There are many causes for the increasing un-affordability of housing in Bellingham.

I have a long history of speaking up for those less fortunate in Bellingham. I have worked to implement many permanent affordable housing projects such as the Washington Grocery Building and many Housing Authority projects. Thru creative partnerships and various housing programs, Bellingham has spent over $13 million on housing for low income residents, leveraging financing thru other means, resulting in over $123 million being spent in Bellingham on over 2000 units of permanent affordable housing.

Another model I have supported on the City Council is the Kulshan Land Trust model which allows ownership of the house but keeps the land in trust. When the house is sold, the owner received some of the profits but the land is kept affordable. This model has a great many advantages over the traditional low income housing model.

One of the causes for high cost of housing is the desirability of Bellingham. I have worked long and hard to keep this a Ògood place to liveÓ. Now we are on all the ÒBest Places to Live ListsÓ. As more people have moved to Bellingham to enjoy our quality of life, the housing prices have gone up. Also, Bellingham has an outdated land use code which does not permit a better utilization of land for housing in its mixed use centers. For instance much of the land on Samish Way consists of single small box stores on large parking lots that are greatly underutilized. Few people walk in the area. There is a large potential to build mixed use buildings with commercial below and housing above. However, in order to do so, Bellingham needs to adopt a urban building code for its mixed use centers rather than a quasi suburban code which we have now.

Mixed use centers should include housing, services, stores, park, etc. and be pedestrian friendly and transit oriented so people living or working there do not have to solely depend on a car for their transportation.

I see housing affordability as the flip side of almost every growth management issue faced by the city of Bellingham.

Affordability is both a jobs issue and a planning and development issue, one that affects not just the lower income ranges, but well into the middle income range as well. It is a symptom of the desirability and economic strength of our region, and at the same time one of the most difficult and troublesome parts of our local economy. If preservation and enhancement of our quality of life - through good schools, adequate parks, clean environment, walkable neighborhoods - is an important goal, it is also a goal which will serve to increase housing values at the same time. By requiring new developments to shoulder more of their true costs to the city, we address one kind of equity concern, but create another - since increased development costs are reflected in higher housing costs, and lower affordability.

Fortunately, some of the solutions to our growth management concerns may, if done properly, also address housing affordability issues. By providing incentives for denser but still attractive and livable forms of development within the city, we may address not only infill issues, but also provide for lower cost/unit housing. Transportation-oriented development not only has ecological benefits, but also removes some of the disadvantages faced by individuals who cannot afford or who chose not to own a car. Reforms in land use regulation that encourage more people-friendly, transit-oriented, walkable urban districts, well supplied with community centers and public parks and trails, increase the quality of life for all of our city's residents rather than just those who live in suburban enclaves.

At the same time, such transportation and land use reforms will address affordability and housing for many lower income individuals, but do not address the core issues that conspire to foster chronic homelessness. These core issues will continue to require a different set of human services solutions.

Housing does have an impact on environmental issues largely based on where it is located. One of the harmful dynamics now is that land is cheaper at the edge of the city which causes people to locate further and further away from the urban core where jobs and services are. They are then forced to commute long distances causing traffic congestion and pollution.

That is why it is important to have higher density housing, both affordable and market rate, near the urban center or in the Bellingham mixed use centers.

Housing affordability is an environmental issue because high housing costs within the city can push people further and further outside city limits in the search for cheaper land and an affordable home. This sprawling form of growth takes up natural (undeveloped) and agricultural land, with more roads as well as more houses, and contributes to a reliance on fuel-consuming and pollution-producing forms of transportation. Affordability-driven sprawl also has negative social consequences, by contributing to separation of housing based upon income level, and by reducing the proximity and the amount of social time with neighbors and fellow residents.

I have worked on many homeless issues in numerous ways since I have been on the City Council. I supported the original city purchase of the Food Bank. It was a controversial decision. I wanted the Food Bank to spend their time gathering food rather than worrying about a rent payment. I now support giving the Food Bank $150,000 to help them build a new building.

I voted to support many transitional housing units: Lydia Place, the YWCA, Dorothy Place, Women Care Shelter, Partnership House, Interfaith Housing, and others. I also supported help with emergency shelter for the homeless. The City of Bellingham, working with agencies and the public has made such a difference in so many peopleÕs lives. Of course, there is always more to do.

I am impressed by the number and variety of programs addressing homelessness and related issues that our community supports, through public and private funding. The City of Bellingham has set many laudable objectives for itself in this past year, including providing food aid, health services and housing assistance to 15,000 low income persons, funding of transitional housing by local non-profits, loan support of the Food Bank, loan support of 75 new affordable housing units, and supportive rental housing for 16 low-income or homeless families, among others objectives. Past experience, however, has shown that the City often achieves significant and meaningful results that nonetheless fall short of its annual goals. What we need is a long-term plan that addresses homelessness, as opposed to a series of annual plans that provide for incremental progress; the draft 2008-12 Consolidated Plan can provide this, along with the County's 10-Year Homelessness Plan.

