Facts about “workforce housing” projects in Bayfield:
- Not Local: The requirements are “living in Region 9 for a year or more and work at least 32 hours/week in La Plata County” (per the Durango Herald)…not Bayfield.
- Projects started from Prop 123 – “Transformational Affordable Housing” which is a National Low Income Housing Coalition through Federal Funding (through DOLA, Department of Local Affairs). Federal funding always has control strings attached.
- Part of the plan of federal land grabs – happening across the country. One of the Bayfield resolutions states how this project has “reached out to the county for ARPA funding”…that is the American Rescue Plan Act from the covid recovery funds. Control from the very top!
- Master-planned communities – Driven by “Regional” Housing Alliance where the president of that organization worked for the largest developer of master-planned communities in the U.S.!! These master plans are the same all across the nation in big cities. Do we really want Bayfield to become like L.A. or San Francisco? Regional governance removes local voices (in Massachusetts, there are no more counties because it’s all become “regional.”)
- Public Private Partnership – This is where governments partner with businesses. The role of government is to protect the rights of individuals and businesses, not to partner with them. This is NOT free enterprise. Tom DeWeese describes it as Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies. - Not Affordable – $350,000-400,000 is not “affordable” housing in Bayfield when the average salary is about $52,000/year. Without federal grant money, the whole thing falls flat on its face.
What is "workforce housing?"
Communities all across the nation are filing for grants to bring “workforce housing” to their area…so what does that mean?
Here is a great article on how the YIMBY movement works with this plan and results in loss of property rights.
What is meant by protection of private property rights?
Richard B. Sanders (Washington State Supreme Court Justice) legally defined private property in this manner:
“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
The key word in that is “UNRESTRICTED” and people should demand property rights without regulations on usage of it.