Housing Chapter

When we taxpayers supported “infill” and affordable housing within the city, we imagined that vacant lots and derelict buildings, such as on the property at the NW corner of Sunset and I-5, would be converted to small homes. So I am astonished that these regulations are now being used by greedy and opportunistic developers to buy up lovely, single-family homes within quiet neighborhoods and replace them with a walled ghetto of as many units as can possibly be allowed under current law. With one stroke, a developer is able to change the nature of a rural neighborhood, destroy the property values and life-long investments of surrounding families, and make this a neighborhood of transient residents, noise, traffic, and asphalt where no one will want to live.

The new regulations for allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were intended to make a place for grandma or adult child to live close by. Yet opportunistic developers use these ADU laws to build yet more units.

In our neighborhood (which my husband and I spent years saving for, selecting, and improving), a wealthy developer bought a nearby home this year. He immediately started cutting down trees (without permits) and is planning to squeeze 18 units (9 infill toolkit homes and 9 ADUs) on the one property, which can potentially be rented or sold separately. He is unwilling to meet with us. The neighbors are distressed and angry. It seems that we have no voice and no power to protect our neighborhood or homes. This is so wrong!

The city has made a great start with getting lots of studio and 1-bedroom apartment buildings up, but we're not seeing larger units being built. Families need 2+ bedrooms. The city cites the housing preference survey, saying that urban residential and small-scale residential are the most preferred housing types. But suburban is a close third - in fact, it's basically tied with urban residential, and I wonder if the difference is even statistically significant (there isn't an analysis of statistical significance here, but 1% doesn't feel like it would be). In order to get in these small scale residential and suburban homes, the city is going to need to expand its boundaries. Add more UGAs to the north side of Bellingham, in the King Mountain and Cordata areas. These areas are less ecologically sensitive than the areas east and south of the city. To me, it's simple. We need housing, we have land north of the city that can accommodate that housing with a little investment, so let's put houses there. We could meet the city's other goals too by adding in small-scale commercial and other services.

More affordable quality housing for residents and families. Housing for residents to buy and stay in our community and city, not housing that will be purchased by companies to rent out at exorbitant prices or just prioritizes students. Include housing and supports for our unhoused residents, not sweeps. Quality housing for all of residents that is built well, not cheaply thrown together. Invest in people wanting to stay and live in our community, not just students because of the increased enrollments at WWU and students moving off campus. Provide affordable options to residents who want to stay here and not get pushed out. However, this should be done in harmony with our beautiful surrounding environment and nature and our community. The Barkley Urban Village is ugly, devoid of any personality; it looks like the aesthetics of gentrification.

More home ownership opportunities for 30-50% could be possible if the "Incentive Program for Innovative Affordable Housing Projects" code was revised to allow participation for small-scale developers. As the process stands, it is far too complex for your average citizen to take advantage of the benefits intended to support affordable housing projects.

High up on the list is to encourage homeownership opportunities. How can we create ownership for those in the 30-50% AMI bracket? Code should be revised to allow for co-housing development without the current restrictions of minimum lot size and minimum number of units. Acquisition of a parcel large enough to meet the minimum requirements is cost prohibitive as land values increase.

I would like to see tiny home/park model home villages added to the list of affordable housing
The ultra-expensive tiny home community on South Lake Whatcom is formidable for most

Co-housing communities with a shared kitchen/common room are currently privatized, but could provide very reasonable options for the city if well-designed/managed

Removed by moderator.

I appreacite the work the city has done on this area. Thank you.

I would like to see Bellingham put more of a focus on "for purchase" homes in the city.

I do not like seeing the city of Bellingham putting so much into building big blocky apartment buildings. I would like to see the city focus more on encouraging developers to build 1000sqft homes on 2,500 sqft lots. These will naturally be more affordable and they can create denser neighborhoods which helps transit, public infrastructure, and lessons the impact on the environment.

I worry about the destruction of the green space. Wildlife, ecosystem, etc., to build some of these bigger units. I hope the city is thoughtful about trying to maintain these important elements in their plans for expansion.

I would like to see existing neighborhoods remain single family. I don’t agree with tearing down current housing to build multiple units. Having a variety of housing types should also include single family homes with larger yards.

The proposals for increased variety of housing allowed are a solid start. Bellingham's housing affordability problem is a housing supply shortage problem and self-inflicted by city and state policies. Continue the momentum on loosening restrictions by examining what other zoning and growth management regulations can be relaxed, reducing high permit fees charged by the city for impact fees, reducing property taxes which increase housing and rental costs, relaxing requirements for low-income housing in larger projects--because any increase in housing improves affordability and low-income mandates disincentivize building, streamlining and minimizing project approval requirements and processes, and eliminating rent control ordinances as rent control reduces housing supply by disincentivizing builders and landlords and thereby decreases affordability.