Dave Donley
Dave Donley is a member of the Anchorage School District School Board in Alaska, representing Seat C. He assumed office on May 8, 2017. His current term ends in 2026.
Donley ran for election to the Anchorage Assembly District 4 to represent District 4 Seat G in Alaska. He was on the ballot in the general election on April 7, 2026.[source]
Donley completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2026. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Dave Donley earned a high school diploma from Dimond High School and a law degree from the University of Washington School of Law in 1979. His career experience includes working as an attorney.[1]
Elections
2026
See also: City elections in Anchorage, Alaska (2026)
General election
General election for Anchorage Assembly District 4 Seat G
Dave Donley (Nonpartisan), Janice Park (Nonpartisan), and Kim Winston (Nonpartisan) ran in the general election for Anchorage Assembly District 4 Seat G on April 7, 2026.
Candidate | ||
 | Dave Donley (Nonpartisan)  | |
 | Janice Park (Nonpartisan) | |
| Kim Winston (Nonpartisan) | ||
| ||||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Donley received the following endorsements.
- Frmr. State Sen. Fred Dyson (R)
- Frmr. State Rep. Sharon Jackson (R)
- Frmr. State Rep. Stanley Wright (R)
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1547
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959
- Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 341
- Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA) Local 71
- Anchorage Home Builders Association (AHBA)
- Anchorage Realtors
2023
See also: Anchorage School District, Alaska, elections (2023)
General election
General election for Anchorage School District Board of Education Seat C
Incumbent Dave Donley defeated Irene Boll in the general election for Anchorage School District Board of Education Seat C on April 4, 2023.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Dave Donley (Nonpartisan) | 57.1 | 35,269 |
 | Irene Boll (Nonpartisan) | 42.2 | 26,072 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.7 | 415 | ||
| Total votes: 61,756 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
2020
See also: Anchorage School District, Alaska, elections (2020)
General election
General election for Anchorage School District Board of Education Seat C
Incumbent Dave Donley defeated James Smallwood in the general election for Anchorage School District Board of Education Seat C on April 7, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Dave Donley (Nonpartisan) | 55.1 | 33,981 |
| James Smallwood (Nonpartisan) | 43.6 | 26,886 | ||
| Other/Write-in votes | 1.3 | 828 | ||
| Total votes: 61,695 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
2017
Two of seven seats on the Anchorage School District school board in Alaska were up for at-large general election on April 4, 2017. The Seat C and Seat D incumbents did not file to run for re-election. Dave Donley defeated four candidates to win the race for Seat C: Tasha Hotch, Alsiha Hilde, James Smallwood Jr., and Christopher Jamison. In the race for Seat D, Andy Holleman defeated Kay Schuster and Albert Berke. Holleman and Schuster were separated by fifty-five votes.[2]
Results
| Anchorage School District, Seat C General Election, 3-year terms, 2017 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
 Dave Donley |
42.52% | 17,550 |
| James Smallwood Jr. | 21.69% | 8,953 |
| Alisha Hilde | 17.44% | 7,196 |
| Tasha Hotch | 11.99% | 4,949 |
| Christopher Jamison | 5.07% | 2,091 |
| Write-in votes | 1.29% | 534 |
| Total Votes | 41,273 | |
| Source: Municipality of Anchorage, "Election Summary Report - Official Results," accessed October 3, 2017 | ||
Funding
The first campaign finance deadline for this election in Alaska was March 6, 2017.
Endorsements
Do you know of an official or organization that endorsed a candidate in this race? Let Ballotpedia know by email at editor@ballotpedia.org.
2016
Roll call vote
In the roll call vote that took place at the convention on July 19, 2016, Alaska reported 11 votes for Donald Trump, 12 for Cruz, and five for Marco Rubio—the same as Alaska’s original allocation as dictated by the results of its March 1 caucuses. But the convention secretary recorded 28 votes for Trump. Donley attempted to challenge the recording of Alaska's votes but was overridden. Ballotpedia spoke with Donley in Cleveland. He said “We felt strongly we had to have our vote.” Donley stressed that everyone in the delegation agreed that their votes should be divided among Cruz, Trump, and Rubio as they were allocated in the caucuses and at the state party convention. Donley stated that at the state convention this year, the party amended its state party rule that allocated convention delegates in order to permit the Alaska delegates to cast their votes for the candidates who captured votes in the caucuses. But confusion existed over whether the actions of the Alaska state party convention this year had any bearings on the allocation plan the state party submitted to the Republican National Committee for its approval last year. Donley, an attorney who served 16 years in the Alaska State Legislature, added that the state party consulted the RNC legal office back in the spring—after receiving a letter from the Rubio campaign that said he wanted to retain his Alaska delegates—about what they should do. Donley said that RNC officials said they should follow Rubio’s wishes. “They changed their opinion without telling us,” said Donley. “They totally bushwhacked us.” He added, “The RNC needs to clean up its act.” A Cruz delegate, Donley said he had discussed with his wife the possibility of not making the long and expensive trip to Cleveland and letting an alternate delegate take his place. This trip is “the longest I’ve been away from my children,” he noted. “My wife said, ‘It’s your duty to vote for the candidate Alaskans voted for.’” Donley said, “We should just get rid of [Alaska’s reapportionment rule].”
