Real Estate Crash thread

Summit, good luck on your war against ADUs. CA and OR have already gotten rid of SFH zoning state wide. WA is about to pass a law getting rid of it and allowing up to 4 units on every SFH lot (6 if near transit). CO is just following their West coast progressive liberal brethren.

I don't get why you hate ADUs so much? It's one thing if we are building massive multi-family on SFH lots, but having two houses, rather than just one house, on every lot does not dramatically affect water, traffic, and infrastructure use. It costs 150-300k to build a detached ADU, so it's not like a bunch of ADUs are going to spring up overnight after this law passes. And cities still can impose design restrictions (setbacks, height limits, maximum size to match the existing SFH and lot size).

So what if the ADU is a STR and not deed restricted? Adding more housing, of any kind, will increase supply. More STRs means more supply of STRs means lower rental price of STR means STR is not as desirable as it once was means people will be less inclined to STR their ADU and instead long term rent it.

The point of the CO law is becuase cities obviously haven't been adding density fast enough to keep up with demand for the last several decades. If we leave zoning to local control, they will continue with their NIMBY practices.

Aspen's mayor apparently doesn't think basic economic principles apply in Pitkin County:

“In rural resort communities, as in many others, increasing supply does not equal affordability,” said Aspen Mayor Torre

And Vail's mayor thinks the ONLY way the working class can live in Vail is if it is subsidized by the tax payer:

“In Vail, as in other communities, the only way new dwelling units are affordable over time is with the application of a deed restriction to ensure local employees are occupying the units.”

I don't think it is possible to have a functioning community that relies 100% on subsidized housing to house their work force (in the US). Maybe a medieval castle with a moat and draw bridge.

I understand it is frustrating when a place that wasn't crowded becomes crowded but there is no way to keep prices reasonable without dramatically increasing the supply of housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

The "missing middle" sounds like subsidizing me which is a stupid idea.

---

"Missing middle" is actually the exact opposite of subsidizing. We waste way too much valuable land surrounding a SFH on a lot. The missing middle is about infilling those SFH lots with additional housing.

Here in Tacoma we have massive SFH lots with a crappy, small house surrounded by shitty grass, dandelions, and black berry bushes. Why not put housing on this land instead of a bunch of weeds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

I don't get why you hate ADUs so much? It's one thing if we are building massive multi-family on SFH lots, but having two houses, rather than just one house, on every lot does not dramatically affect water, traffic, and infrastructure use.

---

1. Municipalities are expressly forbidden from requiring ADUs to have parking in order to be built. So that does have an impact.
2. Doubling traffic in a neighborhood while increasing on street parking, particularly when there is plowing, does have an impact.
3. Read the article I posted where the Eagle water commissioner did do a study and found that ADUs would end up overloading the water system and would require 100s of millions in new infrastructure. I suspect that is the case in other areas. That cost gets shared by all residents.

Now if you were going to make a real difference, then maybe that overrides the practical issues, costs and local impacts, but this won't solve the housing problem so it is a "at any cost, regardless of benefit" situation.

Quote:

---

And cities still can impose design restrictions (setbacks, height limits, maximum size to match the existing SFH and lot size).

---

The CO bill overrides cities and HOA limits that would impede building including cutting setbacks down to as little as 5 feet.

In my neighborhood the SFH lots are tiny, literally 0.1 to 0.15 acres, to the point where most people can't build much external structures or even expanded decks in some directions due to setbacks. But this law will let ADUs go in where you literally couldn't build a deck due to setbacks.

Quote:

---

So what if the ADU is a STR and not deed restricted? Adding more housing, of any kind, will increase supply. More STRs means more supply of STRs means lower rental price of STR means STR is not as desirable as it once was means people will be less inclined to STR their ADU and instead long term rent it.

---

That might be true in towns like Dillon, Silverthorne, Frisco... but Keystone and Breck? STR is always going to be more lucrative. In my hood it will be more lucrative to STR, always.

It's real fun when you live next to a STR that has plenty of money to build another STR on the same lot without extra parking. More STRs mean more tourists who need more services from companies who need employees who still can't find housing.

