The lack of affordable housing can be traced back to a number of causal sources. Supply and demand, construction costs, coupled with a lack of higher wage jobs make affordable housing a great challenge.

Growth and increased pressure for land and an expanding economy has driven up home prices in all sectors. Older homes and mobile homes, typical sources of affordable housing, are drying up. No new mobile home parks are being built. In fill lots are becoming more scarce. Property valuations are rising faster than incomes to support them. Numbers of good paying jobs are not increasing so more people find themselves unable to finance a home and there are fewer fixer uppers available to them. I expect the current task force to recommend a variety of ways government can help. Pass zoning laws that keep mobile home parks from being converted to higher return development. Rewriting zoning to keep up with the intent of the GMA to allow more infilling in every part of Bellingham. Locate receiving zones for the transfer in of development rights (TDR) from Lake Whatcom watershed. I expect a series of methods for GAP financing to bridge the gap between high property costs and the monies needed to qualify for a mortgage or construction loan.

Not directly, however, there is no doubt that environmental concerns contribute to an increase in housing costs. Building in environmentally friendly ways is not inexpensive, but the costs of not doing so could be incalculable down the road.

I'm not sure what is meant by "environmental" in this context. As the taskforce is finding, it's a very complex issue and will take a range of solutions to be recommended.

I don't have a strong opinion on this from the county perspective. The county has recently been approved for a $1.4 million grant over three years to address human needs, so it will be educational to watch what they do with that funding. From the city's perspective, the 2007 Preliminary Human Service Grants total $501,333 in the form of funding from the General Fund and a Community Development Block Grant. These funds are directed at a number of specific need, including, but not limited to housing, health and dental care, mental health, substance abuse and Winter emergency shelter.

I lack a history or first hand knowledge of the city/county effort. I read "Everyone Counts" with great interest and I see the County has a three year grant to improve the way we respond to homelessness. I'm guessing there has not been a commitment made to end homelessness as has been done in other communities like Portland, OR. I would like to see the City step up to help the County in this effort and to couple that with long range plans developed to end homelessness here.

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.

I'd have to see more detail on this, but I'm open to persuasion. Renewable funding sources are a preferred over static funding sources when addressing chronic funding needs.

YES I would. I read the description of the state program and I would support a local effort like that for gap funding or helping a low income family to get a down payment towards a home purchase. I don't know how it would be funded or if that funding should be shared with the County.

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.

Yes.

Maybe. This would depend upon using standardized and engineered designs that could be adapted to a variety of lot configurations. We could also look at modular homes as they are engineered. I would not support building unsafe buildings that lack fire protection, or weakened structural components just to make them cheap to build. Whatever we build will need to last as long as possible. Limited tax exemptions as incentives to build more affordable housing should be considered. Also, new modular home parks could benefit from a tax relief incentive.

Supply and demand influence market pricing in more than just the housing market. That said, I don't believe that supply alone will affect the price of housing dramatically enough to classify us as "out of the housing price problem." Prices are affected by zoning regulations, allowable density per acre, legal costs, impact studies and impact fees, etc. Greater supply may have some impact on the price of housing, but I don't see it as the only solution.

I don't believe we can grow our way out. If the economy tanks, housing and property values could decline but economic setbacks usually hit low income people the hardest, as they have little or no financial cushion to fall back on. The only way I see growth being a benefit would be subsidizing the property's high value and convincing builders to build smaller, low profit houses on small lots. I don't think the builder should give up profit. We would have to be sure the customer would be willing to buy these low cost houses.

As mentioned above, it is one answer among several. We often use the phrase "affordable housing" as though there were some objective line on the price continuum at which a home is considered affordable. What is affordable to one family is completely unattainable to another. With that reality in mind, there is some validity to the suggestion put forth in this question. Higher paying jobs, in conjunction with lower overall construction costs, a streamlined permitting and regulating process, friendlier zoning, all combine to bring the cost of housing into the realm of affordability for greater numbers of people.

We'd all like to think a stronger economy would solve our problems and increasing wages certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't see a strong local economy as a way to solve this problem as we will always have low income folks and low income jobs that need doing. One way to get ahead for low wage earners is to have more people contribute to common housing and we have some of that already. It isn't just students that utilize a four bedroom house for eight people by sharing bedrooms and pooling resources to pay the rent. Neighbors are not often happy with this solution and, quick buck, landlords often are a contributor to this problem. Low income people are often forced to pool resources to stretch each dollar.