New Poll Shows that Flathead County Voters Overwhelmingly Support More Housing Options
Two-thirds (67%) of Flathead County voters say the valley lacks adequate housing options to meet the needs of Flathead Valley residents across all income levels and family sizes.
Nearly seven in ten voters (69%) think cities should focus on redeveloping land inside existing boundaries instead of sprawling outward.
A majority of voters (54%) think cities should allow up to four small homes per lot in all residential neighborhoods, except for the most rural areas on the edge of town.
A resounding 84% of voters think cities should create more small business opportunities by allowing corner stores, restaurants, coffee shops, and pharmacies in most places.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (64%) think cities should let coffee shops, businesses, and churches within walking distance of downtown determine how much parking they need on their property.
While voters broadly agree on zoning solutions, they are more divided on financial subsidies. Overall, 48% of voters support creating new local funding sources for affordable housing, while 39% are opposed. These opinions vary sharply by location — ranging from strong support in Whitefish to slight opposition in Columbia Falls.
Flathead County’s Housing Woes
Finding a home to rent or buy on local wages in Flathead County has been a challenge for years, if not decades. But the rise in remote work and the influx of people leaving large cities during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the issue substantially.
Data from the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) illustrates a decade of relative stagnation before the recent boom. In May 2009, Flathead County’s typical home value was $273,199. Over the next ten years, values increased at a rate below inflation, reaching just $325,780 by July 2019 — a modest 19.2% increase for the decade [source for inflation data: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator].
That long-standing stability was completely shattered by the pandemic housing boom. Between August 2019 and July 2022, the typical home value in Flathead County essentially doubled. What had been a slow, steady market accelerated aggressively, surging by tens of thousands of dollars a month. Ultimately, values skyrocketed by 99.3% from $327,632 to a staggering apex of $652,921 in just three years before prices finally began to decline.
The Family in a Camper: “This summer I was without any housing for 6 months. Living in a small camper on public lands with my 5 children.”
While prices started to cool in August 2022, the relief has been minimal. As of January 2026, the typical home value was $621,911 — a decline of just 4.7% from the summer 2022 peak.
The Senior on a Fixed Income: “I’m 60 years old and have to work at least 20 hours of overtime to afford rent… Before I got the studio I lived in a camper with no water for 3 years. I had a stroke and hope I’m able to continue to afford my apartment or I will be living in my car.”
Historically, home values have varied significantly across Flathead County’s distinct communities. In May 2009, Columbia Falls and Kalispell offered the greatest affordability, with typical home values of $236,465 and $247,087, respectively. Whitefish sat at a noticeable premium — costing $337,975, making it 36.8% more expensive than Kalispell. Yet, the highest price tag belonged to the unincorporated community of Lakeside, where typical values reached $419,476. (Note: ZHVI data for Bigfork is unavailable for this period).
Fast forward to today, and the landscape is fundamentally altered. Kalispell’s typical home value has more than doubled to $538,312. Columbia Falls, once the valley’s most affordable city, has surged past Kalispell to reach $581,522. At the top of the market, prices have completely detached from local wages, with typical homes in Lakeside and Whitefish skyrocketing to $823,955 and $834,744, respectively. Even the county’s most affordable community, Hungry Horse, offers little relief; its typical home value sits at $335,588 today — more than triple its $103,167 price tag from January 2013.
The “Working Homeless”: I work for The Salvation Army and see working people who are homeless because of housing prices… it is very personal to me!
These aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet — they represent a daily, compounding crisis for Flathead Valley families. When Livable Flathead commissioned nonpartisan pollsters Embold Research to survey county voters, the human cost of this housing shortage became undeniably clear. [Poll Methodology Statement]
The Human Cost
When asked about the immediate reality of the housing market, the consensus was overwhelming. Nearly 80% of Flathead County voters reported being touched by the housing shortage — with 35% saying they have been personally impacted by bidding wars or rental waitlists, and another 45% stating they have a friend or family member who has struggled to find a place to live. Only 21% of residents could say the shortage hasn’t affected someone in their immediate circle.
The Teacher: “As a Teacher here in the valley, I work with several young teachers that are amazing and passionate… but can’t afford to live here. They end up not seeing it as a place to raise their own family and move elsewhere.”