Delegate rules
Delegates from Alaska to the Republican National Convention were elected at the Alaska GOP state convention in April 2016. The Alaska Republican Party rules for 2016 required delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate to whom they pledged their support at the time of their election at the state convention. Delegates could vote for a different candidate than the one to whom they pledged their support only if, after the second round of voting, that candidate had received the lowest number of votes. If a candidate "dropped out" of the race prior to the national convention, his or her delegates were reapportioned among the remaining candidates.
Alaska caucus results
- See also: Presidential election in Alaska, 2016
| Alaska Republican Caucus, 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes | Delegates | |
|
Ted Cruz |
36.4% | 7,973 | 12 | |
| Donald Trump | 33.5% | 7,346 | 11 | |
| Marco Rubio | 15.1% | 3,318 | 5 | |
| Ben Carson | 10.9% | 2,401 | 0 | |
| John Kasich | 4.1% | 892 | 0 | |
| Other | 0% | 0 | 0 | |
| Totals | 21,930 | 28 | ||
| Source: CNN and The New York Times | ||||
Delegate allocation
Alaska had 28 delegates at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Of this total, three were district-level delegates (three for the state's single congressional district). District-level delegates were allocated on a proportional basis; a candidate had to win at least 13 percent of the statewide vote in order to be eligible to win a share of Alaska's district delegates.[3][4]
Of the remaining 25 delegates, 22 served at large. At-large delegates were allocated on a proportional basis; a candidate had to win at least 13 percent of the statewide vote in order to be eligible to win a share of Alaska's at-large delegates. In addition, three national party leaders (identified on the chart below as RNC delegates) served as pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention.[3][4]
Campaign themes
2026
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Dave Donley completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2026. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Donley's responses.
| Collapse all
I currently serve as a Colonel / Staff Judge Advocate for the Alaska State Defense Force and Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Administration. I am a certified military emergency management specialist and authored contingency operations plans for the State of Alaska. I have served on the State Emergency Response Commission and the Governor's Disaster Cabinet. I am a retired member of Laborers Local 341 where I served as auditor, organizer, instructor, recording secretary and executive board member. I worked as a logger and firefighter on the Alaska Pipeline Project. I was admitted to Mensa in 1986. I have served on the Municipal Budget Advisory Committee, Spenard Community Council’s Road Committee, Abbott Loop Community Council’s Board of Directors, Northern Lights ABC School Parent Advisory Board. Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Anchorage Waterways Council Issues Committee, and many other civic organizations.
I am very grateful to be awarded the State of Alaska Community Service Medal.- I am running to make Anchorage better for families by restoring Common Sense to City Hall. I will do that by prioritizing Public Safety, Schools, and Streets. I will work to protect R-1 zoning to protect our neighborhoods and the value of our homes. We need improved snow plowing and removal and cleared walkways. I support continuing the maximum local contribution allowed by state law to our local schools. We need to reduce police response times and ensure effective fire department coverage of our neighborhoods.
- To reduce consumer costs and support families I will support upgrades to the Port of Anchorage to improve efficiency and reduce transportation costs.
- I support creating a Navigation Center to accountably and holistically address the homeless issue to successfully transition the willing. Such centers have proven successful in Lower 48 cities. I also support enforcement of criminal laws to hold those who threaten our homes, neighborhoods, and businesses accountable.
Laborers Local 341
Public Employees Local 71
Teamsters Local 959
Former Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch
Former Anchorage Mayor Rick Mystrom
Former Assembly Chair Dick Traini
Congressman Nick Begich
Many Anchorage Community leaders.
