Alaska needs homes — and an honest accounting of what makes them affordable

By Edward D. Martin Jr.
Shauna Hegna and Mike Huston make a welcome call for action in their Juneau Independent opinion article, “Alaska needs more homes. Leadership can restart our homebuilding engine.” As an Alaska contractor, I agree that leadership should help move workable housing projects into construction.
My question is what families will be able to afford when those homes are finished.
A housing strategy should begin with the people expected to live in the homes. What income does a buyer need? What rent can a working family pay? What will heating, utilities, insurance, maintenance and property taxes add each month? A house can be financed and built while remaining beyond the reach of the people a program was intended to serve.
The authors describe using a relatively small pool of money to close the remaining financing gaps on projects with much larger commitments already in place. That can be a sensible way to finish stalled work. Before expanding that approach, Alaska should publish the full cost of each project, every public contribution, the number of completed and occupied homes, and the resulting prices or rents.
Those records should also explain how long any promised affordability lasts. If taxpayers help finance a home today, what protects that public benefit when the property changes hands tomorrow?
Construction begins long before the first nail. Land must be suitable and accessible. Drainage must work. Foundations must fit the ground. Water, wastewater, power and access must be addressed. Releasing a parcel without understanding those costs can leave a buyer with an expensive problem instead of a place to build.
Put public land to work, certainly. Publish its limitations, infrastructure needs and disposal terms. Give small builders, owner-builders and individual families a fair opportunity to participate. The ability to prepare a sophisticated grant application should not become the price of admission to every public housing opportunity.
I also support reviewing permit delays and conflicting requirements. Ask builders which steps add avoidable expense and ask local officials which safeguards prevent costly failures. Establish clear requirements, predictable decisions and a practical process for resolving disagreements. Keep the protections that make a home safe and durable.
Factory-built housing deserves the same practical examination. Compare the full delivered and installed cost, including transportation, foundations, utility connections and maintenance. The useful measure is how a building performs in its particular Alaska location over time.
The authors’ corporate and banking experience can contribute to this discussion. Public decisions should also include independent builders, tradespeople, prospective homeowners and tenants. Publish relevant financial interests, funding criteria, award decisions and fees so people can assess the arrangements for themselves.
I would ask the next governor to begin with a public inventory of projects ready to proceed, the specific obstacle holding up each one, and the least costly practical way to resolve it. Some may need financing. Others may need a utility extension, a land decision or an answer from an agency. Match the remedy to the obstacle.
Then report results regularly: homes completed, homes occupied, public dollars spent, and actual housing costs for residents. Explain setbacks as plainly as successes.
Alaska needs a housing effort that respects both the family seeking a home and the taxpayer helping make it possible. Cooperation among government, lenders, tribes, nonprofits and builders can serve that purpose when responsibilities and results are open to examination.
I welcome the authors’ invitation to act. Let us make affordability, fair access and public accountability the foundation of the work.
• Edward D. Martin Jr. is an Alaska resident since 1965 and a general contractor with KEE Construction LLC.
.png)
.png)










.png)





