2026 County Commission Candidate Questionnaires
To enhance readability, we have added the bold font to responses below to emphasize notable aspects of their views.
Do you plan to vote yes or no on the property tax ballot measure this fall?
Brent Blue (D): No
Karyn Chin (D): No
Ali Dunford (D): No
Wes Gardner (D): No
Melchor Moore (R): Yes
Mark Newcomb (D): No
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): Undecided
Luther Propst (D): No
What roles should market-rate housing, public-private partnerships, and public housing each play in addressing Teton County’s housing shortage?
Brent Blue (D): The housing shortage is country wide. It is just on steroids in Teton County. Teton County should continue to provide affordable housing of various types to its employees. The County should provide incentives such as reduced permit fees, relaxed zoning and density requirements for private entities for employee housing.
Karyn Chin (D): When taxpayer dollars are the sole revenue for a project, these homes should be primarily, if not exclusively, used to address housing shortages for critical workers and public employees. Public-private partnerships have been and should continue to be a tool for meeting the needs of our workforce more broadly, whether that is for employees of local businesses, helping to close any gap for critical workers or public employees. These partnerships have also allowed our public dollars to go farther when private partners have brought real estate or capital to the table to bring about a larger-scale project than taxpayer dollars alone could create. Market rate housing can be part of our housing solution when we allow solutions that meet the needs and goals of the landowners. I live in a place where the landowner fought hard to be able to house locals in creative ways – in tiny homes! When unconventional opportunities are brought forward, and landowners are genuine and willing in their desire to support community members, I believe we should consider it carefully, prioritize net-benefits to the community, and be open to new ideas. All three of these tools should continue to be part of the housing solution for Teton County. Not only is the need for deed-restricted affordable housing greater than any one of these tools can solve alone, the use of multiple tools, the inclusion of new and creative ideas, and the willingness of our community to embrace and support their workforce makes our overall housing market more diverse and resilient and is the only way we make progress moving forward.
Ali Dunford (D): Teton County’s market rate housing is driven by capital and second-home demand and is decoupled from local wages. Building more market-rate housing will not solve our housing crisis; it will only induce more high-wealth in-migration and, in turn, more demand for the local workforce needed to service those homes. Market-rate development should carry the highest mitigation obligation possible. We need as much public-private and public housing projects as possible. They need to be doing more to preserve existing workforce housing stock, not just new development.
Wes Gardner (D): It is unlikely that the supply of market-rate housing in Teton County will ever be high enough or the demand low enough to result in an affordable market-based solution for our workforce. The project at 90 Virginian Way has shown that the private sector can prioritize profit over partners and effectively hold local governments hostage as they push for higher public subsidies while reducing affordability for the community. Without leaders who are willing to say “no” to a developer who continues to demand more, we will end up with projects that will not generate meaningfully affordable housing supply, with a ground lease that could last 100 years. I argue that we should fund, construct, and manage housing projects, including the one at 90 Virginian Way internally. Local governments have already been asked to contribute close to $50M, meaning that we need roughly $120M more to complete the project. Various mechanisms exist to fund this remainder, including bonding, SPET, phasing, and even potentially developing relationships with angel investors who would ostensibly be more interested in financing a fully public project than in guaranteeing better returns for private sector investors. Teton County is currently on schedule and on budget as we construct the new $118M Justice Center. This success is due largely to the partnership that we enjoy with our Owners Reps, who have been excellent stewards as this project has evolved. I am confident that, in the right hands, we can build the project at 90 Virginian Way on time and on budget. We should expand our Housing Department, tasking it with managing robust housing assets. Management fees represent a significant revenue source for an owner, and we should control them internally. If we choose to develop 90 Virginian Way as a public project, we maintain control of the costs, the affordability mix, and most importantly the profits for the next century. This development would become the foundational asset in our housing portfolio, not only providing affordable housing today, but also generating revenue for tomorrow’s affordable projects.