I have received support from:
Anchorage Board of Realtors
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Donley's campaign website stated the following:
SCHOOLS / EDUCATION
January 15, 2026
As a parent, I became an active volunteer at my twin’s elementary school, Northern Lights ABC and served on the Parent Advisory Committee. I became extremely disappointed in the performance and ethos of the Anchorage School District. With the encouragement of my fellow parents, I successfully ran for School Board in 2017. I was re-elected in 2020 and 2023 with the most votes of any candidate city-wide.
School Board Accomplishments and Accountability:
During my time on the School Board, I have proposed reductions to non-classroom related administrative spending in every budget I have voted on. I voted against pay increases for the Superintendent. I sponsored the end of the mis-guided 20-year policy of no grade retention and replaced it with a common sense “what is in the best interest of the student standard.” (That passed on a slim 4 to 3 vote.) I fought the proposed use of Marxist Critical Race Theory to develop District policy. I opposed the long time “Common Core” mandate for curriculum and fought to defend and expand the use of proven successful traditional curriculum such as Saxon Math and Spaulding Reading. I opposed using limited school funds to provide social services to illegal aliens. I opposed spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on DEI programs. I advocated for more patriotic activities in our schools including saying the Pledge of Allegiance and playing the National Anthem. I successfully worked to add “Life Readiness” and “Personal Finance” instruction as a District goal and graduation requirement.
As the only conservative member, some on the School Board have tried hard to silence me and limit my ability to call for common sense. Twice, the Board violated its own Roberts Rules of Order to try to limit my effectiveness. They said I could not speak to an amendment unless there was a second. They said my motions would not be recorded in the minutes unless they were seconded. No other school board in Alaska does this. The National Roberts Rules of Order experts specifically stated these actions were a violation of the rules and they were overturned.
My top priorities for our schools are:
- Increase School Safety – full staffing of the School Resource Officer program – currently only 10 of 15 positions are filled.
- Continuation of the current level of local financial support for our local schools.
- Pay teachers fairly, reward success and increase accountability.
- Aggressive pressure on the Legislature to adopt a new District Cost Differential and Transportation funding statutes that are fair to Anchorage students and taxpayers. (Currently, we are being unfairly discriminated against by close to $40 million a year.)
- Additional reforms to the State school funding law to: 1. Provide urban school districts needed
- additional funding for school safety. 2. Administrative cost limits restored and enforced. 3.
- Revision in the school size funding differential to encourage school consolidation. 4. Reform of
- the minimum number of students required to be considered a school for funding purposes.
- An increase in statutorily required minimum number of instructional hours for students each
- school year. Currently, Alaska has by far the lowest number of student instructional hours.
- The correction of these objectively unfair and discriminatory State laws against
- Anchorage students and taxpayers would provide the School District additional funding to
- fairly address the current teacher recruitment and retention crisis.
- End election of School Board Members city-wide (same as Mayor) and instead elect similar to
- Assembly by districts.
State K-12 Education Funding Reform:
As a State Senator and Representative for 16 years representing Spenard and Midtown Anchorage, I prioritized fair funding for Anchorage schools. In 1998, I was one of a small group of State Senators including John Torgeson of Kenai, Gary Wilken of Fairbanks, and Randy Phillips of Eagle River, who developed a new statutory actual cost-based state K-12 education
funding system. The conventional wisdom was that it could not be done. But we succeeded in drafting and passing Senate Bill 36, Ch. 83, SLA 1998, the first comprehensive reform of Alaska’s K-12 school funding formula.
Senate Bill 36 established a “District Cost Differential” (DCD) to adjust the funding per student for the actual cost differences in different areas of the state. Anchorage costs were set as the base (because at the time Anchorage had the lowest cost of living in the state) and all other school districts got some percentage more. In 2005, Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
completed a District Cost Factor Study — The state used this update to set District Cost Factors for the school foundation formula.
The resulting school funding law is a statutory mathematical formula with multiple variables including a geographical cost differential, school size differential, extra funding for special needs students, and clear limits on administrative costs. Unfortunately, the State Department of Education began giving some school districts special exemptions to allow higher spending on administrative costs.
Although Alaska statute (AS 14.17.460) calls for a review of the district cost factors every two years, those periodic updates stopped after the 2005 study was implemented in 2009, and no subsequent comprehensive study has been adopted into the funding formula since then. Some important revisions have been made over the years including increasing the funding ratio for special needs and vocational training.