Again, in the mountains, particularly in my zone, the problem is not buildout and it isn't an overproportion of SFHs. The issue is not lack of open market supply because building isn't allowed.The issue is high cost of building and insatiable demand from a literal worldwide market. The profit is in building for the second home owner/STR, not the local worker, so that is what is built. Open market units suitable for workers are even snatched up for second homes, STR, or by remote workers. There build cost is so high that workers can barely afford subsidized new builds.

Sure there is the problem of local government tripping over themselves like Name Redacted just illustrated in an inability to build deed restricted units protected from that insatiable worldwide demand... and the lack of building MDUs on undeveloped land is a cost and government issue. But ADUs will absolutely NOT solve the problem, may worsen it, and will absolutely lower the quality of life in the few SFH neighborhoods.

Again, in my personal case, I'll benefit monetarily by building an ADU that I can move into and I'll STR my house. That isn't the intent of the legislation, but I don't make the rules, I just have to live in the game.

My issues with the legislation:
1. I agree with it's desired ultimate outcomes and it might be help effect those in the urban areas beset with buildout and suburban sprawl.
2. It won't achieve desired goals in the mountains because it doesn't practically consider how things work in the mountains and what the problems/incentives actually are. This is government picking winners and through poor rules they are actually picking the wrong winners.
3. It will negatively impact communities through more STRs which add pressure to the community and infrastructure.

Also the legislation won't even be effective for more than FOUR YEARS (effective June 2027 for mountains). Yet, there is no opt out for communities that alternatively address housing issues... if you give 4 years to kick in state directed rules, why not use it as the stick to encourage problem solving and relieve communities that do address their problems their own way? This was in the paper 2 days ago Frisco is building 100 workforce units by converting a commercial building.

That has nothing to do with what Summit County calls the missing middle. It is subsidized housing for people that want the bigger house...like the one I live in in a higher density subdivision.

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevo

They can't outright be banned, but they can be taxed and they can be restricted in number. It's insane to me that there hasn't been a cap yet at the county or municipal level.

---

It's not surprising. Planning for development was at the heart of a very nasty culture war here during the 2004-2008 boom. At the end, as things began to go totally sideways, a new administration issued a temporary moratorium on new subdivision permits. Within hours, a near riot ensued as hundreds of enraged protesters went down to the county offices and started screaming "don't regulate our prosperity!".

We had something insane like 10,000 undeveloped lots in approved subdivisions. Entire developments were going bankrupt left and right. I can't remember the exact number of "zombie subdivisions" but it was ridiculous. And these dildos were convinced, violently certain, that the problem was too much regulation and not enough development.

What killed the goose that laid golden eggs?

Greed.

ADU is needed in many areas (coastal) where there is essentially no land available to build on. That is also the case in certain (many?) mtn towns where you have protected land. STR permits should be limited everywhere, but that is debatable. Do STR permits expire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

"Missing middle" is actually the exact opposite of subsidizing. We waste way too much valuable land surrounding a SFH on a lot. The missing middle is about infilling those SFH lots with additional housing.

---

Clarifying, the "missing middle" in Summit is NOT "Middle housing." "Middle housing" is the idea of developing every inch of buildable ground to densify cities and suburbs that are built out. The "missing middle" is supposed inability of the Summit (upper) middle class to qualify for deed restrictions or to find subsidized 3/4br housing.

If my last post was tldr, I'll say it again. "Middle housing" and densifying SFH lots makes sense in a city where there isn't land to build on and the primary market isn't people looking for a ski pad to rent/buy/STR.

In the mountains there is plenty of undeveloped land, there are relatively few SFHs, and the primary demand on real estate is second home owners, ski pad rentals (LTR), and STRs.

That is why the ADUs are not the solution to the mountain housing problem.

For water districts, take the SFE of an ADU and multiple by the tap fee (assuming available capacity) and that is the subsidy the other district members are providing. Still got to pay the service fees.

For residential wells, what does the Colorado State Water Board have to says. ADUs have been a no go for decades because the well permit doesn't allow it. The basement apartment, loft over the garage and so on has been a bitch for decades.