Melchor Moore (R): Housing is one of Teton County’s most pressing challenges, but the solution cannot rest solely on government. A strong, free-market economy must remain the foundation of housing development, with private builders, property owners, and local businesses leading the way in creating new housing opportunities. County government has an important but limited role. It should remove unnecessary barriers, encourage responsible development, and partner with the private sector and nonprofit organizations when collaboration can help close financing gaps that the market alone cannot address. Any public investment must be fiscally responsible, transparent, and focused on delivering measurable results for our community. We must also ensure that the people who keep Teton County running—including first responders, teachers, healthcare workers, and service industry employees—have the opportunity to live where they work. By supporting practical public-private partnerships, respecting taxpayers, and reducing unnecessary regulations whenever possible, we can strengthen our workforce, preserve our local economy, and protect the character of Teton County without expanding government beyond its proper role.
Mark Newcomb (D): Public-private partnerships (PPP) and public housing should play the primary role. Market-rate housing should play a limited and diminishing role. Housing that addresses the housing shortage by targeting local workers and families must be deed restricted, and market rate housing is market rate because it’s not deed restricted. Market housing can play a limited role when used as an incentive tool to deliver restricted housing, costing tax-payers nothing, but at what cost to growth? Town regulations allow developers to build residential units beyond base allowances if for every 2 sf of unrestricted floor area the developer builds 1 sf of restricted floor area. This tool has boosted supply, and results suggest new supply may be easing upward pressure in rents (note recent price decreases for workforce rentals at the Loop). But restricted units comprise less than 50% of these projects. Pages 32-33 of 2013 Clarion Housing Nexus used to calculate mitigation requirements show that 100 units of multi-family housing for non-locals generated the need for 4.6 more units of housing. The same number for local occupancy is 2.7 units. 50 units of non-local housing requires 2.3 more units. 50 units of local housing requires 1.4 more units. Thus, 100 units built using the 2:1 bonus net only ~46 units for local households. Consider 552 units in NSP area 1. 165 (30%) non-local occupancy market units at 2,000 sf/unit generates the need for 11 restricted units. 387 (70%) local-occupancy restricted units at 1,000 sf/unit generates the need for 11 more restricted units, resulting in 365 net new units for local households. PPP and public housing deliver 100% restricted units but require tens of millions in public subsidies (witness the Virginian at $40 to $50 Million in subsidies). Even so, as we get closer to our residential growth cap, the market should be relied on less, if at all, and the focus should be on PPP and public housing.
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): Teton County needs a balanced approach.
• Market-rate housing has a role, but the market alone will not solve housing for teachers, deputies, nurses, small business workers, young families, and service workers.
• Public-private partnerships can help, but only when they are transparent and measurable. The public should know the cost, who benefits, how long deed restrictions last, and what the county receives in return.
• Public housing or publicly supported housing should focus on essential workers, local families, seniors, and the people who keep this community functioning.
• Housing decisions must be tied to infrastructure. We cannot just say “build, build, build” without looking at roads, water, sewer, schools, emergency services, traffic, and neighborhood impacts.
• I support housing for local workers, but I also believe in common sense, accountability, and protecting the character of Teton County. Housing policy should serve the people who live here, work here, raise families here, and keep this community running.
Luther Propst (D): New market-rate housing is typically priced far beyond what local workers can afford and generally creates additional demand for workforce housing by generating new service jobs. In short, evidence does not support the often-repeated slogan that we can “unleash the market” to solve the housing crisis. Instead, market housing more likely digs the hole deeper. Housing policy should focus first on preserving, adapting, and reusing existing housing—Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)—because the most affordable home is often the one that already exists. Fixing up an older home is usually more affordable than new construction. It also avoids luxury redevelopment of older homes (“buy, scrape, redevelop”), thus eliminating creation of additional service jobs and demand for workforce housing. Public-private partnerships have proven challenging; some have failed to realize their stated goals. Nevertheless, they remain a viable option in some cases when managed well. A successful example is the partnership between Habitat for Humanity and Teton County to build Parkside at Benson-Brown Station. Going forward, we should evaluate them on their outcomes, not intentions or marketing promises. When public investment creates undue private benefit without significant and lasting public value, we should change course. For example, we cannot repeat the mistake in which the apartments in a partnership project are sold to employers, rather than to local workers. Housing policy should be practical, evidence-based, and continually improved as we learn what works and what doesn’t.
If you could snap your fingers and make three specific policy or regulatory changes to address Teton County’s housing shortage, what would you do?
Brent Blue (D): Reduce permitting fees for employee housing. Allow higher density/height for employee housing. Streamline permitting.