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).

A local effort to collect funds for a local housing trust fund sounds like a good idea. However, I would want to know the details. We need to keep our focus on the number of units created, regardless of whether the money comes from the city, state, or federal level. There are efforts on all of these levels of government for additional funding as well as from non-profits. There are also many ways the city can increase the number of affordable units built without the expenditure of any city funds thru updating the antiquated zoning policies regarding placing housing in our mixed use centers. The city should also look at creating incentives for builders to construct affordable housing and removing regulatory barriers.

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.

Mixed income housing is the preferred method for the construction of affordable housing by HUD. Tacoma mixed income housing project ÒSalishanÓ 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.

If elected to the City Council, I will support inclusionary zoning coupled with some form of developer incentives to encourage the production of affordable housing units, both for the rental and ownership markets. Of course, the details need to be worked out. Experience has shown that any adverse consequences of limited-income housing are reduced or eliminated by mixing affordable and market-rate housing together in the same development, with negligible if any impact on market housing values. For this reason, I would seek to limit off-site and in-lieu methods of meeting affordability goals. Experience also shows that voluntary inclusionary zoning often fails to live up to its promise, especially in the absence of constraints on non-inclusionary development. Another major issue that would need to be dealt with in any exclusionary zoning program is the duration of affordability and the means to monitor continued affordability.

I support a streamlined permit process where the there is a template for an affordable housing project in our mixed use centers. If we do the work beforehand and have a good model, we can have a good design and get through the permit process faster.

Expedited permitting is one possible tool to provide incentives for developers, but its long-term effectiveness may be limited by other necessary government service reforms. Unfortunately, in Bellingham right now, the permitting process is much slower than is typical in most communities, and the building services department does not appear to have the staffing capacity and resources that it needs. This means that all projects, residential and commercial, are subjected to expensive delays. As a matter of good government, I believe that the permitting process should be timely for all appropriate and qualified projects, not just for an advantaged few. Thus, to the degree that our municipal government succeeds in meeting its obligation to serve the public well, the advantage of expedited permitting will be reduced. Success in one area would work against success in another - not an ideal solution.

I believe that we can identify other incentives for affordable housing, such as deferred impact fees, property and excise tax credits, density bonuses, design flexibility, and lot size, lot coverage and set-back adjustments, that may prove effective to meet affordability and other policy goals (such as targeted infill and transportation-oriented design).

Bellingham has been discovered Ð and everyone wants to move here. In a growing city, the price of housing generally goes up. People are also moving here from Seattle, etc. because our housing is less expensive than it is there.

The affordability of housing in Bellingham is partially tied to the supply. However, part of the problem is BellinghamÕs current building codes which do not encourage housing to be built in our mixed use centers. Instead, we have many areas which have large underutilized parking lots interspersed with one story buildings.

Bellingham has a large capacity for housing in the city in our commercial areas which we have just started to tap. Placing housing in these areas also makes for livable, walkable neighborhoods, saves farmland, reduces sprawl, and reduces pollution.

Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and other model cities have learned how to have housing in mixed use projects. Bellingham can accomplish this too.

From what I have learned, it is fair to conclude that demand and desirability have far greater influence over housing prices than does supply. Moreover, periods of economic growth and expansion are typically accompanied by rising, not falling, housing prices. (We have seen as much locally.) In other words, growth often contributes to the problem, not the solution.

On a related note, a study in California found that inclusionary zoning programs were not associated in a decline in housing production, but actually with an increase. The reason, it seems, is that inclusionary zoning measures were more commonly adopted in areas experiencing growth and the rapid rise in housing values that typically accompanies growth. In other words, rather than constricting supply, inclusionary zoning had a negligible effect of market-rate (demand-driven) housing production.

I have worked to increase the number of livable wages jobs in Bellingham and I supported the livable wage ordinance. I also support the relationship with the Small Business Development Center, working to support our small businesses, helping them to succeed and grow.

Some of the price of housing is based on supply and demand. Some of it is based on fixed cost. Therefore, increasing wages can be a partial answer to the issue of housing affordability. However, there will still be those who lack the necessary skills to obtain a higher wage job. Some housing will likely always need to be subsidized.

Higher wage jobs will certainly solve the housing affordability problem for many people, but will only partially reshape the fundamental dynamics that have created our housing affordability problem. Housing costs have risen in large part because of the livability and desirability of our area, and because economic prosperity has allowed many individuals to pay the new, higher prices. Moreover, higher wage jobs may not benefit those individuals who are most likely to experience homelessness or housing uncertainty, because these people may lack the necessary skills or support (e.g., transportation, child care) to successfully compete for those jobs.