10/08/2021
Confusion persists as we continue to grapple with the housing crisis in Bellingham, WA. Arguments for Affordable Housing end in policy that only help Housing Choice.
These are two very different issues that often get mixed together. In the end it is dangerous for those who truly need affordable housing at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Housing Choice is - being able to choose the type of home you want in the area of town you want. This is a quality of life issue and an important one, but not a right nor a requirement to live safely.
Affordable Housing is - being able to rent or buy a home that you can afford for less than 30% of your income. This allows for a ratio of expenditure that balances life sustaining needs such as housing, food, medicine, transportation, insurance, etc.
To flip the issue on its head, in Bellingham, proponents of Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY), act righteously that they are in the right and helping the world. In the end, the policies they fight for help the middle class live in the neighborhood of their choice.
The end result does not create affordable housing, although they pull the heart strings of the community because they promise the polices they advocate for are for the poor.
These good intentioned residents don't follow along to see the unintended consequences of their arguments. The animosity created, and the confusion within the community breaks down dialogue, and stops residents from continuing to fight for affordable housing.
Residents either think the solution is complete, or they are fed up with the negativity and walk away. Is that the intention of leaders vying for Housing Choice veiled in Affordable Housing? I hope not, because that would fringe on evil.
We must separate the problems of Housing Choice (HC) and Affordable Housing (AH). They are both real, but more often than not affect two disparate populations. The solutions are also very different.
Housing Choice is mostly a zoning issue, allowing more diverse types of housing in more places. This increase in inventory is one of the arguments that gets lost in translation, HC vs AH. An example of this is the local Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. An upwelling of support is given to an increase in inventory, but these not so tiny houses in backyards can only be afforded by the middle class because of the cost to build, and the usual quality level that the home owner has chosen to build at (higher rental profits).
After DADUs were legalized in single family zoning areas in Bellingham in 2018 under the guise of Affordable Housing, the proponents who fought vehemently for the zoning change, went quiet on the issue. As if the problem were solved. DADUs started going up and Housing Choice increased.
Affordable Housing did not. The advocates for the DADUs said that every new housing unit mattered to help the crisis. It may, if the quantity of new housing units were great enough to make an impact on the market. The quantity was miniscule in comparison to the amount needed to make a dent.
How many DADU’s were approved? 154.
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/article253147268.html
Were there no other policies that could have been fought for that would have actually helped? Did these housing hawks who so loudly screamed Affordable Housing”!” from their nests think the solution was solved? Or there was no more to be done? It seems so, or in the end it because they just didn’t really care about Affordable Housing in the first place.
Since then two very important possibilities have come to light that will actually have an affect on Affordable Housing. Housing for those who without it, will become homeless. That is who we should fight for, for Affordable Housing.
The first opportunity is Intended Density in MultiFamily Zoned areas. Actually having multifamily zoned development in multifamily zoned areas is a slam dunk, but for decades was not defined nor enforced by the City of Bellingham. Thousands of possible units were made impossible by the building of single family homes in multi family zone areas. A moratorium on building is now allowing for a pause and a policy change that will fix this issue. Where were the Housing Choice advocates back then who were screaming for Affordable Housing?
We applaud the city for taking this long forgotten step, but this has created challenges for those who bought into those ‘single family’ multifamily zoned neighborhoods. That’s for another day.
The second opportunity, which I have been asking of the Planning Director for years, is this. Require developers to set aside a portion of every new development for permanent affordable housing. It is a standard practice and one that the city refuses to implement. I continued to get kickback that if we required this, developers would not build. No longer. In one of the last acts of Planning Director’s Rick Seplar’s career, he agreed that this requirement is now possible.
It is time for the false rhetoric to stop, and those in the top tier of local leadership should lead the way, or step down.