Karyn Chin (D): First, I would like to see more creative housing types be allowed. I live in a tiny house on wheels, which is only allowed through a variance my landlord fought hard for so he could help house local workers. A simple amendment could allow houses like mine as ADUs. Second, I would like to see a Real Estate Transfer Tax enacted that would allow our county to raise funds for deed restricted housing that is naturally tied to the rising costs of real estate. Third, I would like to see us take advantage of Amendment A, which passed in 2024 and allows us to tax different types of residential real estate at different rates. I would like to see houses that are only seasonal or part-time occupied taxed at a higher rate than houses that are fulltime homes for families who live and work here.
Ali Dunford (D): Wyoming Legislature acts on 2024 Constitutional Amendment A and taxes non-primary-residence properties at higher rates than primary residences, directing a portion of the new revenue to affordable housing development. Wyoming Legislature amends the lodging tax statute to add affordable housing as an eligible “visitor impact service” and increases the share high-revenue counties like ours can direct to impact uses rather than marketing. Revise LDR’s that disincentivize luxury development and incentivize affordable housing development.
Wes Gardner (D): If I could snap my fingers and implement three policy changes, I would deploy a graduated Real Estate Transfer Tax, develop an incentive program for property owners to construct permanently deed-restricted ARUs, and change our policies around public-private partnerships. The housing crisis in our community is driven by the lack of supply to feed the seemingly insatiable demand for real estate in Teton County. We should take advantage of this reality by lobbying for a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). The total dollar volume of real estate transactions in Teton County for 2025 was likely north of $2B, and the majority of these sales were on properties listed over $5M. A simple RETT of 1% would have generated over $20M to fund deed-restricted housing in our valley- in one year! I prefer a graduated structure in which no fee would be charged under a certain threshold (maybe $1-2M) and fees would be capped at 2-3% for luxury homes exceeding $5M. Implementing a graduated RETT would allow homebuyers to pay more as they purchase properties that generate more jobs We have dedicated significant space in the LDRs to incentivize habitat conservation on large properties. We should dedicate some space in the LDRs to incentivize the development of deed-restricted ARUs, offering larger incentives for deeper affordability. While this tool may not move the needle dramatically, it offers a common-sense, inexpensive solution to create more workforce housing. Finally, I will continue to push for us to reconsider our policy decisions around public-private partnerships. I recognize that PPPs have helped us get a lot of housing in the ground quickly, but at what cost? Because we no longer own these properties, the revenue they generate flows to a private partner for the life of the Ground Lease, which in the case of Pennrose, lasts 100 years. At the very least, we should keep the option to fund, build, and manage a project in our back pocket.
Melchor Moore (R):
• Amend Teton County’s Land Development Regulations to encourage Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Reduce Residential Impact / Housing Mitigation Fees. Amend the LDRs to allow ADUs as a by-right use in appropriate residential zoning districts instead of requiring discretionary approvals whenever possible. Offer incentives for deed-restricted long-term workforce housing to increase the housing supply while respecting private property rights consistent with Wyo. Stat. § 18-5-201, which authorizes counties to adopt zoning regulations that promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Also, expand the exemption footprint (e.g., from 2,500 sq. ft. to 3,000–4,000 sq. ft. for single-family homes) so that smaller, entry-level properties are completely exempt and lower the cash-in-lieu mitigation rate charged on the square footage that exceeds the exemption threshold.
• Prioritize On-Site Workforce Housing Over Fee-in-Lieu Payments. Review the County’s Affordable Housing Mitigation requirements and corresponding LDR provisions to encourage developers to build workforce housing as part of new projects whenever feasible, rather than relying primarily on fee-in-lieu payments. While mitigation funds have value, creating actual housing units where people work provides a more direct solution to Teton County’s housing shortage and strengthens our local workforce.
• Strengthen Enforcement of Short-Term Rental Regulations to Preserve Long-Term Housing. Consistently enforce existing Teton County Land Development Regulations governing Short-Term Rentals (STRs) to ensure residential neighborhoods remain places for local families and workers. Where appropriate, evaluate whether the LDR definition of residential versus commercial use should be clarified to discourage the loss of long-term housing inventory while remaining consistent with Wyoming’s strong protections for private property rights under Wyo. Stat. §§ 18-5-201 and 15-1-601.
