Say No to Council on 3 to 4. The Infill Decision Belongs to You!

I sent the following email to the City Council, the Mayor and several other
city officials regarding the city council discussion of changing the single
family zoning defintition.

"[Although I was not at the council meeting last Monday], I took  the time
to review the video of the last city council meeting.  Frankly, I was
dumbfounded by the turn of events with regard to the proposals on the
definition of family in the Bellingham city code.  First of all, I am not
against the changing of the code to decriminalize initial offenses.
I have said this before in this blog.  Nor am I distressed at a proposal
to include domestic partnerships in the code. This also I have said
in my blog on several occasions.

My problem is the changing of the definition to increase the limit of
unrelated persons from 3 to 4.  This change has not been called for
by anyone or any group whom I can identify other than Council Member
Weiss.  Mr. Weiss said that the number 4 "plays well".  My question
is, "To whom?".   The only people to gain from such a move are the
landlords.

If the council changes the number from 3 to 4 it will have, with a
stroke of a pen, increased legal infill in the city's single family
neighborhoods by about 9,500.  Think about it.  Half of all single
family homes are rented (9,500). [Click here to read city report with
single family home figures.] Today each of those homes can be rented
legally to any group of unrelated people to a maximum of three.  If
you change that to four, the potential legal increase in infill is
9,500.  Not only is this infill uncalled for, it is uncontrolled. 
The city is now trying to convince neighborhoods that they will have
the say regarding "the where" of infill.   The idea of changing the
family number is diametrically opposed to the notion of neighborhood
control.

I ask that the council immediately table any further vote on changing
the city code regarding family until such time as an appropriate group,
to include representatives from the neighborhoods, has the opportunity
to voice its concerns."

You can help by writing the members of the Bellingham City Council and
the Mayor to tell them that you do not support such a backdoor method
of increasing infill in single family zoned areas.

Note: To contact the mayor and the council members go to the City of
Bellingham website (www.cob.org) and click on the links to the office
of the mayor and/or the council. There you will find all the necessary
addresses for the mayor and for the individual council members or for
the council as a whole.  For council members, there are on-the-page email
forms you can fill out to send emails.

A Whole Lot of Noodle Pushing Goin' On!

The point is again missed by the city and the council - that there is a zoning/density issue behind all the unrelated polemics on single family residency. (Click here to read the Herald story on the 23 Jun City Council Meeting.) I have presented this from many angles since last July in this blog as is known by those readers who remain interested in the relevant issues on the subject of illegal rooming houses. Changing the rule from 3-4 does nothing except change a number in the code which is not enforced anyway. Doing away with the definition of family throws into extreme disarray any notion of single family zoning. Because there is no "perfect" solution to the problem (Thank you for this observation, Mr. Stewart) does not mean there is not a good or very good one. Try true enforcement of present codes for once. That might work instead of talking the issue to death.

I am happy to hear from Chief Ramsay that the number of letters sent to landlords this year has dropped, however, that is not a measure of an amelioration of a zoning/density problem. Until the council acts on demanding enforcement, I would not believe anything they or Mr Stewart promise about infill (e.g. the neighborhoods decide "the where") since both (including former Directors of Planning) have allowed illegal infill to take place for the last several decades. The truth is that "the where" is controlled by landlords. Keep that in mind.

We Do Not Know. But Do We Want To Know?

A friend forwarded the message below to me about the same time I received a note from a former Bellingham resident (now in California) about rental problems in San Diego, problems revolving primarily around students seeking housing. One of the main issues in sunny San Diego is the creation of extra rooms in single family residences by landlords attempting to maximize their income on the property. There they refer to these rentals as “mini-dorms”, a cute euphemism for the equivalent of our de facto rooming houses. You can read stories from the local San Diego press on this issue by clicking here and here. Accommodating students in planning for infill is absolutely necessary. They are not potted plants. San Diego has done very badly. Bellingham, with the tacit concurrence of Western Washington University and other post-high school institutions, has done little for the past several decades except let the situation develop. Sand found. Hole dug. Head inserted.

So my friend writes: “All over town. Another wrinkle. A neighbor (retired fire dept) called the inspection wing of the BFD [Bellingham Fire Department], requesting a inspection of one of the rooming houses in our neighborhood, as he felt it was a very unsafe house for those living there as some of the "added" bedrooms have no proper exits in the event of fire. Fire dept informed him it’s a Permit dept problem, Permit dept states it a law enforcement problem, law enforcement has been told by the city attorney’s office to "do nothing". Do not motels, hotels, licensed group residences, etc have to be inspected by the BFD for safety? Meeting rooms have a max capacity set by the BFD! Sure do enjoy merry-go-rounds.” I have written on this subject before. Click here and here to read those blog entries. Click here to read about a house fire near Miami University in Ohio in 2005. Three students died. Many will remember the house fire at Ocean Isle, North Carolina last year. Below right is a photo of what is left of that structure. Seven students (pictured below) died. Click here to refresh your memory.