When asked if the lack of affordable housing has made it difficult to envision a long-term future in the Flathead Valley, 45% of all voters answered “Yes.” The existential threat is even more acute depending on where residents live. In Columbia Falls — which we previously noted has seen some of the most aggressive price hikes in the valley — a majority of residents (54%) say they can no longer clearly see a long-term future for themselves in the community. Whitefish (46%) and Kalispell (45%) follow closely behind, suggesting that nearly half of the workforce in our cities is currently contemplating an exit. This feeling is the most acute among young residents, non-homeowners, and lower income households.
The First Responders: “I used to be a firefighter for Bigfork and none of the firefighters were able to afford to live in the district that we worked and served. I had to commute from Kalispell for my long shifts.”
Law Enforcement: “Friends that moved here to take law enforcement jobs… pay was terrible and the housing was too expensive. One guy had to live in a travel trailer with his wife for over a year.”
Many Flathead County voters report that the housing shortage has forced a return to multi-generational living. Across the valley, “empty nests” are disappearing as parents report housing adult children well into their 30s, or being unable to get their kids out of the house once they enter into adulthood. This “doubling up” creates a hidden layer of housing insecurity that isn’t always visible on the streets but that can strain relationships and mental health nonetheless.
The “Stuck” Parent: “My adult daughter lives with me. She cannot afford rent here to live on her own. She is 31!”
“I have six kids and I can’t get rid of them because they can’t afford the rents in the valley.”
Paradoxically, even when local property stays within a family, it often fails to provide long-term stability. Respondents shared heartbreaking accounts of heirs inheriting local homes and immediately increasing the rent or converting the homes into more lucrative short-term rentals. In these moments, the passing of a long-time, community-minded landlord doesn’t just represent a personal loss — it often results in the immediate eviction of local tenants and the permanent removal of a home from the local housing stock.
The Inheriting Grandkids: “Friends were renting a duplex… when the elderly owners passed away, the California grandkids inherited and almost doubled the rent. They could not afford it and had to move out of state. STINKS when residents are forced to leave.”
The Path Forward
A critical part of solving the housing shortage is determining which communities are effectively housing their own residents — and which are not — so the poll asked voters to evaluate the pace of development across the valley’s three major cities.
A closer look at the local crosstabs for this question reveals a striking consensus among residents in the valley’s highest-cost cities: they believe their own communities are failing to build enough housing, while Kalispell is being forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of the region’s growth.
In Columbia Falls, 35% of voters say their city is building “too little” housing to meet local needs. Simultaneously, 41% of those same voters look down the road and say Kalispell is building “too much.” This suggests a clear feeling that Columbia Falls is not doing its “fair share” to house its own workforce, teachers, and families, forcing those residents to seek housing in Kalispell and creating a visible imbalance in where the valley’s growth is concentrated.
A nearly identical trend appears in Whitefish. A plurality of Whitefish voters (39%) believe their city has built “too little” housing over the last five years — the highest “too little” rating of any city in the survey. These residents are feeling the acute pain of the $834,000 typical home value and recognize that the lack of supply in their own backyard is the root cause. Yet, like their neighbors in Columbia Falls, they see homes being built elsewhere while their own town becomes increasingly unattainable.
This creates an unequal regional dynamic: by failing to build attainable housing within Whitefish and Columbia Falls, these cities are effectively exporting their residents to Kalispell. This doesn’t just increase traffic and strain infrastructure; it erodes the community fabric of the entire valley as residents are forced away from their communities.
Flathead County Voters’ Preferred Housing Solutions
While there is debate over which cities are building their fair share of homes, there is a powerful, cross-county consensus on where that growth should occur. When asked if the priority should be developing open space outside city limits or redeveloping land within existing cities, 69% of Flathead County voters chose inward growth. Only 16% favored the continued sprawl of cities into the rural landscape.
Resistance to sprawl is most intense in the communities currently feeling the most pressure. In Columbia Falls, a staggering 78% of voters want to see growth focused within the city’s existing footprint rather than out into the surrounding open space. Crucially, this sentiment is shared by those living outside city limits; 71% of unincorporated county voters prefer redeveloping existing city land over outward expansion.
This data reveals a clear path forward for the valley. Residents are tired of seeing “the city” march out into the countryside, but they recognize that their children and workforce need places to live. They are signaling for a strategy that protects the valley’s agricultural heritage and wild places by focusing new homes within our cities where infrastructure already exists.
When forced to choose a primary focus for development of new homes, the mandate from voters is clear: 64% want cities to prioritize creating housing options that “regular people can afford.” In contrast, only 28% believe the priority should be limiting new housing to protect existing neighborhood character.