Mark Newcomb (D): Housing issues are complex and require thoughtful analysis and careful review. We should review our current policy of relying on private developers to deliver housing. Private for-profit developers, like Pennrose, will not recycle returns on capital (and tax-payer dollars) back into community housing. Nonprofit developers—Housing Trust and Habitat do. And, in theory, so could the Housing Authority if we gave it the capacity to do so. On the surface this sounds attractive. But, having lived through the wrenching debate over cost overruns for Grove phases 2 and 3, transferring risk back to the public sector takes thought—would it truly improve the delivery of housing? Private developers bring significant amounts of capital to a project that the Housing Authority, relying on tax-payer dollars alone, would be hard pressed to match. That up-front capital allows more housing to get built faster than if the Housing Authority were the lone investor. For example, Pennrose brings $48 million in capital and equity to the $170 million 90 Virginian Lane Project. Combined with $45 million in public subsidy, only $77 million more is needed to finance the project. Relying on taxes, likely a specific purpose excise tax (SPET), may not generate as much revenue and takes years to collect, possibly resulting in smaller projects that take longer to build. On the other hand, revenue bonds may allow the Housing Authority to fill the capital void private developers currently fill, suggesting that there could be a way to equip the Authority with the ability to build housing for the community and recycle rents back into community housing. One finger snap I would make—permanently preserve the mitigation fees that play a small but important role in funding housing projects that deliver a balanced range of housing affordability. We need to strategically defend that program.
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): If I could make three specific changes, they would be:
• First, require a full housing and infrastructure impact review before major approvals. Housing decisions should include traffic, roads, water, sewer, schools, emergency services, wildlife, neighborhoods, and long-term maintenance costs.
• Second, strengthen transparency and compliance for deed-restricted housing. The public should understand who the programs are serving, how compliance is checked, whether homes are occupied properly, and whether rules are being enforced fairly.
• Third, focus county housing policy on local workers and long-time residents first. Housing should serve the people who work here, teach here, protect us, care for us, volunteer here, and keep this community functioning. I would also look carefully at preservation of existing local housing, employer partnerships, small-scale infill where appropriate, and practical solutions that fit neighborhoods without overwhelming them. We need workforce housing, but we also need safety, infrastructure, transparency, and respect for the people already living here.
Luther Propst (D):
1. Make housing preservation, adaptation, and reuse a central pillar of our housing policy. Preserving and reusing existing homes is often less expensive, faster, more sustainable, and better aligned with other community values than building new ones.
2. Decouple affordable housing from growth. Too often, new development sold to the community as helping to provide workforce housing instead creates more housing demand, which can negate the community benefit of the newly built workforce housing. To solve problems created by growth, we should not rely on more growth.
3. Ensure public investments produce lower priced housing by requiring housing partners to leverage socially motivated capital to the table. Jackson Street apartments are an excellent model for combing public funds, philanthropic funds, and socially motivated investments. We should work to replicate this approach.
If the Wyoming Legislature were to prohibit housing mitigation fees, what would you recommend to replace that lost revenue? How would you build support for your idea(s)?
Brent Blue (D): I would push hard for a real estate transfer tax. This is a hard push for the State legislature but with housing difficulties now statewide, it may be possible. A lot will depend on the results of statewide office elections this year.
Karyn Chin (D): Without housing mitigation fees, I would want to even more aggressively pursue the ideas above – allowing more types of housing, passing a Real Estate Transfer Tax, and taxing part-time housing at a higher rate. Some of these ideas would need state legislative-level support, and I would work hard with county commissioners across the state and their communities to push for solutions that make sense for affordable housing – a problem that is not just an issue for Teton County, but is being experienced state-wide.
Ali Dunford (D): Have the county formally study every option, including pursuing another SPET measure. Push the Legislature to act on 2024’s Constitutional Amendment A, which could let us tax second homes differently than primary residences. For the local decision, I’d convene a Citizens Assembly – a randomly selected, representative group of residents who hear expert testimony and deliberate together before recommending a path forward. That’s also how I’d build support: recommendations that come from a representative slice of the community, not insiders, carry more public trust than a decision handed down from above.