From Firehouse Magazine (July 2005) there is this, "A nationwide campaign is underway to reduce the number of fire deaths at colleges and universities, with special emphasis on off-campus housing, where more than 75% of these fatalities occur." Did you know that? Have you heard of such a campaign in Bellingham? What sort of liability is the City of Bellingham courting by not having a landlord law under which single family rentals can be inspected for safety? Fifty percent of our single family homes are rented but we have no idea regarding the condition of these structures. You can train the renters but if the basic amenities, which provide the house with a secure environment, are missing, all the training will have been for naught. For more on this subject, read an article entitled "After N.C. deaths, fire safety concerns come to light" in the Tufts Daily by clicking here.

A further example: "The fire call came in at 4:50 am … careless smoking on that porch had set that old wooden house ablaze … there was only one way out and it was through the porch. There were no sprinklers and reportedly not all of the smoke detectors were working. Liz and two of her roommates died of smoke inhalation that day." More information on this incident and on off-campus fires can be found at Campus Firewatch by clicking here.

Here are some nationwide statistics from Campus Firewatch.

Campus-related fire fatalities from January 2000 to March 16, 2007
Off-campus	87	80%
Residence Hall	10	9%
Greek housing	10	9%
Other	1	1%
Total	108

Well, what is known about rentals of single family homes here in Bellingham?

Have landlords added or modified bedrooms? We do not know.
Do all bedrooms have fire exits? We do not know.
Do these rentals have smoke detectors? We do not know.
Do these rentals have carbon monoxide detectors? We do not know.
Do these rentals have adequate wiring? We do not know.
Do these rentals have adequate plumbing? We do not know.
Do these rentals have adequate heating? We do not know.
Do these rentals have mold or mildew problems? We do not know.
Do these rentals have insect infestations? We do not know.
Do these rentals have gas leaks? We do not know.
Do these rentals have structural problems? We do not know.
Do these rentals have other safety or health issues? We do not know.
Is there overcrowding in these rentals? We do not know.
Are necessary repairs made by landlords? We do not know.
Is there price gouging by landlords? We do not know.

Is there a system of inspections of rental homes in Bellingham? We do know. None.
Are landlords of rental homes licensed by the city? We do know. None.

Will it take a death or serious injury to spur the city to action?

Do we want to know?

Zonemaven Academy II

Dean Kahn has provided a summary of Planning Academy II where a number of new housing types, i.e., “the what” were presented to and evaluated by the attendees. (Click here to read his article) The imbedded bugaboo, i.e., “the where”, is yet to be decided although one does find some extant examples in Bellingham. I submit that there is a third component, which is “the how” and therein lies a greater problem...of which few speak. We already have examples of “the what” and “the where” which may provide clues to “the how” of the future.

It may be instructive then to look at the presentation made during the Planning Academy II wherein the “stakeholders” saw photos of the various types of alternative housing, “the what”. You can view these photos by going to the City of Bellingham website dedicated to the Planning Academy by clicking here. The photos are remarkable in that it appears that they had been taken on the set of “On the Beach”, a 1959 film in which a submarine crew, protected by being underwater during a massive nuclear weapons exchange, returns to the west coast to find the cities devoid of life. Similarly, we are presented photos of these housing types, “the whats”, in a remarkable state in which people, cats, dogs, cars, trash do not play a role. Let’s look at some Bellingham reality with regard to homes on “small lots” which include town homes, duplexes/triplexes, cottages or whatever.

These are “snout houses” (with protruding garages in front) on small lots along Ashley St. Click on each photo to enlarge for full effect.

Here are some small lots on a cul-de-sac off Consolidation St.

This is a morning panorama on a street in the Magnolia Hills subdivision.

As for accessory dwelling units, among which I include carriage houses, the prescription that either the main house or the accessory unit must be occupied is of little comfort for the simple reason that economics will soon drive the homeowner to the accessory unit at which time he or she will rent the “big house” to maximize returns on the rental. At the last Samish Neighborhood annual meeting our Director of Planning mentioned this as being an attractive alternative. Why rent the ADU at $400 per month when renting the house will bring in $1,500 to $2,000 per month? The residency rule may attenuate somewhat any propensity on the part of the renters to engage in un-neighborly behaviors but the amount of infill will be distorted. One rents an ADU to one or two people. The “big house” will attract many more and double or triple the density into what we call an illegal rooming house. And then there are the cars...

So now we arrive at “the how”. Here is how the city tends to enforce housing codes. These examples were found in a matter of hours in widely scattered neighborhoods and are surrounded by modest and well kept homes.