The last District Cost Differential (DCD) study was conducted in 2015 but not implemented. It reported that Anchorage was no longer the least expensive area to have public schools. It has now been over 20 years since an accurate DCD update has occurred and experts estimate this failure is costing Anchorage students and taxpayers over $30 million a year.
Senator Dave Donley education funding record:
As Operating Co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I presided over the creation of some of the lowest per-capita operating budgets in Alaska’s history. Even as overall state spending reduced, I succeeded in increasing funding for K-12 Education including equal per-capita increases (Learning Opportunity Grants) for Anchorage students. That pro-Anchorage
school funding is something that has never been repeated.
THE HOMELESS / MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM
January 15, 2026
Dave Donley Solution one: Navigation – Transition Center (1.1.26 update)
Executive summary
A Navigation Center is a low-barrier, service-rich shelter and engagement hub designed to rapidly stabilize people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and connect them to housing, health care, income supports, and long-term services. The goal is to accountably transition people into healthy lifestyles. Originating in San Francisco (2015), Navigation Centers have shown better housing exit outcomes than traditional emergency shelters and offer an adaptable model for mid-sized cities such as Anchorage. This white paper explains the model, evidence of effectiveness, recommended design and operations,
resourcing and budgeting considerations, evaluation metrics, and implementation roadmap tailored to Anchorage.
What is a Navigation Center? (definition & core principles)
- Low-barrier access: allow pets, partners, possessions; minimal rules that exclude people with complex histories.
- Short-term stays with high services intensity: typical stays range from days-to-weeks while individualized housing plans are created.
- One-stop service hub: co-located case management, benefits enrollment, physical and behavioral health screening, legal assistance, and housing navigation.
- Rapid exit focus: prioritize exits to permanent housing (PSH, RRH) or temporary housing while preserving safety. Evaluations show navigation centers typically outperform traditional shelters on housing exits.
Evidence & outcomes (key findings)
- Origin & early results: San Francisco’s Navigation Center (opened March 2015) documented improved engagement for people reluctant to use traditional shelters and notable housing exits in early pilots.
- Seattle Navigation Center: integrated with city outreach and prioritized housing navigation,
- produced structured reporting and lessons on coordination and reporting.
- Bakersfield California, Spokane Washington, Houston Texas, Albuquerque New Mexico
- Comparative outcomes: Recent shelter system assessments indicate navigation center clients exit to permanent housing at higher rates than emergency shelter clients (example: navigation centers ~16% vs emergency shelter ~7% in one SF assessment; outcomes vary by jurisdiction and program design).
- Local practice: Anchorage already has service hubs (e.g., 3rd Avenue Resource & Navigation Center) that provide many navigation-style services—demonstrating local capacity and partners to scale or adapt a full Navigation Center. The issue with the 3RNC is that there is not 24/7 access, nor are clients allowed to stay overnight or dine there. It is simply for social service resources only.
Budget & funding strategy (high-level estimate)
Note: figures are illustrative — adapt to local wage and facility costs.
- Capital / facility conversion (one-time): $16 million depending on building condition and non-
- congregate needs (sprung structures).
- Annual operating (1000 beds) $20 million — staff (case managers, nurse, peer workers, security),
- onsite services, meals, utilities, client assistance.
- Revenue sources: HUD CoC, State block grants, Medicaid (for clinical services where eligible),
- municipal appropriations, philanthropy, private foundations (Rasmuson-type donors), and contracts with healthcare/VA for reimbursable services.
History of MOA Expenditures on Homeless Issue
Most homeless spending was Federal funds and has lacked accountability. No comprehensive data exists identifying the number of homeless successfully transitioned to a healthy lifestyle from the over $250 million ($100 million in rent assistance mostly for homeless) expended since 2018.
Year by Year
2017 none
2018-19 first shelter cleanup
2019 State funding cuts
2020 – 24 Covid Federal funding
2021 First new local funding
2025 First MOA year-round shelter
2025 Federal budget cuts to Medicaid
Since 2016 MOA has been getting $700 million less in State Funding
MOA increases reliance on property taxes up from 36% to 58%.
Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO)
January 15, 2026
Dave Donley Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) Issue Statement Content from Allen Rosenthal and David Wigglesworth and other sources.
Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) an unnecessary attack on neighborhoods. A Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) ordinance is being proposed by Mayor LaFrance and some Assembly Members to facilitate the city’s “10,000 Homes Initiative”. Briefly, TSDO intends to increase residential and mixed-use development to strengthen transportation corridors and achieve more attainable housing for Anchorage residents. The “overlay” part of the TSDO proposal essentially refers to a map where relaxed development standards will apply that some believe will create housing incentives. A companion “TSDO” ordinance will allow for non-residential uses in neighborhoods largely by right – without public
review. The idea of adding new mixed use development to transit hubs in Anchorage was identified in the 2040 Land Use Plan.
