Voices Across the Island:
Housing and Community Priorities in Kodiak
Overview
The research was guided by four central questions:
• How do housing needs differ in Kodiak’s villages?
• How will community members respond to a range of proposed housing solutions?
• What opportunities do the villages see related to mariculture industries?
• What is the collective vision for housing in Port Lions, Ouzinkie, and Kodiak as an archipelago?
These village perspectives are part of a broader island-wide picture that includes aging housing stock, high construction and transportation costs, limited land availability, and infrastructure gaps that limit new development. In the villages, these challenges are further shaped by the need for housing that reflects local traditions and ways of life, seasonal workforce changes, and the priority of keeping homes in local ownership.
The following section reflects what we heard and observed through conversations, surveys, and community visits. These insights are grounded in local experience and priorities, and they form a key foundation for the recommendations in the Kodiak Housing Action Plan.
In July 2025, Melissa Schoenwether, Executive Director of the Kodiak Economic Development Corporation (KEDC), and Kelly Wyche, Entrepreneurship Specialist for the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Center for Economic Development (CED), visited the Kodiak Native villages of Port Lions and Ouzinkie, met with Tribal leaders from Tangirnak (Woody Island) and hosted a full-day community conversations kiosk at the KANA Marketplace.
The purpose of these engagements was to better understand housing conditions, community priorities, and local perspectives that shape both the challenges and opportunities for housing in Kodiak’s villages. KEDC’s initial housing survey results showed an overwhelming majority of its responses from residents of Kodiak City. This trip was designed to ensure that village voices and perspectives were more fully represented in the Housing Action Plan. Over the course of the visits, we shared meals, toured neighborhoods, met with stakeholders, and invited residents to respond to thoughtful questions through conversation, group activities, and surveys.
Research Insights
Common Challenges and Opportunities
The insights that emerged from this research are intended to guide policymaking, anticipate community response to new initiatives, and inform how economic development work in Kodiak can strengthen the well-being of the entire island, especially its Native villages.
Housing - Despite geographic, cultural, and economic differences, several shared housing themes emerged across the villages and Kodiak City:
Housing exists, but often needs improvement.
While many homes are structurally sound, they are not always suited to Kodiak’s climate. Residents described issues such as mold, weather-related damage, and inefficient insulation. These concerns were echoed in broader island interviews, which also highlighted aging housing stock, in some cases 40 to 50 years old, and a backlog of needed repairs.
Youth need more reasons to stay.
Young people are often working multiple jobs, caring for elders, and raising children. Without more housing options, youth-oriented programming, and clear career pathways, many see limited opportunities for building their future locally. This aligns with broader economic findings that workforce retention—especially for younger residents—depends as much on livability as on employment availability.
Affordability in the Kodiak Context
Standard affordability measures do not always reflect local realities. Many residents can pay their rent or mortgage, but the cost of living has risen faster than incomes. This leaves little room to save, invest, or make improvements to their homes. In interviews, residents described feeling “stuck” in place, able to cover monthly costs but unable to move forward economically.
Small-Footprint Housing Has Limits
Across locations, residents expressed skepticism about relying on small-footprint housing as a primary solution. While recognizing that tiny homes can help meet short-term needs, many emphasized the importance of housing that can accommodate families, support long-term stability, and reflect the community’s vision for the future.
You can review the Housing Action Plan Dashboard & learn more about the data we collected.
Insights from the Villages
These conclusions are drawn from conversations during our visit to Port Lions, our visit to Ouzinkie, and discussions with leaders from the Tangirnak (Woody island) urban native community. The voices and stories we heard reflect the unique strengths and needs of underserved parts of Kodiak Island. Ensuring that these perspectives are integrated into economic development work is essential to directing resources, whether programs, funding, or representation in decision-making, across the island.
Housing
Centralized approvals slow village progress.
Many infrastructure and demolition projects require regulatory approval from central Kodiak, causing delays. Community members expressed a desire for greater decision-making authority at the village level to move essential projects forward more quickly.