The question for the citizenry is, “How ('The How') will the City Council and the city government enforce future codes on the housing described above when its efforts to date have allowed for a proliferation of illegal rooming houses, derelict homes, and residences where boats, trailers, cars and various sorts of containers are treated as lawn ornaments?” I know that our new Chief of Police, Todd Ramsay, is working diligently on a method of enforcement but will the political will of the Mayor and the City Council be there at the moment of implementation?

WWU Dormitory Expansion Plan - Yawn!

An alert reader provide me with the meeting notice (at left – click on image to enlarge) concerning the proposed building of an annex to Buchanan Towers dormitory on the campus of Western Washington University. In an earlier post to this blog, I reported to my readers the then “indefinite” plan to build one new dormitory on the WWU campus. Since no other proposal has come before the Board of Trustees recently (You can check their meeting agenda and minutes at their site by clicking here.), this must be THE plan for “additional” dormitory space.

Here is a quote from the minutes of the 14 December 2007 board meeting: “George Pierce, Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs, introduced Tim Wynn, Director of Facilities Management; Rick Benner, Executive Director of Facilities Planning and Development; Ed Simpson, Acting Assistant Director for Design and Construction; and Bob Schmidt, Project Manager. Benner provided the Board a brief history of the project to add 100 to 200 beds into the residence hall system. Following a feasibility study, it was decided to add a five story addition to Buchannan Towers and the university is now ready to move into the project design and construction administration phase. Benner presented a recommended project design for the addition including renovations to Buchanan Towers. The total project cost is $18M and occupancy is scheduled for Fall 2010.”

These are the plans for new housing from a university which is desperately seeking (with your tax dollars) expansion of Huxley College at the waterfront to the tune of 500 additional students. Even at the maximum of 200 beds, this dorm appendage will not even house half of the students thus attracted. Maybe if WWU springs a few extra dollars for bunk beds it can double the capacity. Creative solutions might also involve the adoption of “hot cots” wherein every 8 hours each bed is turned over to another student, thus tripling its capacity. Huxley students might find this environmentally appealing. You will recall that the institution just spent almost 2.5 times $18million for a new academic building so the trend is clear – Bellingham neighborhoods will have to suck up the overflow students into non-existent housing unless, of course, you make more rooming houses from those single family homes on your street.

One might also legitimately ask the manner in which the university will accommodate the several hundred vehicles which will certainly accompany the 100-200 students. One of my readers informed me that about ten years ago the citizens of Bellingham pushed the site, now to be occupied by the dorm expansion, as an excellent spot for a multi-story parking garage. That never came to be.

An Interesting Discovery at Western Washington University.

A previous blog entry (click here to read it) spoke to advertising in the Western Front in which a local property management firm placed an ad for homes with 2 to 5 bedrooms within easy walk of WWU. Speaking with some WWU students the other day, I found several who were planning to move in groups of 5 into single family homes in the York Neighborhood. They expressed surprised when I apprised them of the zoning regulations prohibiting such rentals.

This should not shock those who might take a casual stroll through the Viking Union, as I did last week. There, next to the US post office annex, was a bulletin board with housing rental offers (each bearing the approval of the relevant office of the Viking Union) of single family homes most of which expressly stated that the rentals were available for 4-6 persons. A particular ad even provided a per person rate. One home was at 21^st and Mills, another on James St. in the York Neighborhood, yet another on Racine St. and finally one on 34^th St where, by the bye, a homeowner recently received a lower home valuation by the assessor’s office due to the proliferation of illegal rooming houses on that street.

So, here we have an office within WWU which is approving the posting of ads from landlords who are clearly violating the Bellingham Municipal Code. (Check the WWU on-line ad list yourself by clicking here. Then click on List Your Rental Unit or Room [for listing agents] and then click on View Rental List) Why is the university allowing the posting of such ads? Our least expectation is that WWU would ensure that it does not become involved in activities which have a propensity to support scofflaw landlords. The university could also post notices with the text of the city’s law and declare it highly recommends not entering into rental situations which are clearly code violations. No wonder then that the students profess ignorance of city laws when the university gives its tacit approval. Perhaps the Mayor could pen a note to the WWU hierarchy asking that they cease involvement in such advertising.

Planning Academy II - A Follow-up

One of my readers questioned my previous blog entry entitled “WWU Where Are You – Not at the Planning Academy.” (Click here to read this entry.) He wrote “The goal (for the city) is to get buy-in [and] not discuss new ideas or even how to avoid the same problem in the future.” I replied that, if it is buy-in that is the stated purpose, then why have architects, builders, real estate agents, etc. been invited to attend? What is it that they have to “buy into” when it comes to neighborhood character and infill? They make money building and selling. If one follows the logic of inviting these ‘stakeholders” WWU is an extremely huge “stakeholder” in town and a source of solutions for infill. Perhaps they can get rid of those student parking lots and build some dorms for some of those 8,000 students looking for rentals each year. That would be a great sledge hammer for the “tool box”. Right now, the WWU solution is to rent blocks of apartment units and re-rent them to students as off-campus housing. How will this aid infill? WWU should be at the table to answer.

