardly suburbs, and are very close to the city center. Yes, there are some cul de sacs, and sensitive lands, and Lower Rattlesnake has some steep hillsides and River road has flood plains. Thus, a better place type would be something like, 'Conservation' or 'Constrained' or something like that. The description for 'suburban residential' talks a lot about being 'car dependent' and the car is the 'primary mode'. That is not and should not be the aspirational vision for these two areas. Cul de sacs, while not ideal, do not have to mean 'driving dependent.' Connected foot and bike paths, with some transit, can work very well, for the future of these places.

The place type 'suburban residential' is not appropriate for the Lower Rattlesnake (west side of the creek), nor for River road (Russell to Reserve). These two areas are hardly suburbs, and are very close to the city center. Yes, there are some cul de sacs, and sensitive lands, and Lower Rattlesnake has some steep hillsides and River road has flood plains. Thus, a better place type would be something like, 'Conservation' or 'Constrained' or something like that. The description for 'suburban residential' talks a lot about being 'car dependent' and the car is the 'primary mode'. That is not and should not be the aspirational vision for these two areas. Cul de sacs, while not ideal, do not have to mean 'driving dependent.' Connected foot and bike paths, with some transit, can work very well, for the future of these places.

The place type 'suburban residential' is not appropriate for the Lower Rattlesnake (west side of the creek), nor for River road (Russell to Reserve). These two areas are hardly suburbs, and are very close to the city center. Yes, there are some cul de sacs, and sensitive lands, and Lower Rattlesnake has some steep hillsides and River road has flood plains. Thus, a better place type would be something like, 'Conservation' or 'Constrained' or something like that. The description for 'suburban residential' talks a lot about being 'car dependent' and the car is the 'primary mode'. That is not and should not be the aspirational vision for these two areas. Cul de sacs, while not ideal, do not have to mean 'driving dependent.' Connected foot and bike paths, with some transit, can work very well, for the future of these places.

The place type 'suburban residential' is not appropriate for the lower rattlesnake, west side of the creek; nor for River road, Russell to Reserve. These two areas are hardly suburbs, and very close to the city center. Yes, there are some cul de sacs, and sensitive lands, and Lower Rattlesnake has some steep hillsides, and River road has flood plains. A better place type would be something like, 'Conservation' or 'Constrained' or something like that. The description for 'suburban residential' talks a lot about being 'car dependent' and the car is the 'primary mode'. That is not and should not be the aspirational vision for these two areas. Cul de sacs, while not ideal, do not have to mean 'driving dependent.' Connected foot and bike paths, with some transit, can work very well, for the future of these places. -Bob Giordano, Director,Missoula Institute for Sustainable Transportation, www.strans.org,
mist@strans.org

This comment is somewhat out-of-scope for this particular plan, but I am interested in the intersection of this plan with the PROST plan, the transportation plan, the strategic plan for the City of Missoula as well as social factors outlined in the Community Health Assessment. Connectedness, both physically and socially, are drivers for social capital. Communities that invest in and promote opportunities to increase social capital are also proven to be economically sustainable. The land use plan does greatly increase the opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, which is a keystone to social capital, but it doesn't end there. We need "third places" for gathering face-to-face and the ability to get to those locations. Over the past couple of decades Missoula has lost gathering spaces and competition for property has priced out new opportunities. Finally, those who are long-time residents know that new growth does not pay for itself. Private property allows for development within guidelines, but that development doesn't pay for improving the water, waste, and transportation systems required to support a new development. That cost is born by us all. We need a more equitable model for paying for and improving infrastructure.

This comment is somewhat out-of-scope for this particular plan, but I am interested in the intersection of this plan with the PROST plan, the transportation plan, the strategic plan for the City of Missoula as well as social factors outlined in the Community Health Assessment. Connectedness, both physically and socially, are drivers for social capital. Communities that invest in and promote opportunities to increase social capital are also proven to be economically sustainable. The land use plan does greatly increase the opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, which is a keystone to social capital, but it doesn't end there. We need "third places" for gathering face-to-face and the ability to get to those locations. Over the past couple of decades Missoula has lost a number of gathering spaces and competition for property has priced out new opportunities. Finally, those who are long-time residents know that new growth does not pay for itself. Private property allows for development within guidelines, but that development doesn't pay for improving the water, waste, and transportation systems required to support a new development. That cost is born by us all. We need a more equitable model for paying for and improving infrastructure.

