Midtown Commons

Missoula Mayor Andrea Davis is pleased to announce that the City of Missoula is working with Miramonte Companies on a development plan for the City-owned Southgate Crossing property on Missoula’s southwest side.

The Concept

The initial concept includes housing and commercial development, along with a public park of approximately 1.3 acres. Neighbors in the area will collaborate in a public engagement process with Missoula Parks and Recreation and Missoula Redevelopment Agency staff to develop a concept design for the park, likely beginning in October. The new homes will include rental and ownership opportunities.

The development concept aligns with extensive outreach and public processes during the past two years, including

Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan: Land Use Plan | Missoula, MT - Official Website
Long Range Transportation Plan: Missoula Connect: 2050 LRTP | missoulampo
2024 Community Health Assessment: 2024 Missoula County CHA - Adobe cloud storage
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) 2040 Master Plan: PROST Master Plan | Missoula, MT - Official Website
Midtown Master Plan: Home | Missoula Midtown Mas
National Community Survey: The-NCS-Report---Missoula-MT-2024
Our Missoula Growth Policy: Five-Year-Growth-Policy-Review
North MRL Triangle: North MRL Triangle - Future Uses | Engage Missoula
Community Health Improvement Plan 2025- 2030: About Us - Missoula Public Health

The project also draws on recommendations from Mayor Davis’ Task Force on City Lands Redevelopment, which calls for strategies that provide a clear, actionable approach for leveraging City-owned properties to meet near- and long-term community goals and deliver lasting public benefit.

The 13.5-acre Southgate Crossing is strategically located for potential connection to Brooks Street from South Avenue. The City purchased it last winter. It is a keystone property in the development of Midtown. The City’s involvement allows the City to invest in necessary infrastructure.

The City has an exclusive agreement with Miramonte to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement and a development agreement.

The Concept

The development concept aligns with extensive outreach and public processes during the past two years, including

Our Missoula 2045 Land Use Plan: Land Use Plan | Missoula, MT - Official Website
Long Range Transportation Plan: Missoula Connect: 2050 LRTP | missoulampo
2024 Community Health Assessment: 2024 Missoula County CHA - Adobe cloud storage
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) 2040 Master Plan: PROST Master Plan | Missoula, MT - Official Website
Midtown Master Plan: Home | Missoula Midtown Mas
National Community Survey: The-NCS-Report---Missoula-MT-2024
Our Missoula Growth Policy: Five-Year-Growth-Policy-Review
North MRL Triangle: North MRL Triangle - Future Uses | Engage Missoula
Community Health Improvement Plan 2025- 2030: About Us - Missoula Public Health

The City has an exclusive agreement with Miramonte to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement and a development agreement.

Leave a Comment or ask a Question about Midtown Commons

Share It is clear in reading through your frequently asked questions that there have been many conversations about this development that didn’t involve the public. Now the public input is limited to the park, instead of the entire project. Given that this is publicly owned land (bought with taxpayer money) why isn’t there more conversation with the public about what we want to do with our land? on Facebook Share It is clear in reading through your frequently asked questions that there have been many conversations about this development that didn’t involve the public. Now the public input is limited to the park, instead of the entire project. Given that this is publicly owned land (bought with taxpayer money) why isn’t there more conversation with the public about what we want to do with our land? on Twitter Share It is clear in reading through your frequently asked questions that there have been many conversations about this development that didn’t involve the public. Now the public input is limited to the park, instead of the entire project. Given that this is publicly owned land (bought with taxpayer money) why isn’t there more conversation with the public about what we want to do with our land? on Linkedin Email It is clear in reading through your frequently asked questions that there have been many conversations about this development that didn’t involve the public. Now the public input is limited to the park, instead of the entire project. Given that this is publicly owned land (bought with taxpayer money) why isn’t there more conversation with the public about what we want to do with our land? link

It is clear in reading through your frequently asked questions that there have been many conversations about this development that didn’t involve the public. Now the public input is limited to the park, instead of the entire project. Given that this is publicly owned land (bought with taxpayer money) why isn’t there more conversation with the public about what we want to do with our land?

