Park City has embraced an idea wonderfully convenient for developers: that making housing affordable requires building affordable housing. But another approach is rental assistance that helps qualified workers afford homes that already exist. Federal comparisons have generally found tenant-based vouchers cheaper per household served than subsidized construction where suitable rentals already exist. Park City’s housing analysis counted 4,438 homes held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. Yet I can find no published analysis showing how many could house workers at lower public cost than new construction. The buildings are fixed. Their use is not. Owners choose among nightly rental, occasional use, vacancy and year-round leasing. Make year-round leasing more lucrative, and some will switch. I own a one-bedroom vacation rental in Old Town. For me, a few hundred dollars a month would erase the financial advantage of nightly rental. I do not know how many owners are similarly situated. That is what a pilot should measure. Park City voters have approved five open-space bond initiatives totaling $113 million since 1998. The city has long used density limits to protect community character and restrain growth. Yet for affordable housing, the script flips: more density, more buildings and valuable public land committed to development. New deed-restricted housing adds supply and long-term stability. But it is not necessarily the most equitable approach. One household can retain a valuable below-market benefit for decades even after its income rises, while another household with equal or greater need may receive no housing assistance at all. A portable subsidy could spread assistance more broadly, give workers greater choice and phase down as need declines. The public cost of development can also be hard to see. Public land, foregone rent, density bonuses, parking, infrastructure and tax credits may carry substantial value without appearing as direct city expenditures. Unless those concessions are priced, taxpayers cannot tell what they are giving up. Years ago, I asked then-Mayor Andy Beerman why Park City favored housing development over renter subsidies. My recollection is that he said development had more political support. I can see why. To voters worried about affordability, building homes looks like a solution. To developers, it is a profitable solution. Before committing to final terms at Bonanza Park, Park City should run a two-year pilot giving 100 income-qualified local-worker households capped, portable rental assistance usable in any qualifying year-round rental within city limits. Measure how many workers stay, how many commuters move in, how many vacation rentals or second homes enter year-round use, whether rents or displacement rise and the cost per worker-year. Then compare that cost with construction, counting administration, land, parking, infrastructure, subsidies and the years of affordability each approach guarantees. Park City wants to house its workforce and restrain development. Before treating those goals as incompatible, test the alternative that may advance both. We should not pave paradise with one hand while paying to preserve it with the other. Jonathan Warden Thaynes Canyon The post A contradiction appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less