Many of you have asked what other resort communities are doing to address the attainable workforce housing challenge. In addition to activity across Northern Michigan (including Traverse City, Benzie County, Leelanau County, Charlevoix, Petoskey, and Harbor Springs), we looked closely at established resort markets.
What we found is that two primary models have emerged:
- Government-Mandated Models (Colorado)
- Philanthropic, Community-Led Models (Vermont & Massachusetts)
Colorado Ski Communities: A Government-Led Approach
Communities such as Vail, Breckenridge (Summit County), Steamboat Springs, and Telluride have been dealing with workforce housing pressures for decades.
Their response has largely been:
- Mandatory inclusionary zoning
- Deed-restricted housing programs
- Significant public funding and subsidies
- Dedicated housing authorities and ongoing government oversight
What this model achieves:
- Large-scale unit production
- Immediate workforce housing supply
- Strong regulatory control over long-term use
Tradeoffs:
- High reliance on public funding and taxpayer support
- Complex regulations and administrative oversight
- Less flexibility at the individual property level
A Community-Led CLT Model
We also studied two nationally recognized Community Land Trust (CLT) models:
- Champlain Housing Trust (Burlington, VT)
- Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (Boston, MA)
These initiatives take a different approach:
- Land is held by a nonprofit
- Homes are privately owned
- Long-term affordability is preserved through 99-year ground leases
What this model achieves:
- Permanent affordability (not just 20–30 years)
- Homeownership with equity-building opportunity
- Strong community acceptance over time
- Lower foreclosure rates compared to conventional housing
Key Characteristics:
- Philanthropic and private capital-driven
- Community-led governance
- Designed to fit neighborhood scale and character
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Colorado Government-Controlled Model | CLT Model (SBGC-Aligned) | |
| · Public funding through new Tax dollars driven | · Philanthropic, private capital, and no Tax Dollars required | |
| · Deed restrictions | · 99-year ground lease (CLT) | |
| · Government administered | · Community-led nonprofit | |
| · Large-scale density | · Context-sensitive clusters | |
| · Ongoing regulatory oversight | · Long-term local stewardship model |
What This Means for Northern Michigan
The results are clear: When housing challenges go unaddressed, solutions become more complex, more costly, more prescriptive, and are regulated.
Both models emerged out of necessity. Communities reached a point where action was no longer optional.
Colorado’s path reflects a later-stage response, where housing shortages required significant public intervention to maintain functioning communities and workforce.
The CLT model represents an earlier, more proactive approach, one that:
- Preserves local character
- Maintains community involvement
- Reduces reliance on new or increased taxes
- Creates long-term, generational affordability
Northern Michigan still has a window of opportunity. We can choose a path that:
- Is locally driven rather than externally mandated
- Is financially sustainable without new taxpayer burden
- Balances community character with workforce needs
SBGC’s Community Land Trust approach is designed to act early, thoughtfully, and locally—preserving both the people and the character that define our communities.