Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - September 1, 2026

Offer in a particular plan and finances align with a particular property. And if you miss that window, you may wait a substantial amount of time before another opportunity presents itself.

Thank you. Um, I would like to move to postpone this until, uh, the next meeting. I guess it's September, uh, 15th. Um, I would actually really like to have a work session on this and discuss a little bit more some of the unintended consequences. Okay, so there's a motion to postpone this item to the meeting of September 15th.

Is there a second? I second. Okay, second from Mr. Johnson. Um, go ahead, Ms. Silvers, do you want to continue speaking to it? Um, I think I've already said why I want to postpone.

Yeah, I'd like to have a work session on this and really, um, just consider it a little more, get some more information on it. Okay, um, So, um, on the amendment, I heard, um, Mr. Boland, then Ms. Baldwin-Day. So go ahead, Mr. Boland. Sorry, yeah, not in the amendment, sorry, on the motion to postpone. Yeah, thank you.

I don't, I don't see a whole lot of utility in postponing this. I don't think that's necessary. We actually had an entire work session on housing policy where this was provided to members, and we had some discussion on it. I also don't see a whole lot of risk of unintended consequences coming from a a policy position resolution as opposed to an ordinance. So I will not be voting to postpone this at this time.

I think the folks who have worked on this have done really good work. I think we've had it, we've been able to take a look at it. I've said one thing in the S version that, you know, I don't love the addition, but that's okay, willing to overlook that. There's not a whole lot of substantive additions in the S version, so I think we can dispense with this, this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, and then I neglected to ask earlier, Mr. Martinez, do you want to be on the postponement or the main?

Okay, and so next I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. In response to questions that have been raised here, Section 1 indicates fairly clearly that this, this resolution deals primarily with municipal— well, exclusively with municipal real property that has been determined to be appropriate for residential development and subject to exchange or disposal. So if, if a determination has been made that a commercial piece of property is going to remain commercial, then this resolution does not apply. I also think that there's significant latitude in Section 3, where we are not directing the administration, but we are urging them, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to incorporate this policy guidance.

And this is not a directive or a mandate. It is a very strongly worded suggestion. And an expression of our desire, understanding that ultimately we are the body to whom property disposals will come for approval. And so we are essentially stating our priorities up front and hoping that when the administration brings us proposals for property disposal, that they have considered these things because we have said this is what's important to us. So we are not, we are not tying anyone's hands.

We're just expressing our values and our priorities as a body when it comes to how we are leveraging land. And I want to remind my colleagues that when it comes to the development of housing, land is one of the only levers we have to impact the ultimate cost of housing in our community. And, and so I think we ought to be very careful and very judicious about how we invest that resource because it is finite. And if we want to have a community where people can afford to live, then we need to be careful stewards of one of the the assets that leads to housing development and housing affordability. So I urge my colleagues to move this forward.

And I do want to say that we, as my colleague Member Wallin pointed out, we had a 2-hour work session on assembly housing policy on Friday, and where there was a really lengthy discussion about how, what policies we have moved as a body and what's important to us and where we might be headed moving forward. And so I think that an additional work session on this resolution would be duplicative. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, any other members in the queue for motion to postpone? Okay, so members may proceed to vote.

Uh, one second.

How are you going to connect black magic? Member Handlin?

Yes.

Member Martinez? No. Member Gerker? No. Member Silvers?

Yes.

Chair Brawley? No. Vice Chair Voland? No. Member Baldwin-Day?

No. Member Scout? No. Member McCormick? No.

Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. On a vote of 7 to 4, that fails.