Marygiuliani asked 18 days ago

Thanks for your question.
Significant public engagement led to the purchase of this land. More than 9,000 community members have participated in public planning processes that have led to the Midtown Commons concept design. The City chose to partner with Miramonte Companies because they put forth a development concept that: provides more housing choices, including middle-income housing; provides infill development; creates community spaces; encourages local business, enhances community connectivity; and provides a new public park. These are goals of the Midtown Missoula Master Plan; the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan 2040; and the Our Missoula Land Use Plan 2045 – all of which were developed through significant public engagement.
Regards,
The Project Team
Share *A note: I submitted comment/question on October 23 but it hasn't been posted yet. Regardless, please post this draft instead. I have added some more info and questions to my original submission that I would like to be part of the public record. I also don't see any other public comments but I know others are commenting and am curious why they aren't posted? Thank you for your time! Also the new lighting on the Bitterroot Trail is fantastic! What a great addition to our trail system! As a lifelong Missoula resident, with the exception of a few years farming in Colorado, I write this letter to express my concerns over the proposed Southgate Crossing development (now being called Midtown Commons). I question why the city is selling the Southgate Crossing parcel, bought with taxpayer money, to a private developer who has no requirement to build affordable housing. The chosen developer, Miramonte Companies, is planning to build market-rate homes, which most Missoulians can’t afford, in the first phase of building.The argument that this sale is positive as it will generate more TIF dollars that can then be directed towards the affordable housing trust fund is a false argument. When expensive homes are built in lower income areas, the land valuation of established homes increases. An increase in land valuation then increases property taxes on those established homes and makes homes/rent that were once affordable now unaffordable. It is this very “TIFing” that is creating housing insecurity for many people who have homes already: they simply cannot afford an increase in property taxes. Additionally, landlords have to pass along the cost to renters so renters are negatively impacted. Do you see how this is a vicious cycle that actually directly contributes to the housing crisis? When the city published the “Midtown Master Plan” included was a socioeconomic impact study which I have attached. One portion of the study reads, “increasing intensity of new development could have the highest potential to create displacement risk in the areas of Midtown that have the highest concentration of vulnerable populations. According to our analysis, the southern end of the study area has the greatest share of most groups who could be at greater risk from redevelopment projects and increasing housing costs”. I will note that the “southern end” is where the new development is proposed. The socioeconomic impact statement also found the average household income in Midtown was $7,000 LESS than the city as a whole in 2016-2020. The combination of rising housing prices and lower incomes compared to Missoula overall could intensify displacement risk for vulnerable populations and may already be causing households to relocate. I also read the document titled “Mayor Davis Task Force on City Land Redevelopment”. The “Right Use, Right Place” recommendation states, “not every site can or should serve every goal. Prioritization and pragmatism will help the city avoid imposing unattainable requirements on redevelopment”. Firstly: who decides what is “pragmatic”? How is it “pragmatic” to build “market rate” homes that will sell for over half a million dollars when, according to the Missoula Housing Authority report in October 2024, more than 2400 people in our community are on the waitlist for housing vouchers? And what qualifies as “unattainable requirements”? Is this a loop-hole that could degrade mitigating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts? There are plenty of current housing developments building market rate; South Hills, Grant Creek, Paisley Park, and with the new code reform coming, there will be more. I would argue that the “right use” for the Southgate Parcel would be for truly affordable housing. I do not support the sale of this land for the current proposed project and encourage the creation of a community land trust instead. We’ve already paid for the land so that piece is complete. The city’s response to an FAQ about this development stated, “Tax Increment Financing may be used to invest in public infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities if requested and approved by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board”. So, if taxpayers are likely going to be on the hook for infrastructure costs regardless, it seems more beneficial to Missoulians to have that money go towards a community land trust project than the funding of infrastructure to support a private developer’s project. What if we worked with local builders that promoted community engagement to build sustainable and affordable homes? Removing housing from the speculative market would lead to affordable rent prices and/or people could purchase their own home/unit without having to also purchase the land beneath it. This would also help ensure that established housing surrounding the new development (many of which are mobile/modest homes) are, by proxy, less affected by the speculative market. As cuts to essential services like Medicaid/SNAP take place on the federal level, we need a safety net for our community. We can’t control what the federal government is doing, but we do have power locally to take care of our own. This parcel is a golden opportunity for Missoula to be forward thinking and protect the incredibly valuable assets we have for generations to come. When people don’t have to struggle to pay a huge mortgage or high rent, they are able to save money and eventually move to one of those market-rate homes or rent a more expensive unit somewhere else if they so choose. After reviewing the developers most recent “Midtown Commons” draft, I am also perplexed by how much space is being set-aside for commercial use. This section of Midtown already contains a lot of commercial space so it seems it would be best to utilize this parcel for housing and open space. This land is an oasis in the middle of town. The URD lll plan from the year 2000 states, “there is only one public park and one public school in this area…This may not be adequate for the Missoula community that places a high value on parks, open spaces, and public interaction”. The 4 acre Rail Link Park was created in 2019 but the addition of more housing/people in the area must be factored in. The current park size of 1.3 acres seems quite small. In closing, I would ask that you provide myself and the public the