I agree that we need new housing initiatives to meet the demand for affordable housing. I also believe the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) ordinance reaches too far beyond its original focus on transit corridors and unnecessarily negates the zoning protections needed for traditional midtown and other neighborhoods. TSDO proposes relaxing or eliminating traditional zoning guiding building design and heights, lot coverage, setbacks, mixed and commercial uses in neighborhoods. For example, the TSDO would allow large multi-family housing (up to 36 units per acre and heights of 40’ or more) to replace single-family and two-family homes in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods like College Village, Rogers Park, and others that border major transportation corridors. Allowing this kind of development next door to established single- family and two-family homes creates parking nightmares, blocks sun access, and will likely devalue existing property. This is not fair to neighboring homeowners. There is also considerable resident uncertainty about allowing commercial uses in traditional neighborhoods that can turn a quiet street into an overflow parking lot and make it less safe for kids.
Supporters believe TSDO will open the door to new and attainable housing. But the TSDO proposal is polarizing the community, does not demonstrate how it will achieve housing affordability, and creates financial and other uncertainties for existing homeowners. This is making it harder to build the community support needed to meaningfully expand housing choices.
One of the greatest life investments for most of us is our home, and TSDO unnecessarily endangers this investment. Many residents agree. For example, at the November 2025 meeting of the Rogers Park Community Council, over 90 residents showed up and over 80 rejected a proposal to support the TSDO ordinance. Other community councils have also opposed TSDO. R-1, R-2 and R2M neighborhoods do not offer any real opportunity for high-density housing. These neighborhoods are largely completely built out with single-family and duplex homes. So why is there a necessity to change the zoning in these neighborhoods when it will not help resolve this so-called housing crisis in any meaningful way. I support maintaining core traditional zoning that separates uses; a system Anchorage has relied on for decades. Current zoning standards for R-1, R-2, and R2M provide considerable opportunity for adding density at the appropriate scale for the neighborhood. We can use MOA tax incentives, building technical assistance, and other support in these areas to help residents use existing code to guide remodeling for existing and development of new homes. Actual transit corridors provide dependable bus routes with infrastructure that can support taller buildings and mixed residential and commercial uses without damaging neighborhoods. Many of our transportation corridors have vacant properties and underutilized lands that can be renovated or cleared for new development within the existing zoning regulations and targeted overlays where it makes sense. We can design these corridors to be more, pedestrian friendly and explore incentives to ensure housing is affordable and attainable to residents.
Solving Anchorage’s housing shortage does not require sacrificing neighborhoods. By utilizing current zoning standards in established neighborhoods with responsible higher- density development abutting major corridors we can create a citywide housing strategy that addresses the concerns of today with the needs of tomorrow. Ultimately, this approach builds trust and the community buy-in that I will need to help the community make more attainable housing a reality.
PROTECTING MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND R-1 ZONING
December 29, 2025
Dave Donley opposes further R-1 changes to Midtown single family home neighborhoods such as Rogers Park and College Village. Dave Donley supports restoring protections for single family homes in Midtown neighborhoods.
This is a summary of what the current proposals and recent changes around HOME Initiative (and related reform efforts) mean for zoning — especially for formerly R-1 (single-family) areas — in Anchorage, Alaska. What’s proposed or already changed, what that means in practice, and what’s still under debate or concern.
What’s changed / what is now allowed
• The Assembly passed the HOME Initiative on June 25, 2024, which “allows duplexes to be built across the Anchorage Bowl” — including in neighborhoods formerly zoned for single-family homes only.
• Under the new rules, a “duplex” can now be either a traditional two-unit building sharing a wall or two detached single-family structures on the same lot (if the lot is large enough).
• Zoning classifications have changed for small multifamily housing: earlier (in January 2024), the city eased many restrictions for tri- and four-plex construction — lowering lot-size thresholds, streamlining building-code requirements, and aligning design standards more closely with single-family homes.
• The “single-family only” zoning protection has been effectively eliminated (except in some outlying areas such as Girdwood, Alaska and Eagle River, Alaska).
What this means in practice (for R-1 and former single-family neighborhoods)
• Homeowners in formerly R-1 zones may now legally build duplexes on their lots — or even two detached houses instead of one. That changes the definition of “single-family neighborhood.”