Vacant and derelict buildings remain a barrier.
Legal, regulatory, and logistical hurdles make it difficult to remove or repurpose unsafe or abandoned homes, limiting the ability to improve the local housing stock and create space for new development. Island-wide, vacant properties are often tied to absentee ownership or complex land status issues, making rehabilitation challenging.
Housing is the key to village growth.
Residents consistently linked secure, quality housing to their ability to return to their home villages and help strengthen their communities. Without it, population growth, workforce stability, and long-term community resilience remain limited.
Mariculture opportunities can support growth.
Kelp farming and other mariculture industries were identified as promising economic drivers, but success will depend on additional labor, improved transportation links, and reliable access between villages and Kodiak City. Residents highlighted ferry service, workforce development programs, and internships as critical supports. As mariculture receives more funding and resources, participants emphasized that a meaningful share should be directed to the villages so they can fully benefit from industry growth.
Future development should be respectful.
Location selection for new projects, such as the proposed Gibson Cove development, should involve early consultation with Native villages, especially when projects affect land with historical or spiritual significance.
Economic Development
Bridging intergenerational gaps is important.
Bridging generational differences offers an opportunity to strengthen Kodiak’s workforce and leadership for the future. While gaps between older and younger residents can present challenges for training and succession planning, they also create space for mentorship and knowledge sharing. Expanding apprenticeships and skills training can connect emerging leaders with job opportunities that match their abilities and aspirations, while ensuring the experience and insight of long-time residents continue to shape Kodiak’s economic future.
Opportunities for entrepreneurship exist.
Local business concepts, such as a Port Lions resident’s prototype and marketing plan for a sea salt farm, show that residents have innovative ideas and the initiative to pursue them. This idea received strong community support during subsequent village visits and polling. To turn such concepts into viable enterprises, villages will need targeted support for business start-up, marketing, and connections to the broader Kodiak Island market.
Strengthening connections between villages and the island economy.
Stronger links between villages and Kodiak City can expand markets, share resources, and sustain community vitality. KEDC can help build these connections, linking communities to each other, to Kodiak’s business network, and to programs like KANA’s internship and workforce initiatives.
Survey Trends and Visual Data
Housing Survey
The larger Kodiak housing survey was conducted digitally and shared through online channels and QR codes. Most responses came from residents of Kodiak City, which left a gap in representation from other communities. To address this, we developed a short, accessible survey for use during village visits and at the KANA Marketplace kiosk. This version was designed to reach a broader range of residents, including elders, youth, and those with limited internet access or limited time to participate.
Although the sample size was small, the responses offer valuable insight into housing conditions and priorities outside Kodiak City. These results highlight key trends that complement the findings of the larger island-wide survey.
Housing Status:
Most respondents were homeowners, but this does not necessarily indicate housing security. Many homes, particularly in villages, are aging and require significant repairs. The high share of ownership compared to rental housing reflects the limited availability of rentals in rural communities. This pattern was also confirmed in island-wide interviews.
Household Size:
Nearly 40 percent of surveyed households had four or more people. All households with six or more residents were in the villages. This underscores the need for housing that can accommodate larger and multigenerational families. In many village communities, living with or near extended family is a cultural priority that supports childcare, elder care, and the passing down of traditions. Housing policy and design should account for these patterns to ensure that new development reflects community values.
Affordability:
Half of respondents felt they could afford their housing, but nearly one-third reported some level of difficulty. Island-wide, many residents say that while they can meet current housing costs, the high overall cost of living limits their ability to save, invest in home improvements, or transition into better housing.
Visual Mapping of Community Opinion
During village visits and at the KANA Marketplace kiosk, community members were invited to use stickers to vote YES, NO, or MAYBE on a set of proposed housing solutions drawn from the larger Kodiak housing survey. As we traveled between communities, we shared the results from previous locations, creating conversation starters and connection points between different parts of Kodiak Island.