data you have found that supports the sale of this land for the current proposed development. From what I can see, the documents and data the city of Missoula has provided thus far regarding the Southgate Crossing do not provide evidence to support the current “Midtown Commons” plan. In fact, if the sale of the land and this development proceed, the data indicates there could be negative outcomes for the surrounding community. This project is moving at rapid speed. Would you be willing to slow down and collaborate with the Missoula Community on a plan that would be more beneficial in the long-term? on Facebook Share *A note: I submitted comment/question on October 23 but it hasn't been posted yet. Regardless, please post this draft instead. I have added some more info and questions to my original submission that I would like to be part of the public record. I also don't see any other public comments but I know others are commenting and am curious why they aren't posted? Thank you for your time! Also the new lighting on the Bitterroot Trail is fantastic! What a great addition to our trail system! As a lifelong Missoula resident, with the exception of a few years farming in Colorado, I write this letter to express my concerns over the proposed Southgate Crossing development (now being called Midtown Commons). I question why the city is selling the Southgate Crossing parcel, bought with taxpayer money, to a private developer who has no requirement to build affordable housing. The chosen developer, Miramonte Companies, is planning to build market-rate homes, which most Missoulians can’t afford, in the first phase of building.The argument that this sale is positive as it will generate more TIF dollars that can then be directed towards the affordable housing trust fund is a false argument. When expensive homes are built in lower income areas, the land valuation of established homes increases. An increase in land valuation then increases property taxes on those established homes and makes homes/rent that were once affordable now unaffordable. It is this very “TIFing” that is creating housing insecurity for many people who have homes already: they simply cannot afford an increase in property taxes. Additionally, landlords have to pass along the cost to renters so renters are negatively impacted. Do you see how this is a vicious cycle that actually directly contributes to the housing crisis? When the city published the “Midtown Master Plan” included was a socioeconomic impact study which I have attached. One portion of the study reads, “increasing intensity of new development could have the highest potential to create displacement risk in the areas of Midtown that have the highest concentration of vulnerable populations. According to our analysis, the southern end of the study area has the greatest share of most groups who could be at greater risk from redevelopment projects and increasing housing costs”. I will note that the “southern end” is where the new development is proposed. The socioeconomic impact statement also found the average household income in Midtown was $7,000 LESS than the city as a whole in 2016-2020. The combination of rising housing prices and lower incomes compared to Missoula overall could intensify displacement risk for vulnerable populations and may already be causing households to relocate. I also read the document titled “Mayor Davis Task Force on City Land Redevelopment”. The “Right Use, Right Place” recommendation states, “not every site can or should serve every goal. Prioritization and pragmatism will help the city avoid imposing unattainable requirements on redevelopment”. Firstly: who decides what is “pragmatic”? How is it “pragmatic” to build “market rate” homes that will sell for over half a million dollars when, according to the Missoula Housing Authority report in October 2024, more than 2400 people in our community are on the waitlist for housing vouchers? And what qualifies as “unattainable requirements”? Is this a loop-hole that could degrade mitigating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts? There are plenty of current housing developments building market rate; South Hills, Grant Creek, Paisley Park, and with the new code reform coming, there will be more. I would argue that the “right use” for the Southgate Parcel would be for truly affordable housing. I do not support the sale of this land for the current proposed project and encourage the creation of a community land trust instead. We’ve already paid for the land so that piece is complete. The city’s response to an FAQ about this development stated, “Tax Increment Financing may be used to invest in public infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities if requested and approved by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board”. So, if taxpayers are likely going to be on the hook for infrastructure costs regardless, it seems more beneficial to Missoulians to have that money go towards a community land trust project than the funding of infrastructure to support a private developer’s project. What if we worked with local builders that promoted community engagement to build sustainable and affordable homes? Removing housing from the speculative market would lead to affordable rent prices and/or people could purchase their own home/unit without having to also purchase the land beneath it. This would also help ensure that established housing surrounding the new development (many of which are mobile/modest homes) are, by proxy, less affected by the speculative market. As cuts to essential services like Medicaid/SNAP take place on the federal level, we need a safety net for our community. We can’t control what the federal government is doing, but we do have power locally to take care of our own. This parcel is a golden opportunity for Missoula to be forward thinking and protect the incredibly valuable assets we have for generations to come. When people don’t have to struggle to pay a huge mortgage or high rent, they are able to save money and eventually move to one of those market-rate homes or rent a more expensive unit somewhere else if they so choose. After reviewing the developers most recent “Midtown Commons” draft, I am also perplexed by how much space is being set-aside for commercial use. This section of Midtown already contains a lot of commercial space so it seems it would be best to utilize this parcel for housing and open space. This land is an oasis in the middle of town. The URD lll plan from the year 2000 states, “there is only one public park and one public school in this area…This may not be adequate for the Missoula community that places a high value on parks, open spaces, and public interaction”. The 4 acre Rail Link Park was created in 2019 but the addition of more housing/people in the area must be factored in. The current park size of 1.3 acres seems quite small. In closing, I would ask that you provide myself and the public the data you have found that supports the sale of this land for the current proposed development. From what I can see, the documents and data the city of Missoula has provided thus far regarding the Southgate