Melchor Moore (R): With housing mitigation fees no longer available, Teton County must pursue market-based solutions instead of expanding government. We should encourage public-private partnerships that leverage commercial financing and municipal bonds to build workforce housing. By using lower-cost financing, we can reduce development costs, attract private investment, and deliver more housing for working families while protecting taxpayers and maintaining fiscal responsibility. I would ask ShelterJH to recognize that public-private partnerships can continue to leverage federal resources, and create project-based vouchers that can continue to create mixed-income communities.
Mark Newcomb (D): I would recommend replacing the lost revenue with sales tax. One way would be to ask the community to support converting one of the existing two pennies of specific purpose excise tax (SPET) to a general penny of sales tax. That would allow the county to allocate a few million dollars every budget cycle to the housing fund. The alternative is to utilize one of the two existing SPET pennies for another community housing initiative. Convincing the community to commit to a penny of sales tax to build housing requires building trust by delivering the housing we promised when we originally asked for their vote. We must demonstrate to the community that we can efficiently build housing and that the housing truly supports the diverse, vibrant community we expect it to support. Compliance is important as well—the community needs to know that the system is not being gamed by people financially able to rent or own on the free market. Having earned that trust, we can build a coalition of housing and human services organizations, the business community and citizens at large that will support sales tax revenue for community housing.
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): If the Wyoming Legislature prohibits housing mitigation fees, Teton County needs to be honest with the public about what revenue is lost and what choices remain. My approach would be:
• First, do a full public review of current housing spending before asking taxpayers for more money.
• Show clearly what has been spent, what has worked, what has not worked, how many local workers have been housed, and what the long-term obligations are.
• Look at voter-approved funding only if the public understands the cost and the expected results.
• Explore stronger employer participation, philanthropic partnerships, preservation of existing local housing, land banking, and carefully structured public-private partnerships.
• Avoid quietly shifting the burden onto local homeowners and small businesses. To build support, I would start with transparency. Put the numbers in plain English. Hold public meetings. Listen to workers, employers, seniors, neighborhoods, and taxpayers. People are more likely to support housing solutions when they trust the process and believe the money is truly helping local people.
Luther Propst (D): We should continue opposing efforts in Cheyenne to eliminate housing mitigation and to otherwise substitute the legislature’s ideology for informed local decisions. If that tool is lost, we must also revisit our land use regulations and other policies that create housing demand and job growth in the first place. I also support new funding mechanisms. Perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit is for the state of Wyoming to invest a portion of its $32 billion (more or less) sovereign wealth fund into providing loans and investments on favorable terms for workforce housing and to better fund its infrastructure grant program. The Wyoming Community Development Authority commissioned a Wyoming Statewide Strategic Housing Action Plan (completed January 2025). This plan presents 27 recommendations for improving housing, with a heavy emphasis on funding tools. The political will to implement these recommendations is lacking and needs to be improved. The legislature should also pass legislation to implement Amendment A (the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2024) to provide lower property tax rates for primary residences than second homes. Longer term, I support tools such as a real estate transfer tax on more expensive homes (as the housing action recommends); however, I recognize this funding tool and many other revenue tools are not currently realistic in Cheyenne. The broader goal is to build a housing program that is financially sustainable without fueling continued job growth, which directly worsens the housing situation.
What is your assessment of the Jackson/Teton County Affordable Housing Department’s performance? Are our public compliance systems sufficient?
Brent Blue (D): They are hampered by regulations. They are doing the best they can given the circumstances but their results are marginal.
Karyn Chin (D): I support the Affordable Housing Department and the hard work they have put in addressing our affordable housing crisis. Compliance to the rules our community has put in place are critical to the success of these programs. When it comes to enforcement, we should prioritize residents’ dignity and prioritize stability and continuity for the people who make our community work. We should also make sure that deed restricted units are being filled quickly and regularly, with as little vacancy as possible, especially as so many are waiting for safe and stable housing in our community.
Ali Dunford (D): I don’t have a lot of insight into the Department’s performance, however I have immense gratitude for their efforts working on one of the most complex and controversial challenges our community faces. I don’t have familiarity with their compliance systems but I am very encouraged by their 97% compliance findings for 2025. I trust that the Department is using best practices to ensure compliance without being overly intrusive; they are the experts and they want to see units filled with local workers.
