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.

Possibly, but it is not my first choice. I would need to know more. I am not sure it would be effective on a large scale.

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

I would support voluntary inclusionary zoning with developer offsets and incentives. I am not convinced it makes a large enough impact to force it on anyone. I have attended almost every local presentation regarding inclusionary zoning. What I have seen has not shown a very large percentage of affordable housing created by mandatory inclusionary zoning. Also, mandatory requirements do not incentivise developers to produce affordable housing.

Yes I do as long as it's a flexible program that allows the developer a variety of options to pursue and as long as the incentives are strong enough that the developer will make a substantial profit. Without the opportunity for profit the affordable housing we need as a community will not be built.

We all benefit from a diverse society and from a community where people of all income levels can live. I believe we have a responsibility to include all in our community.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning is another tool we must consider in ensuring the range of housing choices and costs needed for the long term health of our community. While I generally believe the inclusionary zoning needs to be mandatory, some cities' experiences--positive and negative--suggest that voluntary standards can better meet our needs, by providing greater opportunities to creatively examine the issue with an eye towards outcomes, rather than relying overly on a one-size-fits-all approach. In either case, developer offsets and incentives are key in developing and implementing an effective program. I intend to pursue whatever approaches and tools are most effective in addressing the underlying problem within the contexts and constraints provided by Bellingham's resources and the willingness of the Council to address these issues from the perspective of policy.

Yes. Real estate speculation and investment is a privilege, not a right. I would expect the development and real estate interests to do the right thing from the start in return for policy windfalls coming from density bonuses. Because they don't as a group, it would be unfair to the developers who are willing to contribute to the betterment of the community not to make this program mandatory. We must be serious about solving the affordable housing crisis, not simply always looking out for the best financial return of development.

In the limited studies I have reviewed, I see limited success with mandatory inclusionary zoning. Yet, in talking with Greg Winter he has asked me to look at additional information, and I will. At this point, I believe that voluntary inclusionary zoning requirements with incentives is a better option.

Yes, we need every tool in the box to tackle the affordable housing issue.

I would prefer to see voluntary than mandatory, but am generally supportive of developer incentives to increase the availability of affordable housing to those at or below the median income level, as well as zoning classifications that allow higher density per acre, or the placement of mobile home villages.

YES I do support I Z enacted by Ordinance for larger units (50 or more) coupled with incentives such as a density bonus and coupled with resale price controls that would be in effect for a number of years. That and negotiable lot sizes are good tools to improve density but seem to work best with larger developments where there is more flexibility in design and government can get more involved at the front end in the approval process.

No I do not support mandatory inclusionary zoning (IZ). I do support incentive inclusionary zoning. I was the first private individual to obtain City approval of an incentive-based inclusionary zoning decision in 1991 for an apartment site on Barkley Boulevard. The project was successfully built by someone else and is operating today.

There is conflicting data that indicates that Mandatory IZ increases the cost and decreases the supply of existing market rate housing while not significantly increasing the supply of subsidized housing. A study by Benjamin Powell Associate, Professor of Economics at San Jose University, concluded that IZ is not the answer.

Incentive IZ does provide additional subsidized homes while not increasing the cost of market rate homes. Bellingham should consider using Incentive IZ with re-zones, or when infilling neighborhoods.

I would have to see the language of an ordinance before I could say yes or no. I would support a version of mandatory inclusionary zoning but there are so many variables that need to be factored into an ordinance that I would not want to say yes to anything that I had not read first and made sure that it was equitable and that there was some permanently affordable provision in it.

Mixed income housing is the preferred method for the construction of affordable housing by HUD. Tacoma mixed income housing project ̉SalishanÓ has received many design awards and is providing a great deal of affordable housing.

This is a topic that is being discussed in the County-wide Affordable Task Force.

I am looking forward to hearing more of their discussions and how do other cities handle this. We have to cautious about mandating a percentage of affordable housing in every project. We want to make sure that such a mandate does not force the cost of the other units in the project to become more expensive and exacerbate the affordability problem. We also have to be careful not to enact a program that will simply cause housing to be developed outside of the city exacerbating suburban sprawl in the county.

Mixed use housing is often accomplished by incentives. Bellingham should adopt a more Urban Design Code which permits smaller units to be economically developed in our mixed use centers.

Bellingham needs to adopt a zoning code which allows high density mixed income housing to be constructed.

A reliable and locally controlled source of funding for housing affordability is a good idea, but it is crucially important to identify the source(s) of funding up front. Currently, new development pays only a portion of the true costs for municipal infrastructure, shifting the burden to the general fund. It is possible that higher impact fees, closer to true costs, would free up general fund dollars that might be used to establish a local Housing Trust Fund. I would also like to hear a discussion of the relationship between the roles and mission of a public trust fund, compared to the role and mission of the existing non-profit community land trust.

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.