Crossing do not provide evidence to support the current “Midtown Commons” plan. In fact, if the sale of the land and this development proceed, the data indicates there could be negative outcomes for the surrounding community. This project is moving at rapid speed. Would you be willing to slow down and collaborate with the Missoula Community on a plan that would be more beneficial in the long-term? on Twitter Share *A note: I submitted comment/question on October 23 but it hasn't been posted yet. Regardless, please post this draft instead. I have added some more info and questions to my original submission that I would like to be part of the public record. I also don't see any other public comments but I know others are commenting and am curious why they aren't posted? Thank you for your time! Also the new lighting on the Bitterroot Trail is fantastic! What a great addition to our trail system! As a lifelong Missoula resident, with the exception of a few years farming in Colorado, I write this letter to express my concerns over the proposed Southgate Crossing development (now being called Midtown Commons). I question why the city is selling the Southgate Crossing parcel, bought with taxpayer money, to a private developer who has no requirement to build affordable housing. The chosen developer, Miramonte Companies, is planning to build market-rate homes, which most Missoulians can’t afford, in the first phase of building.The argument that this sale is positive as it will generate more TIF dollars that can then be directed towards the affordable housing trust fund is a false argument. When expensive homes are built in lower income areas, the land valuation of established homes increases. An increase in land valuation then increases property taxes on those established homes and makes homes/rent that were once affordable now unaffordable. It is this very “TIFing” that is creating housing insecurity for many people who have homes already: they simply cannot afford an increase in property taxes. Additionally, landlords have to pass along the cost to renters so renters are negatively impacted. Do you see how this is a vicious cycle that actually directly contributes to the housing crisis? When the city published the “Midtown Master Plan” included was a socioeconomic impact study which I have attached. One portion of the study reads, “increasing intensity of new development could have the highest potential to create displacement risk in the areas of Midtown that have the highest concentration of vulnerable populations. According to our analysis, the southern end of the study area has the greatest share of most groups who could be at greater risk from redevelopment projects and increasing housing costs”. I will note that the “southern end” is where the new development is proposed. The socioeconomic impact statement also found the average household income in Midtown was $7,000 LESS than the city as a whole in 2016-2020. The combination of rising housing prices and lower incomes compared to Missoula overall could intensify displacement risk for vulnerable populations and may already be causing households to relocate. I also read the document titled “Mayor Davis Task Force on City Land Redevelopment”. The “Right Use, Right Place” recommendation states, “not every site can or should serve every goal. Prioritization and pragmatism will help the city avoid imposing unattainable requirements on redevelopment”. Firstly: who decides what is “pragmatic”? How is it “pragmatic” to build “market rate” homes that will sell for over half a million dollars when, according to the Missoula Housing Authority report in October 2024, more than 2400 people in our community are on the waitlist for housing vouchers? And what qualifies as “unattainable requirements”? Is this a loop-hole that could degrade mitigating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts? There are plenty of current housing developments building market rate; South Hills, Grant Creek, Paisley Park, and with the new code reform coming, there will be more. I would argue that the “right use” for the Southgate Parcel would be for truly affordable housing. I do not support the sale of this land for the current proposed project and encourage the creation of a community land trust instead. We’ve already paid for the land so that piece is complete. The city’s response to an FAQ about this development stated, “Tax Increment Financing may be used to invest in public infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities if requested and approved by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board”. So, if taxpayers are likely going to be on the hook for infrastructure costs regardless, it seems more beneficial to Missoulians to have that money go towards a community land trust project than the funding of infrastructure to support a private developer’s project. What if we worked with local builders that promoted community engagement to build sustainable and affordable homes? Removing housing from the speculative market would lead to affordable rent prices and/or people could purchase their own home/unit without having to also purchase the land beneath it. This would also help ensure that established housing surrounding the new development (many of which are mobile/modest homes) are, by proxy, less affected by the speculative market. As cuts to essential services like Medicaid/SNAP take place on the federal level, we need a safety net for our community. We can’t control what the federal government is doing, but we do have power locally to take care of our own. This parcel is a golden opportunity for Missoula to be forward thinking and protect the incredibly valuable assets we have for generations to come. When people don’t have to struggle to pay a huge mortgage or high rent, they are able to save money and eventually move to one of those market-rate homes or rent a more expensive unit somewhere else if they so choose. After reviewing the developers most recent “Midtown Commons” draft, I am also perplexed by how much space is being set-aside for commercial use. This section of Midtown already contains a lot of commercial space so it seems it would be best to utilize this parcel for housing and open space. This land is an oasis in the middle of town. The URD lll plan from the year 2000 states, “there is only one public park and one public school in this area…This may not be adequate for the Missoula community that places a high value on parks, open spaces, and public interaction”. The 4 acre Rail Link Park was created in 2019 but the addition of more housing/people in the area must be factored in. The current park size of 1.3 acres seems quite small. In closing, I would ask that you provide myself and the public the data you have found that supports the sale of this land for the current proposed development. From what I can see, the documents and data the city of Missoula has provided thus far regarding the Southgate Crossing do not provide evidence to support the current “Midtown Commons” plan. In fact, if the sale of the land and this development proceed, the data indicates there could be negative outcomes for the