This comment is somewhat out-of-scope for this particular plan, but I am interested in the intersection of this plan with the PROST plan, the transportation plan, the strategic plan for the City of Missoula as well as social factors outlined in the Community Health Assessment. Connectedness, both physically and socially, are drivers for social capital. Communities that invest in and promote opportunities to increase social capital are also proven to be economically sustainable. The land use plan does greatly increase the opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, which is a keystone to social capital, but it doesn't end there. We need "third places" for gathering face-to-face and the ability to get to those locations. Over the past couple of decades Missoula has lost a number of gathering spaces and competition for property has priced out new opportunities. Finally, those who are long-time residents know that new growth does not pay for itself. Private property allows for development within guidelines, but that development doesn't pay for improving the water, waste, and transportation systems required to support a new development. That cost is born by us all. We need a more equitable model for paying for and improving infrastructure.

This comment is somewhat out-of-scope for this particular plan, but I am interested in the intersection of this plan with the PROST plan, the transportation plan, the strategic plan for the City of Missoula as well as social factors outlined in the Community Health Assessment. Connectedness, both physically and socially, are drivers for social capital. Communities that invest in and promote opportunities to increase social capital are also proven to be economically sustainable. The land use plan does greatly increase the opportunity for mixed neighborhoods, which is a keystone to social capital, but it doesn't end there. We need "third places" for gathering face-to-face and the ability to get to those locations. Over the past couple of decades Missoula has lost a number of gathering spaces and competition for property has priced out new opportunities. Finally, those who are long-time residents know that new growth does not pay for itself. Private property allows for development within guidelines, but that development doesn't pay for improving the water, waste, and transportation systems required to support a new development. That cost is born by us all. We need a more equitable model for paying for and improving infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts, but I have so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts, but I have so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts but so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula.

9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts, but I have so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts, but I have so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.

I've got so many thoughts, but I have so little time. I've added a few below.

1) The urban residential low in the area bounded by SW Higgins/39th, Brooks, South, and Higgins should all be urban residential high.

2) The area south and directly adjacent to SW Higgins/39th should be residential low instead of suburban south as far as about Briggs, geography permitting.

3) The area between Wyoming, Reserve, Russell, and 3rd should be urban residential high. Between Wyoming and River Road should be urban residential low except where the flood risk is high.

4) Broadway up to Palmer should be Urban mixed use instead of suburban.

5) Target Range and Orchard Homes are not nearly dense enough. The triangle between Central, Reserve, and Spurgin should be urban residential high. The area between Spurgin, Hiberta, Reserve, and 3rd should also be urban residential high. There should be urban residential low from 3rd to Juneau in the same area. The area bounded by Hiberta, Spurgin, Tower, and 3rd should be urban residential low. And most of the rest of that area should be suburban or urban residential low.

6) I agree with the person commenting about Mullan being unsafe. There definitely needs to be some work done there and probably a reduction in speed limits.

7) The comments advocating for decreasing people and discouraging people from moving here are antithetical to Missoula's community values and from the values and policy goals of this draft plan (and literally every city planning document); are illiberal and against the spirit of Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment; and violate rules 3 and 7 of this site's moderation policy. We can't stop people from coming here. Who hurt you?

8) I think we could benefit by consolidating some of the place types and increasing the flexibility of allowed uses. Suburban doesn't seem to need to exist except to decrease the efficacy of this plan. With some tinkering, we could also just have two high and low mixed uses and remove the suburban mixed use, especially if the goal is to increase density, walking, and biking throughout the city. The suburban mixed use along Reserve seems to preclude a viable pedestrian/biking/bus connection between two centers of growth in Missoula. 9) Would still really appreciate an ordinance outlawing the practice of using residential units as short-term vacation rentals. I get a previous document published by the city says it's a negligible effect, but if we're in a housing crisis, I assume every single additional unit helps. Or do I not understand how supply and demand works?

10) Everyone's freaking out about cars, but my read of the plan is that the city has no intention of completely removing parking minimums. I'm personally fine with .5 spaces, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that every household needs a car in Montana. 1 parking space per unit is plenty. How many cars do y'all need? One for each season?

11) Toward the end of the draft plan, it talks about lobbying the state legislature for some things that only the state government can do or that the state government has denied us. You might as well ask for a higher and more progressive income tax and a mansion tax so we can actually fund the services we need. To anyone who worries about snow on roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, I suggest the city lobby the Republicans in this state to stop fiscally strangling us to pad the pockets of the rich so we can actually maintain our infrastructure.