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

have a meeting in a few trying not to smoke a bowl before then cause it's important people I need to meet with

you guys go ahead and figure this out as I sit in my castle looking at ski runs and a quaint mtn town

Further illustrating the above point, in my area there is well over 200 acres of undeveloped land in various lots, a good chunk of it owned by Vail Resorts, much of it around current employee and workforce housing areas.

We aren't at buildout.

So why do you need density in the few SFH areas, less than 5% of the housing units in my zone, when those are not going to actually make a meaningful impact on the housing situation?

If you want densification, there are tons of condo buildings on large lots where the buildings occupy less area on the lot proportionally than do most SFHs. You could build 1 or 2 more MDUs that would supply more housing than if every SFH built an ADU, and those two complexes would be at a fraction of the cost per unit of the ADUs.

The biggest issue for creating new workforce reserved housing is build cost vs what the workforce can pay. ADUs have the highest cost per unit of any workforce housing option, which is why they have to be STRs to cashflow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles

For water districts, take the SFE of an ADU and multiple by the tap fee (assuming available capacity) and that is the subsidy the other district members are providing. Still got to pay the service fees.

For residential wells, what does the Colorado State Water Board have to says. ADUs have been a no go for decades because the well permit doesn't allow it. The basement apartment, loft over the garage and so on has been a bitch for decades.

---

Eagle Water said the issue will be a lack of capacity necessitating hundreds of millions of dollars in plant upgrades. Local government will have NO say of "this area has water capacity so you can do ADUs in this hood, but that hood doesn't have capacity." Not allowed under the legislation.

The legislation forbids "requiring entities to submit a completed and validated water loss audit report to the Colorado water conservation board."

You'll let fastfred add a bedroom and a master bath or a sprawling McMansion on undeveloped land but the second someone wants an ADU, all of a sudden it's "what about water?" Americans are increasingly living with their parents. Both after high school, and when their parents are about to kick the bucket. That's one reason ADUs are incredibly popular and what the market wants. Every new house built in a nice neighborhoods here comes with a backyard ADU.

Summit, you seem to think building a bunch of SFH on all this available land will solve your housing problems. Places like Summit CO have not been building enough large multi-family, and they never will. That's where ADUs can come in and provide this additional supply. And from an infrastructure standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to infill the existing SFHs with ADUs than building new SFHs on undeveloped land. And you can always build that new SFH on that undeveloped land (the ADU law doesn't stop you).

You're mad about 5 feet setbacks? That is standard in every city in America. And setback is only in the backyard. Still can have your nice manicured water wasting lawn in the front yard. You think .1 acre lots for SHF is small? Again, standard size (or even bigger) than medium size cities in America (like Tacoma).

Want parking? You need to pay for it. Americans are oblivious to the actual cost of a parking spot. Americans are also oblivious to how not dense our communities are. Someone from Denver may come to Seattle and think, man, I could never live with so many people crammed around me. And yet, Seattle doesn't even crack the top 200 most dense cities in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

ADUs have the highest cost per unit of any workforce housing option, which is why they have to be STRs to cashflow.

---

How does allowing ADUs on SFH lots prevent a place like Breck from building more efficient, high density multi family? I agree that large multi-family is the most efficient, but I don't understand how allowing ADUs (or not allowing ADUs) has any effect. Large multi family will be built on places that are zoned for that. Want more large, multi-family, simply amend the zoning map to allow more of that. It's not like developers in Breck are building SFHs on lots that they could build massive apartment buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

ADU is needed in many areas (coastal) where there is essentially no land available to build on.

---

What a ridiculous idea that density should be limited to coastal areas while the rest of the country sprawls uncontrollably. It's not like places like SLC have a lot of undeveloped land. Denver can always sprawl East. Is that what people want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

ADU is needed in many areas (coastal) where there is essentially no land available to build on.

---

What a ridiculous idea that density should be limited to coastal areas while the rest of the country sprawls uncontrollably. It's not like places like SLC have a lot of undeveloped land. Denver can always sprawl East. Is that what people want? Where is Summit County (CO or UT) going to sprawl after all those SFH lots have homes on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Summit, you seem to think building a bunch of SFH on all this available land will solve your housing problems.