surrounding community. This project is moving at rapid speed. Would you be willing to slow down and collaborate with the Missoula Community on a plan that would be more beneficial in the long-term? on Linkedin Email *A note: I submitted comment/question on October 23 but it hasn't been posted yet. Regardless, please post this draft instead. I have added some more info and questions to my original submission that I would like to be part of the public record. I also don't see any other public comments but I know others are commenting and am curious why they aren't posted? Thank you for your time! Also the new lighting on the Bitterroot Trail is fantastic! What a great addition to our trail system! As a lifelong Missoula resident, with the exception of a few years farming in Colorado, I write this letter to express my concerns over the proposed Southgate Crossing development (now being called Midtown Commons). I question why the city is selling the Southgate Crossing parcel, bought with taxpayer money, to a private developer who has no requirement to build affordable housing. The chosen developer, Miramonte Companies, is planning to build market-rate homes, which most Missoulians can’t afford, in the first phase of building.The argument that this sale is positive as it will generate more TIF dollars that can then be directed towards the affordable housing trust fund is a false argument. When expensive homes are built in lower income areas, the land valuation of established homes increases. An increase in land valuation then increases property taxes on those established homes and makes homes/rent that were once affordable now unaffordable. It is this very “TIFing” that is creating housing insecurity for many people who have homes already: they simply cannot afford an increase in property taxes. Additionally, landlords have to pass along the cost to renters so renters are negatively impacted. Do you see how this is a vicious cycle that actually directly contributes to the housing crisis? When the city published the “Midtown Master Plan” included was a socioeconomic impact study which I have attached. One portion of the study reads, “increasing intensity of new development could have the highest potential to create displacement risk in the areas of Midtown that have the highest concentration of vulnerable populations. According to our analysis, the southern end of the study area has the greatest share of most groups who could be at greater risk from redevelopment projects and increasing housing costs”. I will note that the “southern end” is where the new development is proposed. The socioeconomic impact statement also found the average household income in Midtown was $7,000 LESS than the city as a whole in 2016-2020. The combination of rising housing prices and lower incomes compared to Missoula overall could intensify displacement risk for vulnerable populations and may already be causing households to relocate. I also read the document titled “Mayor Davis Task Force on City Land Redevelopment”. The “Right Use, Right Place” recommendation states, “not every site can or should serve every goal. Prioritization and pragmatism will help the city avoid imposing unattainable requirements on redevelopment”. Firstly: who decides what is “pragmatic”? How is it “pragmatic” to build “market rate” homes that will sell for over half a million dollars when, according to the Missoula Housing Authority report in October 2024, more than 2400 people in our community are on the waitlist for housing vouchers? And what qualifies as “unattainable requirements”? Is this a loop-hole that could degrade mitigating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts? There are plenty of current housing developments building market rate; South Hills, Grant Creek, Paisley Park, and with the new code reform coming, there will be more. I would argue that the “right use” for the Southgate Parcel would be for truly affordable housing. I do not support the sale of this land for the current proposed project and encourage the creation of a community land trust instead. We’ve already paid for the land so that piece is complete. The city’s response to an FAQ about this development stated, “Tax Increment Financing may be used to invest in public infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities if requested and approved by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board”. So, if taxpayers are likely going to be on the hook for infrastructure costs regardless, it seems more beneficial to Missoulians to have that money go towards a community land trust project than the funding of infrastructure to support a private developer’s project. What if we worked with local builders that promoted community engagement to build sustainable and affordable homes? Removing housing from the speculative market would lead to affordable rent prices and/or people could purchase their own home/unit without having to also purchase the land beneath it. This would also help ensure that established housing surrounding the new development (many of which are mobile/modest homes) are, by proxy, less affected by the speculative market. As cuts to essential services like Medicaid/SNAP take place on the federal level, we need a safety net for our community. We can’t control what the federal government is doing, but we do have power locally to take care of our own. This parcel is a golden opportunity for Missoula to be forward thinking and protect the incredibly valuable assets we have for generations to come. When people don’t have to struggle to pay a huge mortgage or high rent, they are able to save money and eventually move to one of those market-rate homes or rent a more expensive unit somewhere else if they so choose. After reviewing the developers most recent “Midtown Commons” draft, I am also perplexed by how much space is being set-aside for commercial use. This section of Midtown already contains a lot of commercial space so it seems it would be best to utilize this parcel for housing and open space. This land is an oasis in the middle of town. The URD lll plan from the year 2000 states, “there is only one public park and one public school in this area…This may not be adequate for the Missoula community that places a high value on parks, open spaces, and public interaction”. The 4 acre Rail Link Park was created in 2019 but the addition of more housing/people in the area must be factored in. The current park size of 1.3 acres seems quite small. In closing, I would ask that you provide myself and the public the data you have found that supports the sale of this land for the current proposed development. From what I can see, the documents and data the city of Missoula has provided thus far regarding the Southgate Crossing do not provide evidence to support the current “Midtown Commons” plan. In fact, if the sale of the land and this development proceed, the data indicates there could be negative outcomes for the surrounding community. This project is moving at rapid speed. Would you be willing to slow down and collaborate with the Missoula Community on a plan that would be more beneficial in the long-term? link

