Balancing tourism and livability a tall order

Whitefish locals’ increasingly worrisome attitude toward tourism took center stage at a workshop last week hosted by the Whitefish Sustainable Tourism Management Plan committee.

The group in 2020 crafted a plan aimed at promoting “community-based tourism development” that better fits residents’ vision for the city. At that time, survey results from 2018 revealed emerging concerns among locals about housing prices, traffic and infrastructure, and, notably, preserving the community’s character.

“The most popular reason to visit Whitefish is that it is a ‘real’ community and not a cookie cutter resort town — and that attraction comes from local people and families that can thrive here to provide Whitefish its popular character,” one survey response wisely stated.

Still, at that time most viewed tourism favorably, with 62% of respondents saying tourism’s benefits outweighed the negative impacts.

Six years later, that attitude has shifted decidedly more negative.

Results from a survey conducted last fall indicate that only 22% of respondents agreed with the statement that tourism makes Whitefish a good place to live. That compares to 54% who disagreed with the sentiment.

The proliferation of short-term rentals, traffic and difficulty protecting natural resources were identified as tourism’s most negative impacts, while the top benefits were flagged as resort tax revenue, economic impact and Whitefish’s thriving downtown.

The committee is currently working to update its management plan with strategies that reflect the latest feedback and account for increased pressures from post-pandemic growth. The committee is expected to release its draft plan in May with final adoption in June.

It’s difficult to separate the positive effects of tourism from the negative baggage, and in some regards they are wholly intertwined.

Promoting visitation brings people to town who spend money locally, which then circulates throughout the valley, creating jobs and more economic opportunities. Simultaneously, tourism promotion brings people to town, which taxes infrastructure and amenities, creates traffic, and supplies the demand for short-term rentals, which in turn negatively impacts attainable housing and the local workforce’s ability to live and work locally.

Whitefish resident Brad Thompson expressed as much at last week’s workshop, saying there was a sense of “fear and animosity” among his peers about the future of the community.

“People don’t know if they can make it work here,” Thompson said.

That is the crux of the matter — how to maintain the remnants of Whitefish as a “real” community — where a variety of people can live, work and play.

Yes, the golden goose of visitation has been good to Whitefish’s economy and provided many amenities that make it an attractive place to live. But in crafting its updated plan, the committee must hone in on its core pillars of livability and character. Without a focus on tourism’s impact on these key attributes, Whitefish’s long-term viability as a “real” town will quickly dissipate.