---

I have not said that nor anything like that, counselor.

Quote:

---

standard in every city ... standard size (or even bigger) than medium size cities ... Want parking? You need to pay for it. Americans are oblivious to the actual cost of a parking spot. Americans are also oblivious to how not dense our communities are. Tacoma Denver Seattle dense cities

---

The legislation refers to my area as a "RURAL job center" with a population of about 1000 people

So why are we talking about big city values for rural areas? Why are we talking about metros and mountain towns like they should be on the same ethos? Why are we trying to make everything big city dense and all this other shit that applies to metro areas with millions of people that are built out such that people literally want to get out of and away from that because it isn't desirable but might be necessary in those cities that have 1000x more people?

We aren't built out.

The mountains should NOT be like the city. This legislation is literally the city telling the small towns that they have to be like the city over the objection of the small towns.

The ONLY mayor in CO that supports this legislation is the mayor of Boulder. That should tell you something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

why are we talking about big city values and metro city areas like every town should be that way? Why are we trying to make everything big city dense and all this other shit that applies to metro areas with millions of people that are built out that people literally want to get out of and away from because it isn't desirable but might be necessary in those cities that have 1000x more people?

---

You live 70 miles away from Denver. You have a Williams Sonoma and J Crew. I could see some frustration if you live in butt fuck nowhere. You like Chamonix, right? You know how much more dense Chamonix is than Dillon?

Snob. Down zoning is real as is reverse subdivide. People hate apartment buildings.

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

I think the new law does a good job of limiting it's application to actual resort towns in Colorado, and not true rural Colorado. So rural Colorado can remain rural. Here is the definition of "rural job center," where ADUs would be allowed:

"RURAL RESORT JOB CENTER MUNICIPALITY" MEANS A MUNICIPALITY THAT:
(a) IS NOT WITHIN A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION;
(b) HAS A POPULATION OF ONE THOUSAND OR MORE;
(c) HAS AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED JOBS ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENT UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU LONGITUDINAL EMPLOYER-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS ORIGIN-DESTINATION EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS;
(d) HAS A MINIMUM JOBS-TO-POPULATION RATIO OF SIXTY-FOUR HUNDREDTHS; AND
(e) HAS A TRANSIT STOP SERVICED BY A TRANSIT AGENCY THAT SERVES AT LEAST TWO MUNICIPALITIES AND WITH SERVICE THAT INCLUDES AN AVERAGE OF AT LEAST TWENTY HEADWAY TRIPS PER DAY, AS OF JANUARY 1, 2023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

The ONLY mayor in CO that supports this legislation is the mayor of Boulder.

---

Really? The mayor of Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs are against it? If this law is so unpopular, I guess you have nothing to worry about because it won't pass.

Like I mentioned, we have a similar law pending here in WA (although ours goes much farther and allows up to 6 units on each SFH lot). All the big cities are for it. The only places against it are places like Mercer Island, the super wealthy community where Paul Allen used to live.

Has anyone been to Park City lately that has 20-30 yr knowledge of the landscape? Because holy fuck, that corridor from PC to Heber is a cluster fuck of new buildings on barren bluffs. I'm not sure any of it will be affordable housing, but a local could chime in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

You live 70 miles away from Denver. I could see some frustration if you live in butt fuck nowhere. You like Chamonix, right? You know how much more dense Chamonix is than Dillon?

---

I do like visiting Cham but I don't want to live in Cham. But if I did live there, I'd have things that actually makes density workable starting with amazing bus service in the valley and regular train service across the continent. None of those things exist here. Conceivably we could have a workable bus system, but building ADUs in SFH neighborhoods doesn't make the county triple the busses being run on each route.

Density for small towns starts with a working livable town core and density should surround it. Adding ADUs to SFH neighborhoods doesn't do that and it doesn't solve the housing problem. It creates more STRs that worsen the problem. It will benefit me monetarily. I am just bothered by the ham fisted centralization of control that won't solve the problems it is supposed to.