*A note: I submitted comment/question on October 23 but it hasn't been posted yet. Regardless, please post this draft instead. I have added some more info and questions to my original submission that I would like to be part of the public record. I also don't see any other public comments but I know others are commenting and am curious why they aren't posted? Thank you for your time! Also the new lighting on the Bitterroot Trail is fantastic! What a great addition to our trail system! As a lifelong Missoula resident, with the exception of a few years farming in Colorado, I write this letter to express my concerns over the proposed Southgate Crossing development (now being called Midtown Commons). I question why the city is selling the Southgate Crossing parcel, bought with taxpayer money, to a private developer who has no requirement to build affordable housing. The chosen developer, Miramonte Companies, is planning to build market-rate homes, which most Missoulians can’t afford, in the first phase of building.The argument that this sale is positive as it will generate more TIF dollars that can then be directed towards the affordable housing trust fund is a false argument. When expensive homes are built in lower income areas, the land valuation of established homes increases. An increase in land valuation then increases property taxes on those established homes and makes homes/rent that were once affordable now unaffordable. It is this very “TIFing” that is creating housing insecurity for many people who have homes already: they simply cannot afford an increase in property taxes. Additionally, landlords have to pass along the cost to renters so renters are negatively impacted. Do you see how this is a vicious cycle that actually directly contributes to the housing crisis? When the city published the “Midtown Master Plan” included was a socioeconomic impact study which I have attached. One portion of the study reads, “increasing intensity of new development could have the highest potential to create displacement risk in the areas of Midtown that have the highest concentration of vulnerable populations. According to our analysis, the southern end of the study area has the greatest share of most groups who could be at greater risk from redevelopment projects and increasing housing costs”. I will note that the “southern end” is where the new development is proposed. The socioeconomic impact statement also found the average household income in Midtown was $7,000 LESS than the city as a whole in 2016-2020. The combination of rising housing prices and lower incomes compared to Missoula overall could intensify displacement risk for vulnerable populations and may already be causing households to relocate. I also read the document titled “Mayor Davis Task Force on City Land Redevelopment”. The “Right Use, Right Place” recommendation states, “not every site can or should serve every goal. Prioritization and pragmatism will help the city avoid imposing unattainable requirements on redevelopment”. Firstly: who decides what is “pragmatic”? How is it “pragmatic” to build “market rate” homes that will sell for over half a million dollars when, according to the Missoula Housing Authority report in October 2024, more than 2400 people in our community are on the waitlist for housing vouchers? And what qualifies as “unattainable requirements”? Is this a loop-hole that could degrade mitigating potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts? There are plenty of current housing developments building market rate; South Hills, Grant Creek, Paisley Park, and with the new code reform coming, there will be more. I would argue that the “right use” for the Southgate Parcel would be for truly affordable housing. I do not support the sale of this land for the current proposed project and encourage the creation of a community land trust instead. We’ve already paid for the land so that piece is complete. The city’s response to an FAQ about this development stated, “Tax Increment Financing may be used to invest in public infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and utilities if requested and approved by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board”. So, if taxpayers are likely going to be on the hook for infrastructure costs regardless, it seems more beneficial to Missoulians to have that money go towards a community land trust project than the funding of infrastructure to support a private developer’s project. What if we worked with local builders that promoted community engagement to build sustainable and affordable homes? Removing housing from the speculative market would lead to affordable rent prices and/or people could purchase their own home/unit without having to also purchase the land beneath it. This would also help ensure that established housing surrounding the new development (many of which are mobile/modest homes) are, by proxy, less affected by the speculative market. As cuts to essential services like Medicaid/SNAP take place on the federal level, we need a safety net for our community. We can’t control what the federal government is doing, but we do have power locally to take care of our own. This parcel is a golden opportunity for Missoula to be forward thinking and protect the incredibly valuable assets we have for generations to come. When people don’t have to struggle to pay a huge mortgage or high rent, they are able to save money and eventually move to one of those market-rate homes or rent a more expensive unit somewhere else if they so choose. After reviewing the developers most recent “Midtown Commons” draft, I am also perplexed by how much space is being set-aside for commercial use. This section of Midtown already contains a lot of commercial space so it seems it would be best to utilize this parcel for housing and open space. This land is an oasis in the middle of town. The URD lll plan from the year 2000 states, “there is only one public park and one public school in this area…This may not be adequate for the Missoula community that places a high value on parks, open spaces, and public interaction”. The 4 acre Rail Link Park was created in 2019 but the addition of more housing/people in the area must be factored in. The current park size of 1.3 acres seems quite small. In closing, I would ask that you provide myself and the public the data you have found that supports the sale of this land for the current proposed development. From what I can see, the documents and data the city of Missoula has provided thus far regarding the Southgate Crossing do not provide evidence to support the current “Midtown Commons” plan. In fact, if the sale of the land and this development proceed, the data indicates there could be negative outcomes for the surrounding community. This project is moving at rapid speed. Would you be willing to slow down and collaborate with the Missoula Community on a plan that would be more beneficial in the long-term?

