No response as of October 14 - we will post late responses within one business day of receiving them.

No response as of October 14 - we will post late responses within one business day of receiving them.

Subsidized housing is a key component for people with disabilities - both mental and physical. However, I do not believe it is a long-term solution for the majority of the population. I will support more programs that allow market forces to provide housing, by easing permitting, increasing density, and improving profitability for the developers. Any affordable housing projects that receive priority treatment must adhere to strict design standards to fit in with neighborhoods and meet certain green-building targets.

No response as of October 14 - we will post late responses within one business day of receiving them.

It depends on how you define affordable housing. My #1 priority is housing for the homeless. I believe everyone deserves a roof over his/her head. I do not believe everyone is entitled to own a home if he/she can't afford it. I was almost 40 when my husband and I bought our first home. It was a fixer and we have been fixing it ever since. It is a wonderful environmentally sensitive place that we created with our own sweat and little money and I feel fortunate to own it. But I have enjoyed living many other ways, including in a commune with 14 other folks for eight years. We did everything including digging our own root cellar to store the food we grew. Discretionary funds should be spent first on those who need it most-the homeless, the hungry, the sick, the poor. If there is any discretionary funding left after that, and I doubt there would be, we could use that in part to help create affordable housing options for others.

I have always concentrated very hard on protecting the revenues that can be applied to social services and affordable housing. For example, using general fund dollars for infrastructure costs is, in my mind, a direct transfer from social services to subsidies for development. I would be a strong advocate for local governments to be able to choose to use part of their real estate excise tax to create a housing trust fund to be used for a variety of affordable housing needs.

A common budgeting mistake pits one program against another in a prioritized process. A better approach is to identify programs where governmental involvement yields positive outcomes, and then determine a range of budgeting alternatives and outcomes for all programs making this cut. For example, at a recent forum I was asked whether human services should be prioritized above libraries and museums. I responded that it is a false choice, one that fails to recognize that both types of programs are important, not just on a city-wide basis, but on the basis of the specific population in question. If libraries are not funded, the poor are more effectively cut off from self-advancement than are those who can purchase books and educational materials. Similarly, closing public museums cuts off those with less money form cultural enrichment to a far, far greater extent than it affects the better off. I recognize that affordable housing is intrinsically an area where government can have a significant, positive effect, and one where I would argue we have some level of obligation. However, we must examine the needs, the opportunities, and the resources with an eye towards an effective investment of our assets, and investing them in a manner which yields the greatest ongoing return. An example of this is the Housing First program, which recognizes that funds put toward alleviating housing crises for the homeless result in additional improvements across a spectrum of issues--joblessness, drug/alcohol issues, mental and physical health challenges--much more effectively than trying to address those other issues prior to tackling the housing issue would.

General Fund support of any discretionary program is difficult in these post-Eyman days. That said, any investment in the creation of affordable housing is in the City's long-term interest. I would like to see dedicated annual funding from the General Fund to provide a reduction in impact fees for qualified developments together with more flexibility in providing gap funding for preferred projects. All other financial assistance must come from other sources such as REET, a levy, or more aggressive grant writing.

Housing, treatment, support, and education are priorities for me. A stable secure living environment can help resolve a number of long-term social difficulties that create additional subsidy challenges. The budget is limited and our dollars must be allocated where they can do the best good for the community. Housing is a priority and a humane response for those in need in our community. Affordable housing is driven by many factors and the use of discretionary dollars is not necessarily enough to respond to the need. Additional dollars may be needed to respond accordingly.

Always a tough question as this is where the rubber meets the road. Affordable housing is a major component on the road to eliminate homelessness. The State of Washington has a 10 year goal to end homelessness.

I would like to be creative and propose a 3-way funding program that combines City/County, State and private funding (through the land use incentive I described above). It will take a comprehensive community effort to deal with this issue.

