I watched last night’s Assembly meeting, which was the first of two (or maybe more) public hearings on MMHOP* (the “Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay”). Here are a few quick takeaways:
The public testimony was surprisingly polite. With the exception of the second speaker (who apparently doesn’t live in the overlay zone), no one tried to pit young against old or haves against have-nots. There were many heartfelt appeals for affordable housing and many more agreements that Anchorage needs new housing that isn’t falling apart. Lots of people supported the idea of high-density corridors with walkable streets and multi-use buildings with shops and housing (i.e., town centers). In general, speakers didn’t respond to each other’s comments; it was more rehearsed talking points than a discussion. Which is fine and expected for Assembly testimony, but I’d argue doesn’t count as public participation. Public participation looks more like the Mayor’s 10k Homes open house last month, which I attended and thought was a useful exercise (more on that in a future post).
There was a lot of support for amending MMHOP. I didn’t hear as much direct opposition as I expected. Instead, roughly 10(?) people asked for added nuance to the ordinance, in particular around R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, earthquake zones, and lot dimensions. There are a lot of amendments that have been offered (see the Assembly work session documents for the full list), but the one that got the most support last night is a new map that removes the highest-risk seismic zones as well as single-family/two-family neighborhoods (R-1, R-2).
The argument for the earthquake zones is obvious (don’t add more people to areas we know can fail), but the neighborhood one is slightly more complicated. Basically, it’s that:
Those neighborhoods already got up-zoned by the HOME Initiative two years ago (see our last post for more on that).
The 2040 Land Use Plan (the city’s guiding “how we grow” document) clearly spells out which types of housing go in what types of neighborhoods. MMHOP’s approach of “all types of dense housing, everywhere” doesn’t match that plan.
You could summarize this as “four-story apartments and tall townhouses belong in higher-density areas. They don’t belong next to single-story homes (though duplexes, triplexes, and small cottage homes do).” That seems pretty logical and is a good way to grow housing AND avoid shadows, more cars parked in the street, etc. We’d still argue that tall skinnies belong nowhere.
The Assembly didn’t indicate what comes next for MMHOP. Unsurprisingly, the Assembly extended testimony to the next meeting on October 6th. They didn’t formally introduce any amendments last night, or mention if there will be an alternative version. In fact, they didn’t say much last night, aside from asking a question about whether concerns about on-street parking overload are real.
However, a new AO was introduced that updates housing minimums in transit-supported corridors. In the consent agenda (which did not have any discussion), there was an item described as “Ordinance No. AO 2026-XXX, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2020—Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to reflect updated housing density minimums in Transit-Supportive Development Corridors, provide community-wide benefits, and reflect new issues and needs; and amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.01.080, Table 21.01-1 Comprehensive Plan Elements. Assembly Member Baldwin-Day. P.H. 10-6-2026.”
I haven’t been able to find out what this is, but I did get some emails today asking whether it’s legal to change the 2020 and 2040 plans through an Assembly ordinance. I have no idea and am learning more. If you can explain this one (or have a copy of the AO), please reach out.
Finally, people are really passionate about this. They may have been polite and generally in agreement on the need for more housing, but the fact that so many people (~45) stayed until midnight to testify is telling. Affordability and adding new homes are important, as are the impacts of MMHOP on the scale of neighborhoods; the fact that most people in Anchorage are unaware of how this could change the city is problematic. I was glad to see so many people up late, but I sure hope to see additional coverage of these Assembly meetings in the paper, because there should be even more at the next meeting.
*Why is this not called MMHOO? I have no idea. (As someone noted last night, it is reminiscent of IHOP).