Sarafina asked 29 days ago

Thank you for your comprehensive and well-researched comment. You address a number of important issues.
Creating housing that is permanently income qualified (frequently referred to as affordable housing) is much more complicated than simply requiring developers to do so. The City is committed to income-qualified housing where it is feasible, but it is not feasible everywhere. Income-qualified housing requires substantial public subsidy, and the tool typically used to provide that subsidy – Low Income Tax Credits – is not available in this location.
In order to make a meaningful dent in housing inventory Missoula needs developers who are willing to build significant amounts of housing at a time. With Midtown Commons the City is following guidance from Mayor Davis’ Task Force on City Lands Redevelopment and partnering with a developer who is prepared to move quickly to build a substantial amount of “missing middle” housing. The Midtown Missoula Master Plan recommends more housing choices and more opportunities for home ownership. Midtown Commons proposes a mix of housing types ranging from for-sale single-family homes, townhouses and condos to apartment rentals. Condos generally provide more affordable opportunities for ownership but are largely missing in the Missoula market.
The primary factor contributing to high housing prices in the Missoula area is the lack of available housing units for sale and for rent, especially in the middle cost range. Creating a range of housing options focused on the “missing middle," as proposed at Midtown Commons, can help stabilize housing costs and mitigate displacement risks.
-Midtown Commons Project Team
Share How did the "Team" or the developer, Mr. Kimmerly, decide to put a commercial area adjacent to existing, single family residential dwelling? Why does the plan not locate the park in the existing treed area that would be quieter because it is not surrounded by the connector streets? Shifting the park to the existing grove area would still offer good connection to the other residential areas. There seems to be a large section designated as commercial when there is already plenty of commercial in the mall, and those stores are frequently vacant. How is this commercial zoning going to encourage "local" vendors, as suggested in the Midtown Master plan? on Facebook Share How did the "Team" or the developer, Mr. Kimmerly, decide to put a commercial area adjacent to existing, single family residential dwelling? Why does the plan not locate the park in the existing treed area that would be quieter because it is not surrounded by the connector streets? Shifting the park to the existing grove area would still offer good connection to the other residential areas. There seems to be a large section designated as commercial when there is already plenty of commercial in the mall, and those stores are frequently vacant. How is this commercial zoning going to encourage "local" vendors, as suggested in the Midtown Master plan? on Twitter Share How did the "Team" or the developer, Mr. Kimmerly, decide to put a commercial area adjacent to existing, single family residential dwelling? Why does the plan not locate the park in the existing treed area that would be quieter because it is not surrounded by the connector streets? Shifting the park to the existing grove area would still offer good connection to the other residential areas. There seems to be a large section designated as commercial when there is already plenty of commercial in the mall, and those stores are frequently vacant. How is this commercial zoning going to encourage "local" vendors, as suggested in the Midtown Master plan? on Linkedin Email How did the "Team" or the developer, Mr. Kimmerly, decide to put a commercial area adjacent to existing, single family residential dwelling? Why does the plan not locate the park in the existing treed area that would be quieter because it is not surrounded by the connector streets? Shifting the park to the existing grove area would still offer good connection to the other residential areas. There seems to be a large section designated as commercial when there is already plenty of commercial in the mall, and those stores are frequently vacant. How is this commercial zoning going to encourage "local" vendors, as suggested in the Midtown Master plan? link

How did the "Team" or the developer, Mr. Kimmerly, decide to put a commercial area adjacent to existing, single family residential dwelling? Why does the plan not locate the park in the existing treed area that would be quieter because it is not surrounded by the connector streets? Shifting the park to the existing grove area would still offer good connection to the other residential areas. There seems to be a large section designated as commercial when there is already plenty of commercial in the mall, and those stores are frequently vacant. How is this commercial zoning going to encourage "local" vendors, as suggested in the Midtown Master plan?