This sentiment remains remarkably stable across geographic lines, even in areas often associated with stricter architectural or density standards:
These results suggest that while “neighborhood character” is a frequent talking point in public hearings, it does not reflect the primary concern of the broader electorate. For the vast majority of Flathead County residents, a neighborhood’s “character” is defined less by its architecture and more by the ability of its teachers, first responders, and service workers to actually live there.
The poll tested specific land-use policies. The first tested was: allowing up to four small homes to share a property in all residential neighborhoods, except for the most rural areas on the edge of town.
A solid majority of 54% of Flathead County voters support the idea. Only 37% oppose it, while 8% remain unsure.
This support is not just a general countywide trend; it is strongest in the areas facing the most extreme affordability pressures. In Whitefish, support for this policy surges to 65%, with only 32% in opposition. This suggests that in the city where the typical home value has reached $834,000, voters are increasingly viewing modernized zoning not as a threat to their neighborhoods, but as the only viable way to move forward.
By supporting the creation of multiple smaller homes on existing lots, voters are signaling a desire for more “missing middle” housing — the townhomes, cottages, and backyard units that historically provided a bridge to homeownership for regular people, but which have been largely regulated out of existence over the last several decades.
The second specific land-use policy tested was: allowing up to eight small homes to share a property near businesses and transit, the county is almost perfectly divided: 46% support the idea, while 45% oppose it.
This narrow margin shows that while a plurality of voters still favor this policy, the jump from four to eight units triggers more significant concerns for many. This tension is most visible when looking at individual communities:
Columbia Falls is the only city where a majority explicitly opposes the 8-unit model (53% oppose to 42% support), suggesting an upper boundary on the level of housing density residents are willing to accept. In contrast, Whitefish sits at 49% support. Meanwhile, Kalispell remains consistent with the county average at 46% support.
By comparing the 54% support for four small homes per property to the 46% support for eight small homes per property near businesses and transit, the data tells a clear story: The Flathead is ready for some “Missing Middle” housing, but the appetite for more than four homes per lot is still a point of significant community debate.
The third specific land-use policy tested was: limiting the size of a single-detached house but allowing for larger total square footage if a builder creates a duplex, triplex, or fourplex.
A majority of Flathead County voters (51%) expressed support.
This policy would allow, for example, a single home up to 2,500 square feet, but would permit a fourplex to reach 4,000 combined square feet. Support for this trade-off is highest in Whitefish at 58%, where the pressure to move away from “luxury McMansion” development toward attainable workforce housing is most acute. In Kalispell and Columbia Falls, support remains steady at 50% and 51%, respectively.
Flathead County Voters’ Preferences for Creating More Vibrant Neighborhoods
The strongest endorsement for any specific policy in the survey came when voters were asked about allowing small businesses like corner stores, cafes, and pharmacies in most places within our cities. This approach, which creates more vibrant and walkable communities, received a massive 84% support countywide.
Support for this vision is nearly universal across the valley:
Kalispell: 86% Support
Whitefish: 85% Support
Columbia Falls: 84% Support
Rest of the County: 78% Support
This 84% supermajority suggests that residents don’t just want more housing; they want a higher quality of life. By integrating essential services into residential areas, cities can reduce the need for short car trips, alleviating the very traffic concerns that many residents cite when opposing growth.
When asked to specify which types of businesses they would like to see within walking distance of their homes, the consensus pointed squarely toward social and service-oriented spaces. 51% of respondents identified restaurants, coffee shops, and bakeries as their top choice, suggesting that voters value neighborhoods that function as social hubs. Beyond food and drink, there is notable interest in personal services like barbershops and salons (35%), health and wellness facilities (27%), and general services like repair shops or veterinary clinics (25%). Thirty nine percent of respondents indicated that they did not want any business within walking distance of their home.
The difference between the 84% support for the general policy and the 61% who want businesses near their own homes reflects a common “Macro vs. Micro” disconnect in urban planning. While a massive supermajority of Flathead residents agree that the concept of mixed-use neighborhoods is better for the valley’s overall livability and traffic, the support drops by 23 points when the question becomes personal. This gap represents a segment of the population that views “vibrant neighborhoods” as a regional objective good, yet still prioritizes the privacy and quiet of a residential-only environment for their own immediate backyard. This data suggests a mandate for choice rather than a mandate for uniformity: voters want to remove the legal barriers to neighborhood businesses, allowing those who value walkability to have it without forcing a commercial presence into every residential corner.