As mentioned in the previous question a substantial amount of funding is already allocated from the General Fund and from the Community Development Block Grant. Of that half million, $167,700 of that is dedicated specifically to housing, and is spread over eight local organizations who service housing needs in the City of Bellingham. Given that housing is a "need" rather than a "want," I am inclined to assign a higher priority to offering funding to these organizations when allocating budgeting assignments.

Housing; food on the table and health care are the big three. I would give goals for those areas of need a top priority but, I say that having no history in this area of the City budget. I don't know what the history is and if we've been doing enough. I think it's clear we've not been doing too much or the County-wide Housing Affordability Taskforce would not have been created.

The City of Bellingham's primary purposes are to keep its residents safe from crime, protect people and property from manmade or natural disasters, deliver safe and consistent utility services (water, sewers, roads, drainage) and guide the physical development and environmental stewardship within the City limits. Bellingham residents have also chosen to place a high priority and developing a substantial system of parks and greenways. Other City efforts include enhancing the local cultural and arts community. With these current pressing needs, the availability of City General Funds to support affordable housing is limited.

However, the City's Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds can be targeted towards affordable housing. More importantly, larger sources of funds for constructing new affordable units are available by partnering with the Housing Authority and soliciting investment from local financial institutions and businesses into a trust housing trust fund. Construction of affordable housing requires large amounts of funding that can easily outstrip the needs to fund daily city government operations. Therefore, most of the financing for affordable housing programs needs to come from non-city revenue sources.

I have tried to be very supportive to affordable housing projects within our City budget. It has been and continues to be a high priority for me. I sponsored the Council Goal that states, "Support programs and provide facilities that service low-income families and individuals". The city budget is built around the council goals. I have supported the waiver for impact fees for a number of affordable housing projects, the funding was used to fill the needed gap in financing and allow the projects to go forward. The impact fees were made up though the use of the general fund reserve funds. I am a strong supporter for the general funds that are used to supplement the CDBG dollars that go to social service providers--housing services are a top priority of those funds.

Through creative partnerships and various housing programs, Bellingham has spent over $13 million on housing for low income residents, leveraging financing through other means, resulting in over $123 million being spent in Bellingham on over 2000 units of permanent low income housing.

I support the revolving loan fund that helps Bellingham low income residents fix up their homes. Over 900 homes have been rehabilitated with this program.

Many Human Service Agencies rely on city help. In 2007, the city of Bellingham spent approximately $500,000 on grants to local Human Service agencies plus many city departments help low income residents in various ways.

The Housing Authority Walton Building project needed city help. I voted to reduce the parking requirements, saving the Housing Authority $1.2 million so that money can be spent on low income housing rather than on parking spaces in the building. (It was a split vote.) The project is close to services and on the transit line. The Housing Authority will encourage residents to take the bus by providing free bus passes.

We need to continue to advocate for more funds for affordable housing from all levels of government.

Housing affordability affects people at many income levels, and I believe that we need to continue to support the variety of programs directed at populations with different degrees of need for assistance. We recognize the distinction between programs that address homelessness (and its various underlying factors) and programs that address housing affordability for low- and moderate-income level households. The solutions are as different as the causes. Housing affordability for moderate income levels may be addressed effectively with land use policy and regulatory changes and buyer assistance programs, whereas very low-income housing and homelessness are more appropriate targets for general-fund service programs and rental assistance.

From reviewing the City's budget documents, it is difficult to tell how much is spent on which kinds of programs - in part due to the limitations on the city's reporting system, and in part due to the fact that allocation among competing programs occurs outside of the City's budgetary process (via CDAB, reported in the CAPR, etc.) Nonetheless, it appears that the City devotes approximately .75% of the general fund to community development needs for low income members of our community, in addition to CDBG entitlement monies. Given the importance of the needs, I would be very open to increasing this allocation to around 1%, but only in the context of a plan for how those increased funds would be used to achieve long-term benefits (e.g., further supporting the "housing first" strategy, to provide more effective service and reduced social service costs in the long run).

No response as of October 14 - we will post late responses within one business day of receiving them.

No response as of October 14 - we will post late responses within one business day of receiving them.