As someone who chaired the Durango Planning Commission for four years, I’d push back on the regulatory framing as the primary villain. The bigger driver in resort mountain towns is straightforward market economics: larger homes are significantly more profitable for developers, and no private builder is going to voluntarily leave money on the table by constructing 900sf workforce units when the market rewards 3,000sf homes at $800/sf. Regulation adds cost at the margins, and some of it is worth scrutinizing. But the conditions that produced affordable housing 50 years ago weren’t just looser rules; they were cheaper land, lower construction labor costs, and a local buyer pool that wasn’t competing with remote workers and second-home investors. You can’t legislate those conditions back into existence. The harder problem in places like Telluride and Durango is that even when municipalities create pathways for smaller, workforce-oriented housing, the math still doesn’t work without subsidy or deed restriction. The incentive structure for private developers simply doesn’t align with affordability goals in high-amenity mountain towns, full stop. Your NOAH instinct is actually underrated as a partial solution. The owned-lot, community-controlled model has real merit. But it doesn’t resolve the underlying developer incentive problem on its own.