Wes Gardner (D): The Jackson/Teton County Affordable Housing Department is doing exceptional work, and our compliance systems are intact and sufficient. A couple of years ago, in an attempt to increase public confidence and awareness, I joined Councilman Rooks in expressing his concern that those who inhabit deed-restricted housing be in full compliance with the rules. Clear enforcement of the rules matters. The Housing Authority conducts annual compliance assessments, the most recent of which showed 98% compliance rate with the rules and regulations. It is critical that the community has absolute confidence in our Housing Program and the funding mechanisms that support them. Whether we are advancing housing-dedicated SPET initiatives, defending our housing mitigation program, suggesting new funding sources like an RETT, negotiating Development Agreements with private developers, or using public dollars to invest in housing projects, we must be able to confidently show that those lucky enough to find placement in our subsidized housing are compliant with the rules and regulations. While I don’t always agree with staff (as I certainly don’t in the case of Pennrose), I know that they are working with great intent and intentions. I have complete confidence in the Housing Program and am deeply grateful on behalf of the community it supports.
Melchor Moore (R): The Jackson / Teton County Affordable Housing Department is being criticized for the budget gap caused by the 90 Virginian Lane Development; the Department is being criticized for its use of public money and land with the Flat Creek Apartments grant and property exemptions; and its current affordable / workforce housing fees have resulted in litigation that challenges its programs. Amid this scrutiny, there are no public, independent audits of the Jackson/Teton County Affordable Housing Department, and the Wyoming Department of Audit would entail a rigorous review of public funds, compliance with state statutes, and program integrity. Given the massive scale of Teton County’s housing market, the audit would focus on financial accountability and equitable administration.
Mark Newcomb (D): The Housing Department performs very well. It is diligent, thorough and fair in its compliance efforts, resulting in an over 97% compliance rate (100% in affordable ownership). I can count the complaints I’ve received on one hand, and that’s with 1,600 plus deed restricted units. As we grow, we may need more staff to maintain such a high level of compliance and compliance review. Also, current staff are exceptionally experienced and will be hard to replace. As a Commissioner, I’m committed to maintaining that level of excellence.
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): I appreciate the difficulty of the work the Affordable Housing Department is trying to do. Housing in Teton County is one of the hardest issues we face, and no department can solve it alone. That said, I believe the public needs more transparency, clearer reporting, and stronger confidence in compliance. My concerns are:
• Deed-restricted housing only works if the rules are enforced consistently.
• The public should know how many units exist, who the programs are serving by category, and how compliance is checked.
• There should be regular public reporting on violations, enforcement, occupancy, and long-term costs.
• The county should review whether the compliance system has enough staffing, technology, and legal tools to do the job properly. This is not about attacking the department. Accountability protects the program. If the county asks the public to support more housing investment, the public deserves confidence that existing housing assets are being protected and used as intended.
Luther Propst (D): The key is objective and robust monitoring and adaptive management. No housing program is perfect, and compliance systems should continually evolve as new challenges emerge. We must protect taxpayer investment while treating residents with dignity, rejecting bigoted and mean-spirited vilification of people who reside in deed-restricted housing. Good governance means measuring results, closing loopholes, and improving the program over time rather than assuming today’s rules will solve tomorrow’s problems.
What would your response be to community members who expressed opposition to incorporating deed-restricted homes into their neighborhoods?
Brent Blue (D): Deed restricted homes are not the issue. The issue is how home value is determined by State law. Deed restriction, under current rules, when sold may lower the tax of neighboring homes. There will always be opposition (NIMBY) to affordable housing especially if there is visible impact.
Karyn Chin (D): I’ve lived in and visited many neighborhoods in Teton County and across Wyoming, and there is one thing I know for sure – neighborhoods that have incorporated deed-restricted homes and have made space for locals are the most vibrant places in our community. These neighborhoods are full of the hard working people who make Teton County an amazing place to call home – hospital workers, county employees, teachers, fire fighters. But more than that, the stability and dignity an affordable home gives a family means that these neighborhoods are not just full of people who work, these neighborhoods are full of life – kids riding bikes and playing sidewalk games, colorful and beautifully tended gardens, couples packing their campaign gear for a weekend in the park, a thoughtful friend bringing over a meal for the new parents next door. A neighborhood alive with community looks like epic trick-or-treating in the Grove, a community-organized Porch Jams in downtown Wilson, or bright and warm holiday decorations in far East Jackson. When we say YES to housing locals, we say YES to the heart and soul of our community. To anyone who is opposed to living near deed-restricted homes, I would say – what a shame it would be to miss out on neighbors like these!