GwenH asked 29 days ago

The Midtown Missoula Master Plan recommends development that fosters and maintains economic vitality. This is also a key priority for Mayor Davis. The Midtown Master Plan also recommends infill development with connectivity. Thriving commercial space with good connectivity is necessary to ensure that Missoulians have opportunities to work and do business in their own neighborhoods.
Commercial development includes a wide array of uses ranging from office space to small retail shops. The commercial space at Midtown Commons will be required to comply with the City’s regulatory code, which specifies uses and form to maintain neighborhood character.
-Midtown Commons Project Team
Share I was wondering who maintains the ditches that run through the properties, and what's the process for moving those around? Do they have easements that end with the sale of the parcel or something like that? Thanks! on Facebook Share I was wondering who maintains the ditches that run through the properties, and what's the process for moving those around? Do they have easements that end with the sale of the parcel or something like that? Thanks! on Twitter Share I was wondering who maintains the ditches that run through the properties, and what's the process for moving those around? Do they have easements that end with the sale of the parcel or something like that? Thanks! on Linkedin Email I was wondering who maintains the ditches that run through the properties, and what's the process for moving those around? Do they have easements that end with the sale of the parcel or something like that? Thanks! link

I was wondering who maintains the ditches that run through the properties, and what's the process for moving those around? Do they have easements that end with the sale of the parcel or something like that? Thanks!

Clintjw91 asked about 1 month ago

The responsibility for irrigation ditch maintenance in Missoula varies. Ditches often are maintained by the entities that hold the water rights to run water in them, although sometimes the property owner is responsible for maintenance. The Missoula Irrigation Ditch (MID) holds a water right to run irrigation water across the Midtown Commons property. The ditch is located within an easement that conveys with the property. In urban areas, it is not uncommon for municipalities or private developers to coordinate with ditch companies to adjust easements and ditch locations. At Midtown Commons, the City and the developer’s engineering team are working with MID to identify a ditch alignment / easement that will efficiently run irrigation water, while also continuing to serve as a natural amenity in the area.
-Midtown Commons Project Team
Share I understand from media reports that this project will provide market rate housing. I believe that the lack of AFFORDABLE housing is one of the top issues in Missoula. Building more market rate housing helps a little with supply but does very little to address the problem of affordability. If state law allows, the city must seize this opportunity and require that the developer build only permanently affordable housing on this city owned property. on Facebook Share I understand from media reports that this project will provide market rate housing. I believe that the lack of AFFORDABLE housing is one of the top issues in Missoula. Building more market rate housing helps a little with supply but does very little to address the problem of affordability. If state law allows, the city must seize this opportunity and require that the developer build only permanently affordable housing on this city owned property. on Twitter Share I understand from media reports that this project will provide market rate housing. I believe that the lack of AFFORDABLE housing is one of the top issues in Missoula. Building more market rate housing helps a little with supply but does very little to address the problem of affordability. If state law allows, the city must seize this opportunity and require that the developer build only permanently affordable housing on this city owned property. on Linkedin Email I understand from media reports that this project will provide market rate housing. I believe that the lack of AFFORDABLE housing is one of the top issues in Missoula. Building more market rate housing helps a little with supply but does very little to address the problem of affordability. If state law allows, the city must seize this opportunity and require that the developer build only permanently affordable housing on this city owned property. link

I understand from media reports that this project will provide market rate housing. I believe that the lack of AFFORDABLE housing is one of the top issues in Missoula. Building more market rate housing helps a little with supply but does very little to address the problem of affordability. If state law allows, the city must seize this opportunity and require that the developer build only permanently affordable housing on this city owned property.

tcarlson2319 asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your comment.
Creating housing that is permanently income qualified (frequently referred to as affordable housing) is much more complicated than simply requiring developers to provide it. The City is committed to income-qualified housing where it is feasible, but it is not feasible everywhere. Income-qualified housing requires substantial public subsidy, and the tool typically used to provide that subsidy – Low Income Tax Credits – is not available in this location. The primary factor contributing to high housing prices in the Missoula area is the lack of available housing units for sale and for rent. It’s a matter of supply and demand. In order to make a meaningful dent in housing inventory Missoula needs developers who are willing to build significant amounts of housing at a time. With Midtown Commons the City is following guidance from Mayor Davis’ Task Force on City Lands Redevelopment and partnering with a developer who is prepared to move quickly to build a substantial amount of “missing middle” housing.
-Midtown Commons Project Team