Twilight Zoning in Bellingham: Can We Talk Equity and Fairness?

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Can We Talk Equity and Fairness?

While the talks continue about the merger with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (click here to read the latest Herald article on the subject), our City Council is voicing its concern over fairness to city customers.

The Herald article quoted Council Member-at-Large Louise Bjornson as saying “I think, all in all, if we could aim at it not costing the city ratepayers, (that) is very important… “For me it would make sense for district customers not to be subsidized by city ratepayers.” The Herald piece went on to say, “Public Works Director Dick McKinley said his goal was to focus discussion about rates not on taxes but on changing district rates to parity with city customers."

“All well and good.”, says the Zonemaven, however, he has heard nothing from the city on his proposal to charge full cost for installation of Bellingham’s city water meters for owners of income producing, single family properties, i.e., rentals. (Read the Zonemaven’s blog original blog entry on the subject by clicking here)

Not too loud, as somebody might hear......but a reminder to Zonemaven readers (including the City Council) that the live-in property owners are subsidizing each installation of a meter on these rentals to the tune of $300 to $600. That’s about 15,000 installations. Do the math and you will find this subsidy is not chump change - and you, the single family, live-in property owner are paying it, while the rental owner is taking the savings to the bank.

The Zonemaven has yet to hear anything from the council on his modest proposal for fairness by striking equity into the heart of water meter installation in Bellingham. "Sauce for the goose..."

1 comment:

Terry said...: Everyone should pay full cost. Are live-in property owners paying full cost and landlords NOT paying full cost?

That makes no sense.

But I do have a concern with issues of applying charges specifically to "income producing" properties.

What about the homeowner who bought - and rents out affordably - the house next door for his own physical security rather than as a money-making operation? (by owning it, he controls who lives in it and can ensure it doesn't become a drug house, illegal rooming house, etc)

I rented for years from a retired teacher who lived in the home until she retired; the house supported her in retirement. (And after 15 years, my 30% below market rent had become 50% below market - no gouging here!)

Many rental property owners are NOT professional landlords in it for the money, and I don't know why they should be treated as if they were greedy money-grubbers.

On the other hand, distinguishing between them raises other issues.

I'm not clear on why "income-generating" property should be regulated and/or taxed differently from other property.

We already - okay, almost everybody except you people up in Washington and in a few other states - have an income tax.

So let's tax income and stop discriminatorily taxing the things which produce said income.; November 27, 2010 at 3:24 AM

The Rationale for Rental Licensing

There is the definitive experience of cities that have already adopted rental licensing and inspections in the face of exactly the same opposition as we saw in Bellingham over the last decade. Ultimately, each of these cities was proven correct in its resolve to move ahead to protect the safety and health of the renters. We already know that the city of Pasco, WA found that 15% of the units inspected under their program had serious life/safety issues. 10% had mold problems. A full 85% had problems of varying degrees. The city of Gresham, OR performed over 1600 inspections in 2009 and issued, as a result, over 4,000 citations. Lexington, KY performed inspections of units near the University of Kentucky and found that 50% had life/safety issues. Sacramento, CA began an inspection program during which one third of the units inspected had serious safety and health issues. The question why does anyone believe that the condition of rental housing here in Bellingham does not mirror that which is found in cities that have the statistics to show that time and time again the condition of rentals in our cities is problematic? All we have had to date from those who oppose licensing are broad statements by the landlords and their paladins that are completely and utterly unsubstantiated. The Zonemaven has searched in vain for the horror stories that these opponents of licensing and inspections have predicted. On the other hand, The Zonemaven did find over 100 cities that have licensing AND inspections without the catastrophic effect for the rental markets that the landlords would have you believe. (See this blog's sidebar at bottom left for list)

One Reason Illegal Rooming Houses Do Not Work

The limit for unrelated persons at a single family home rental is three residents. Leases are signed by three people who then invite additional renters to join them to lower per capita rental rates. The perverse effect is that rental rates tend to rise under these circumstances making it difficult for single families to rent single family homes. Some local rental agencies facilitate this practice.

"To say that a family is so equivalent to a ragtag collection of college roommates as to require identical treatment in zoning decisions defies the reality of the place of the family in American society, despite any changes that institution has undergone in recent years. Only the most cynical among us would say that the American family has devolved to the point of no greater importance or consideration in governmental decision making than a group of college roommates." (Stegeman v. City of Ann Arbor)

That being said, accommodation ought to be made for protected classes, especially non-traditional unions and group houses for the disabled. These classes are laid out in federal and Washington State law.