Ali Dunford (D): I’d start by acknowledging their concerns and asking them what about the idea of deed-restricted housing in the neighborhood they are uncomfortable with. I would make sure the person understands the resident who would likely live in a deed-restricted home is likely someone they already know or interact with (their kid’s teacher, the nurse who treated them at St. John’s, or someone like me; a renter and nonprofit worker who has dedicated 13 years to contributing to this community). I would also encourage them to walk around the homes at Daisy Bush (Rancher St./Dylan Drive and Wheatleigh Way/Nelson Dr.) to sense what commingled market-rate and deed-restricted housing actually looks and feels like.
Wes Gardner (D): In three words, “Get over it.” I respect and understand that neighbors do not like change in their neighborhoods, but developing workforce housing is a foundational pillar for our community. Without it, our workforce suffers and our sense of community collapses. We cannot, however, sacrifice everything on the alter of housing. I continue to pay close attention to the transportation improvements required for developments in Northern South Park and 90 Virginian Way. Projects need to fit in with existing infrastructure or operate as funding partners for transportation improvements. Most complaints are centered on traffic and conservation. By siting projects close to public infrastructure and amenities, we are effectively reducing the amount of commuting traffic. Keeping projects relatively dense and either in town or close to town allows better conservation for the entire ecosystem. I hope that detractors who oppose incorporating deed-restricted housing will appreciate the restaurants staying open, the roads staying plowed, and the extra nurse at the hospital or teacher in the school.
Melchor Moore (R): I would acknowledge their frustration with zoning and indicate that government involvement in the planning process and provision of infrastructure is intended to ensure long-term community balance rather than infringe on any private property rights or cause economic stagnation. I would encourage these community members to voice their opinion in open forum at government meetings, either in person or in writing.
Mark Newcomb (D): I value listening to community members who express opposition. Their concerns are legitimate, whether about traffic or altering the character of a neighborhood or about increased crowds at local parks and other public amenities. We do need to be transparent and consistent in the application of zoning that allows for denser housing that is deed restricted. We must also remain true to our commitment to remove bonus tools and incentives as we approach the cap on residential dwelling units agreed upon by the community when we finalized the 2012 Comprehensive Plan. While I continue to support the current proposal for 90 Virginian Way, my support is tepid. It’s a big project. 150 units is probably more appropriate for that site, and if I had been on the town council I would not have voted to amend the zoning on the site to accommodate a fourth floor. It’s a difficult balance—more units are more cost-effective to construct on a per unit basis, and we owe it to tax payers to be as cost-effective as possible when building community housing. But at what point do we over-build? Traffic is a very real concern. And alternative modes of transportation are never going to go quite as far as we’d like them to go in mitigating congestion. But if there is any location where alternative modes will be effective, it is the Virginian, where people can walk in either direction to access the full array of services and amenities that a household would need.
Vicky O’Donoghue (R): I would listen first. People deserve to be heard when changes are proposed in their neighborhoods. Their concerns may include:
• Traffic
• Parking
• Density
• Water and sewer capacity
• Safety
• Neighborhood character
• Infrastructure
Those concerns should not be dismissed. At the same time, I would remind people that teachers, deputies, nurses, firefighters, snowplow drivers, small business workers, young families, and service workers are part of this community too. If we want a real community, the people who keep it running need a chance to live here. The key is to do this thoughtfully. Deed-restricted homes should be well planned, well managed, compatible with the neighborhood where possible, and supported by adequate infrastructure. The county should communicate early, explain the rules clearly, and enforce compliance. My approach would be: listen, plan carefully, protect safety and infrastructure, enforce the rules, and keep the focus on local people.
Luther Propst (D): Housing succeeds long-term when it strengthens communities, not divides them. My approach is to listen to neighborhood concerns, mitigate legitimate impacts such as traffic congestion and overstressed infrastructure, and ensure projects deliver clear community benefit. I support thoughtfully designed deed-restricted housing because teachers, nurses, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and others who make our community function are essential to healthy neighborhoods. The goal is not simply more housing—it’s a stronger year-round community.