Oh yea... and there is an affordable housing crisis in Chamonix... wanna know why? Because there is literally infinite demand coming from a world sized market of buyers focused on a small valley to compete with locals. What was your point about Cham and density again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

What was your point about Cham and density again?

---

The affordability problem in Chamonix would be even worse if it had the density of Dillon Colorado.

It's a common argument made by opponents of density. They argue if density will make things cheaper, then why is San Francisco and London so expensive? But what would these places be like if they were even less dense than they are?

There is an affordability crisis in every desirable location on earth. It's not like Chamonix or Summit County, CO are unique in their worldwide demand. People want to live in the nice places on earth, whether it's in resort towns in Colorado, or next to the ocean with mild climate and strong job centers like where I live.

Snob. Down zoning is real as is reverse subdivide. People hate apartment buildings.

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Really? The mayor of Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs are against it? If this law is so unpopular, I guess you have nothing to worry about because it won't pass.

---

"The only Colorado mayor who spoke in support of the bill at a Capitol news conference Wednesday rolling out the legislation was Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett."

None of the affected mountain towns are in favor.

Well, no shit the resort towns are against it. The point of the law is to shove upzoning down their throats becuase they won't do it themselves.

Just because only Boulder mayor spoke in favor of it doesn't mean the mayors of the big cities are against it. Here in Washington, Seattle wasn't thrilled about it but the leaders knew that if they spoke out against it they would risk pissing off their liberal constituents. These state ADU and upzoning laws are a liberal movement. They make for strange bedfellows becuase the progressive liberals are promoting the same laws as the big developers. Even if CO doesn't pass this law today, they will in the not too distant future. Liberal ideas in the West come from CA, WA, and OR and then migrate their way to CO. I could see even UT, MT, and ID jumping on board. Maine and Minnesota have jumped on board so this movement isn't isolated to the West.

How is letting someone build an additional unit on their property, if they so choose, ‘centralization of control’?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

ideas in the West come from CA, WA, and OR and then migrate their way to CO

---

"I'm leaving CA for CO because it is expensive, crowded, and the taxes are too high. Oh hey let's make CO like CA!"

Attachment 455556

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

How is letting someone build an additional unit on their property, if they so choose, ‘centralization of control’?

---

Land use is currently controlled locally. The law takes that power and lets the state decide what the land use rules are, what consideration and impacts and rules around it matter. It prevents local governments from considering whether building units is appropriate for things like parking, water consideration, neighborhood character, transit, or deed restrictions. No community control is permitted in solving their housing problems. Nevermind if the state imposed solution won't solve the problem.

What happens when the state says "yes to solve the housing crisis, you can park your RV, or station wagon, anywhere and live in it." Freedumb!!!

The state politicians from the big city know best! Fuck what the people who are in the community want... that is unless they want to develop some more STRs... go right ahead with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

"I'm leaving CA for CO because it is expensive, crowded, and the taxes are too high. Oh hey let's make CO like CA!"

---

This was a popular poster when I lived in Boulder 20+ years ago. You can't blame CA for making CO liberal. Plenty of NE and Midwestern liberals have taken over that state as well. And a few WA and OR folks as well.

Attachment 455596

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Land use is controlled locally. The law takes that power and lets the state decide what the land use rules are, what consideration and impacts and rules around it matter. It prevents local governments from considering whether building units is appropriate for things like parking, water consideration, or requiring deed restrictions. No community control is permitted in solving their housing problems.

What happens when the state says "yes to solve the housing crisis, you can park your RV, or station wagon, anywhere and live in it." Freedumb!!!

Fuck what the people who are in the community want... that is unless they want to develop some more STRs... go right ahead with that.

---

But leaving it up to the individual areas is exactly what leads to NIMBYism, and nothing get built, and then everyone complains that housing is unaffordable…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Land use is controlled locally.

---

I am guessing you are also opposed to urban growth boundary and growth management laws, which are state laws that the cities must comply with whether they want to or not, and exist in CA, OR, and WA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

I am guessing you are also opposed to urban growth boundary and growth management laws, which are state laws that the cities must comply with whether they want to or not, and exist in CA, OR, and WA.

