OPINION: Reimagining Project Anchorage

Project Anchorage suggests that it’s time for new community investment, but only provides a narrow scope of possibilities for that investment. What if we took the opportunity Project Anchorage presents to expand that scope, reimagining what investing in Anchorage can look like?

For instance, as consumers, we pay higher costs for the convenience of credit cards, which we partially get back through credit card reward programs. For a moment, let’s imagine the sales tax as a Community Cash Back program, using spending in the municipality to generate the funds to invest in ourselves and our communities.

The current Project Anchorage proposal stifles its own potential by failing to address any of our biggest challenges: housing affordability, child care, behavioral health, education and homelessness. This is a missed opportunity. With only a portion of the $180 million in projected annual revenue, we could make real inroads into addressing the fundamental challenges holding Anchorage back from becoming an even better place to live.

Let’s consider housing affordability. Increasing the variety and amount of housing that’s available in Anchorage impacts nearly every other challenge that our community faces. It’s particularly difficult to make multifamily housing pencil out. However, a new model from Maryland demonstrates how public financing can tip the scales in favor of building new housing. The model uses a $100 million revolving fund to provide loans at a lower interest rate than the private market, reducing development costs in return for creating perpetually affordable housing. Then, as the developer pays off the loan, that money becomes available again to spur even more investment. Why couldn’t Project Anchorage be leveraged for innovative approaches like this to address our greatest challenges?

Let’s further consider how the Project Anchorage revenue will be spent and whether it is a prudent investment. As proposed, two-thirds of the revenue funds tax cuts for property owners. However, only about 40% of municipal property tax revenue is generated from owner-occupied properties. The remaining 60% is divided between commercial and rental properties (including one quarter, or 15% of total property tax receipts, from out-of-state or other non-resident owners). Thus, as the proposal stands, the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut — representing revenue from 1.2% out of the 3% tax — are not average homeowners but corporations and landlords. The municipality doesn’t benefit from corporations like Fred Meyer or Airbnb owners receiving a tax cut from revenue they minimally contribute to generating.

However, even a targeted property tax cut to owner-occupied properties minimally benefits the municipality. Anchorage residents have among the lowest overall tax burdens across the country — not even accounting for the fact that many of our residents receive Permanent Fund dividends, reducing that burden even further. As proposed, a homeowner with a $450,000 home would see a $1,270 property tax cut. And while more money in folks’ pockets could marginally stimulate the local economy, it won’t lead to greater community returns or coalesce into investments like parks or child care facilities.

Imagine instead an initiative through which neighborhoods, via community councils, split one-third of the sales tax revenue, proportional to their population, and were empowered to direct or propose spending — an average of $1.5 million annually — on neighborhood priorities, such as revitalizing derelict buildings, building housing or child care facilities, improving streets and sidewalks, or creating third spaces like community gardens. While a homeowner may see more narrow, immediate benefit in a property tax cut, they could see much greater returns to their quality of life and long-term property value if their neighborhood took advantage of community-scale investments. Rather than benefiting only those able to afford property, we could instead choose to foster broader civic engagement by investing in all corners of the municipality, benefiting us all and representing an investment in Anchorage from the ground up.

These are just a few ideas. It is up to all of us in the municipality to imagine what is possible for Anchorage and to make investments accordingly. I believe a revised version of Project Anchorage could help us reach our full potential. What would you add to our list of possibilities?

Will Walker is an attorney who lives, works and recreates in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.