The poll also tested a more flexible approach to small business development: allowing coffee shops, businesses, and churches within walking distance of downtown areas to determine their own parking needs, rather than following rigid, government-mandated ratios that are frequently arbitrary. This policy received a robust 64% support countywide, with 18% opposed and 18% unsure.
Voters in Whitefish were the most enthusiastic about this change, with 70% support, followed by Columbia Falls at 67%. Even in Kalispell (62%), a clear majority favors giving local entrepreneurs and clergy the autonomy to manage their property based on their specific needs rather than a one-size-fits-all formula.
Funding for Permanently Affordable Housing
When asked about creating new sources of funding to subsidize permanently affordable housing, Flathead County is supportive but cautious. A plurality of 48% support creating new funding sources, while 39% oppose the idea and 13% remain unsure.
The geography of this support reveals a significant divide in how different communities view the role of local government in funding housing:
Whitefish: Shows the strongest mandate for funding at 60% support. Given that Whitefish has the highest home prices and a long history of local housing programs, voters there are the most comfortable with the idea that public investment is necessary to maintain a local workforce.
The Rest of the County: Surprisingly, unincorporated residents show the second-highest support at 54%. This suggests that even in rural areas, there is a growing recognition that the housing shortage requires a coordinated financial response.
Kalispell & Columbia Falls: Support is more tempered in these cities, at 45% and 42% respectively. Columbia Falls is the only area where opposition (46%) slightly outweighs support. This likely reflects a concern about the potential tax burden on residents who are already feeling “overwhelmed” by the pace and cost of growth.
The narrow margin countywide indicates that while the public recognizes the funding gap, any specific proposal — whether a local option tax, a bond, or a fee — would likely face intense scrutiny. This highlights that while land-use reforms have broad “free” support, financial subsidies remain more delicate politically.
Because subsidies for affordable housing are politically delicate, many communities are turning toward regulatory flexibility as a “cost-free” alternative to direct public spending. This leads to the final set of strategies tested in the survey, which explore whether voters are willing to trade traditional design requirements for guaranteed affordability:
“One way to reduce costs and the need for public funding for affordable housing is to allow more flexibility in how it’s built. Do you support or oppose each of the following for affordable housing developments?”
Voters expressed a clear preference for flexibility over rigid mandates when it specifically facilitates affordable housing. While the county is divided on some measures, design flexibility (60%) and increased living space for more homes on a single lot (53%) emerged as the most popular tools for lowering development costs.
The crosstabs reveal distinct local priorities and “red lines” regarding how this flexibility should be applied:
Whitefish’s Height vs. Density Split: Whitefish voters are the most aggressive in the valley regarding density and scale, with 60% supporting more homes per lot and 65% supporting greater total living space for more homes on a lot — the highest in the survey. However, it is the only community where a plurality opposes taller buildings (49% oppose to 48% support), suggesting that while Whitefish wants more units, it prefers them to be “hidden” within the existing vertical profile of the town.
The Rural Resistance to Density: Residents in the unincorporated county were the only group to oppose more homes per lot (51% oppose) and greater total living space for more homes per lot (46% oppose). This reinforces a recurring theme: rural voters want cities to handle growth within their existing boundaries.
Columbia Falls’ Openness: Columbia Falls voters are remarkably consistent in their support for all four trade-offs, with 53% supporting both taller buildings and more homes per lot. This matches Columbia Falls’ preference to grow within its existing city boundaries rather than by sprawling outward.
The Consensus on Design: Allowing flexibility in building materials and architectural style is the path of least resistance, garnering majority support in every single region, peaking at 62% in Kalispell.
The data is clear: Flathead County residents are ready to trade rigid, arbitrary rules for a common-sense growth strategies that prioritize affordability for local families. By supporting redevelopment within our cities, walkability, and regulatory flexibility, the community has provided a definitive roadmap for a more livable and attainable Flathead Valley.
Polling was conducted online from February 20–25, 2026. Using Dynamic Online Sampling to attain a representative sample, Embold Research polled 615 registered voters in Flathead County, MT. Post-stratification was performed on age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and 2024 presidential vote. You can see a full methodology statement here, which complies with the requirements of AAPOR’s Transparency Initiative. Members of the Transparency Initiative disclose all relevant details about our research, with the principle that the public should be able to evaluate and understand research-based findings, in order to instill and restore public confidence in survey results.