---

Don't know much about them.

My objection is not about urban areas though. ;)

You are right that Denver mayor is against the law. Although he agrees with the goal of the law, he doesn't like losing power to the state.

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/gov...fc8c05f5a.html

Like I said, quite different out here on the West Coast where the cities have bought into this idea. Give it some time and Denver mayor will change his mind. You can predict the future of CO by looking West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Don't know much about them.

My objection is not about urban areas though. ;)

---

Growth Management Act in WA applies to all counties with populations greater than 20,000. Growth management and urban growth boundaries aren't just for the big cities but would apply to places like Summit Co, CO (if that was in Washington).

If water use is the true issue, we should start limiting offspring. We're dinks...we could have two kids or build an ADU a couple could live in and have the same affect on the water supply. One choice would impact the local workforce immediately, one would in 20 years maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

But leaving it up to the individual areas is exactly what leads to NIMBYism, and nothing get built, and then everyone complains that housing is unaffordable…

---

In cities yes, not that is NOT true in the mountains. It is a different set of problems causing the worker housing shortage.

I've outlined the difference in the source of the problems in the mountains being different than the cities: in the mountains it isn't a lack of building nor a lack of land that is the problem. The problem is insatiable demand from a world market for second homes, remote workers, and STRs vs high build costs. That is why the mountain towns are pursuing a strategy of building subsidized deed restricted MDUs.

This legislation doesn't help with the mountain specific problems, forbids local concerns and community cost considerations, and explicitly prohibits the solutions desired by the towns. THIS is what I mean by centralizing control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

In cities yes, not that is NOT true in the mountains. It is a different set of problems causing the worker housing shortage.

I've outlined the difference in the source of the problems in the mountains being different than the cities: in the mountains it isn't a lack of building nor a lack of land that is the problem. The problem is insatiable demand from a world market for second homes and STRs vs high build costs. That is why the mountain towns are pursuing a strategy of building subsidized deed restricted MDUs.

This legislation doesn't help with the mountain specific problems, forbids local concerns and community cost considerations, and explicitly prohibits the solutions desired by the towns. THIS is what I mean by centralizing control.

---

I don’t buy that there’s an insatiable demand.

I could see that there could be a first mover problem though. If one are liberalizes their building rules while everywhere else is still restricting, that could lead to an area being flooded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

How does allowing ADUs on SFH lots prevent a place like Breck from building more efficient, high density multi family? I agree that large multi-family is the most efficient, but I don't understand how allowing ADUs (or not allowing ADUs) has any effect. Large multi family will be built on places that are zoned for that. Want more large, multi-family, simply amend the zoning map to allow more of that. It's not like developers in Breck are building SFHs on lots that they could build massive apartment buildings.

---

Seems like there is alot money to be made on multifamily developments with public-private partnerships in these towns.

Do a mix of market rate and affordable units, market rate income subsidizes the affordable rents. Tenant income gets recertified at lease renewal and leases prohibit sublets to keep STR's out. Do TIF for necessary infrastructure upgrades. Towns can either lease the land to the developer or deed-restrict it to enforce compliance.

There's alot of levers that can be pulled to make the numbers work, but the first step is local gov. accepting large multifamily developments in Mountain Town USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

I don’t buy that there’s an insatiable demand.

---

Here is what I mean by insatiable demand: if you put units for sale, a local buyer is competing against a market of buys that isn't local, it is the state, the country, the planet.

For rentals, for every local worker that wants to rent a 1BR at $1700/mo, there are 3 remote workers and 3 front rangers who will pay $2300 or more to only LTR but use it on the weekends and pow days, and even more visitors who will pay $300+ per night to STR, more on the holidays. That is the market mechanics. That is why all the building up here hasn't solved the housing problem and why the local government has turned to deed restriction as the solution.

This new law doesn't allow a requirement for deed restriction to ensure housing is for local workers.

Now back to the ADU. If it takes $2000+/mo for an owner to cashflow a 1BR ADU build, guess what the ADU gets used for?