• With relaxed lot-size, setback, and building-code rules for small multifamily buildings (tri- and four-plexes), properties in zones where those were already allowed become more feasible for “missing middle” housing.
• The pool of possible housing types now includes duplexes, small multifamily buildings (triplexes, fourplexes), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and duplex-detached setups — meaning a formerly uniform single-family area could, over time, become a more diverse mix of housing types.
What remains controversial or under debate
• Many residents and community councils argue these changes could undermine “neighborhood character”: increased density will bring more traffic, parking pressure, less privacy, and strain on infrastructure (e.g., roads, drainage, utilities) — especially in older neighborhoods designed for lower density.
• Critics note that the earlier, more sweeping proposal — to collapse 15 residential zones down to 5 — was scaled back. The HOME Initiative stopped short of wholesale rezoning, but some believe even the narrower duplex-allowing version is too broad.
• The city’s own planning department raised concerns: allowing duplexes across the board — without tailoring by neighborhood — could lead to density increases in “areas with natural hazards, sensitive environmental conditions, or inadequate infrastructure.”
• There’s no guarantee these changes will produce “affordable housing.” As some community-council testimonies argue, developers may build higher-end duplexes or duplex+ADU combinations that remain out of reach for lower-income residents — while changing neighborhood dynamics.
• Some community councils remain opposed — citing lack of adequate public input, concerns about “top-down” rezoning, and conflict with older neighborhood plans.
What is not settled (or what you should watch going forward)
• The reforms eased rules for small multifamily and duplexes — but there is no guarantee that existing single-family homes will be replaced or converted quickly. Uptake depends on demand, financing, and developer/homeowner choices.
• Deployment of infrastructure upgrades — in areas with increased density (roads, utilities, drainage, snow removal, parking) — will need careful municipal planning; lagging infrastructure could create problems if many units stack up.
• How neighborhood councils and local stakeholders will respond: some may oppose developments; others may support them. This could lead to neighborhood-by-neighborhood variation in how the zoning changes play out in practice.
• The effect on housing affordability remains uncertain: more units doesn’t automatically mean more affordable units. Market forces, developer incentives, and construction costs still strongly influence pricing.
Bigger picture: Why Anchorage is doing this — and what the trade-offs are
Advocates claim the push for the HOME Initiative — and related zoning reforms (like easing restrictions on triplexes/fourplexes, ADUs, duplexes) — stems from a serious housing shortage in Anchorage: rising rents, scarcity of rental units, limited new construction, and demographic change (smaller household sizes). Opponents claim that the HOME Initiative is part of a national radical anti-climate change agenda seeking to eliminate single family housing.
Advocates argue that relaxing strict single-family zoning is one of the most effective levers to add more housing supply — especially “missing middle” housing that is more affordable and accessible than large, single-family homes.
But opponents caution that zoning is only one piece: infrastructure capacity, neighborhood character, long-term planning, environmental concerns, and community voice all matter. Zoning changes that ignore those may produce short-term gains but long-term costs.
Where the R-1 Zoning Changes Apply (Geographic Breakdown)
Under the HOME Initiative (AO 2023-87 S-1):
APPLIES TO: The Entire Anchorage Bowl
That includes almost all traditional R-1 single-family neighborhoods inside the Bowl, such as:
• Turnagain
• Spenard
• Sand Lake
• West Anchorage
• Midtown
• Airport Heights
• Russian Jack
• Northeast Anchorage
• ** Tudor / Campbell Lake areas**
• Bayshore / Klatt
• Oceanview
• Abbott Loop
• Huffman
• Lower Hillside (many areas)
In all of these, lots that were previously single-family only (R-1) can now legally have:
• Duplexes
• Two detached homes on one lot (if lot size allows)
DOES NOT APPLY TO:
These areas were explicitly excluded from the HOME Initiative:
• Eagle River
• Chugiak
• Girdwood
• Rural Service Area
These areas retain traditional single-family protections.
— Dave Donley's campaign website (March 5, 2026)
2023
Dave Donley did not complete Ballotpedia's 2023 Candidate Connection survey.
2020
Dave Donley did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.
See also
2026 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on March 5, 2026
- ↑ Alaska Dispatch News, "Final election results: Holleman wins Anchorage School Board race," April 14, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Republican National Committee, "2016 Presidential Nominating Process," accessed October 6, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 CNN.com, "Republican National Convention roll call vote," accessed July 20, 2016