This visual mapping process allowed residents to see how their perspectives compared with those of other communities, while also making it easy for participants of all ages and literacy levels to contribute. The votes provided an accessible, real-time way to gauge community sentiment on specific housing strategies and to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainty. Two examples are below:
Key Themes from Visual Mapping
Strongest Support
Residents across communities expressed the most consistent support for:
Helping people repair and maintain existing homes
Building more senior housing
Building more infrastructure
These options were often linked to keeping elders in their communities, preserving existing housing stock, and addressing land scarcity, especially in villages. Building or upgrading roads, utilities, and other infrastructure was widely recognized as essential for enabling new housing development. Many residents viewed this as a necessary first step rather than a separate initiative.
Mixed or Conditional Support
Some villages expressed hesitance about opening land for development. Concerns included the potential for cultural displacement, second-home ownership, and the risk that new housing would be built for outsiders rather than local residents.
Ideas such as building more multi-family housing, adding tiny or modular homes, and easing regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) generated interest, but with important caveats. Support often depended on whether designs would meet local needs, maintain community character, and accommodate larger or multigenerational households.
Residents showed cautious interest in market-focused solutions such as offering financial incentives for developers, changing zoning or building codes, or creating a housing trust fund. They wanted more clarity on how these approaches would ensure that benefits remain local rather than serving outside investors or higher-income households.
Significant Concern
Short-term rentals, such as Airbnb, were a major concern for community members. Residents in Kodiak City saw these units as reducing the supply of long-term housing. In villages, concerns focused on cultural displacement and homes remaining empty for much of the year. Across communities, people wanted to understand what types of rental restrictions could help balance the market and make more housing available for long-term residents.
The combined insights from village visits, kiosk conversations, and surveys underscore a central reality. Housing is not just a structure. It is the foundation for cultural continuity, economic stability, and the future of Kodiak’s communities. The feedback we received, both in support and in opposition, provides a roadmap for action that can address immediate needs while guiding long-term planning. These opportunities align closely with KEDC’s broader strategy and connect with the ongoing work of partners such as KANA, particularly in ferry access, mariculture growth, workforce development, and youth engagement.
1. Village Authority in Infrastructure Decisions
Advocate for policy changes that give villages greater oversight and decision-making power in demolition, infrastructure, and housing improvement projects. Reducing centralized approval bottlenecks will allow communities to address urgent needs more quickly and in ways that reflect local priorities and cultural stewardship.
2. Housing Rehabilitation with Skills Development
Pair housing repair programs with workforce training and youth internships. Building on KANA’s existing construction and maintenance programs, mobile repair teams and apprenticeship tracks can improve housing stock, create jobs, and develop a skilled local labor force at the same time.
3. Cross-Sector Coordination for Economic Resilience
Integrate housing strategies with economic drivers such as mariculture, tourism, and other locally led enterprises. Villages emphasized that new housing must be paired with viable livelihoods to keep residents, especially youth, rooted in their communities. Coordinating timelines and resources across sectors will increase overall impact.
4. Youth Pathways and Career Development
Expand joint KEDC–KANA programs to prepare young residents for skilled trades, tourism, mariculture, and emerging industries. Linking career development to real projects in their home communities can make staying a viable and appealing choice.
5. Entrepreneurial and Cultural Tourism Development
Support village-based entrepreneurship and tourism that benefit both residents and visitors. This includes initiatives that generate revenue, celebrate cultural heritage, and provide equitable access, such as discounted or free programs for local residents. Improvements in ferry service and inter-village connections can open additional economic opportunities.
You are invited to learn more about the Housing Action Plan Recommendation Draft.
KEDC, together with the Center for Economic Development, welcome you to attend the Update Event on Thursday, August 14th, as well as participate in further focus groups or Housing Steering Committee support.
Connect with KEDC.
KEDC works to strengthen the economy of all Kodiak.
We look forward to hearing from you, answering questions, and working together.
The Kodiak Housing Action Plan is made possible through the Denali Commission.
Kodiak Economic Development Corporation and our partners appreciate the support from Denali Commission.