Furthermore, the city is diverting the attention of the public with this academy. Once all these cutesy little infill tools are rubber stamped by the Academy (which I believe is the agenda for the city government), they will be codified at which time the demand to make them real will outweigh the desire for the neighborhoods to keep them at bay. The more Tim Stewart says that the neighborhoods will control this infill, the less confidence I have in the outcome. He stated during the first planning session that the city is good at setting policy but not implementing policy, which, in my book, includes enforcement. That should tell you something. Remember, these are the same folks who have not enforced current codes for decades. Can we believe they will have the political will to enforce future codes having to do with carriage houses, cottages and town homes any more than they enforce single family zoning codes? And just what is in this “tool box” to roll back the years of neglect and chaotic infill by illegal rooming house-ification? If you build on bad policy you get more bad policy.

WWU Where Are You? Not At The Planning Academy.

Over the last week I have been reviewing the “results” of the first session of the Planning Academy II. (Click here to review the on-line materials.) Unfortunately, the second session had already taken place by the time the video and some materials from the first session were made available to the general public. In scanning the list of participants, I searched in vain for representatives (called stakeholders by the Academy) from Western’s management. I did find two “planning students” from WWU were on the list. Since there was no attendance roster from the meeting, I cannot assume that they were, in fact, there. In any event, are we to believe that they represent the university administration? If not, where is the university management? Where are the representatives of the largest employer in the city? Where are the responsible parties of a public institution which brings over 12,000 people to the city each year, 8,000 of whom seek housing? Does this picture not seem bizarre?

Call a meeting on waterfront development and you will hear the stampede of university management as they carom down the stairs of Old Main to ensure a seat at that table. My advice to Mayor Pike is to go to the university and find a few high level managers (if they have not already decided to flee the sinking ship), grab them by the ears and drag them to the next Academy meeting so that we can hear their ideas on infill problems created by the student body. It is also time that the Mayor tells WWU (and the incoming president) that, in order to participate in the waterfront development, it will have to participate enthusiastically and wholly in community development.

Western Front Inaccuracies Noted by Campus Community Coalition

I received the following comment from Lara Welker after I published several blog entries related to Western Front (the WWU student newspaper) articles on the Campus Community Coalition’s Let’s Talk Forums and on zoning and student responsibilities. (Click here and here to read those blog entries) Ms. Welker speaks to several inaccuracies in these Western Front pieces in a letter directed to the editors of the Western Front.

“I regret the inaccurate information printed in the Western Front about the Let's Talk Forum, and sent the following letter to the Editors:

Dear Western Front Editors:
I would like to make a clarification regarding the Let's Talk Forums coming up on May 15. Two recent pieces in the Western Front were inaccurate and misleading about the purpose of this event.

First, the Opinion article "Students Can Be Responsible Neighbors" (5/5/08) stated, "The ["Rule of Three"] ordinance has causes so much commotion, the Western's Campus Community Coalition is holding a discussion for community members and students to discuss the consequences of housing in Bellingham."

The purpose of the "Living Together in Bellingham" Let's Talk Forums is to discuss the issues that come up when students and long-term community members are neighbors, understand different perspectives on these issues, and consider how we can we help each other be great neighbors and community members. Housing is a facet of this conversation, but it is inaccurate to say that Let's Talk is to discuss "the consequences of housing in Bellingham." In addition, these discussions have been held regularly for several years now, and were not prompted by the more recent "commotion" about the ordinance.

Secondly, the title of Harte Onewein's article "Forums Address 'Rule of Three issue" (5/6/08) is inaccurate. While the sentence, "....the "Let's Talk" discussion sessions ...will focus on issues arising from students living off campus" is true, the rest of the article is really about the "Rule of Three" issue. So not only is the title simply incorrect, combining the two issues into one article is very misleading.

The issues these two pieces address have long histories and are very, very complex. I caution your staff and you as editors against oversimplification.

I would appreciate it if you would publish a correction so that students and other readers have correct information about the Let's Talk forum. We invite everyone to participate on Thursday, May 15, with one session at 4pm and another at 7pm in Viking Union 565. For more information, please contact Lara Welker, Campus Community Coalition Coordinator at 650-6863 or Lara.Welker@wwu.edu.

For those who are interested in learning more about the "Rule of Three," I believe the campus ACLA club is planning a session on this for May 20. I encourage you to contact them for more information.

Thank you.
Lara Welker
WWU-Bellingham Campus Community Coalition
Prevention and Wellness Services"

I encourage members of the community to attend the Let's Talk forums next week.

WWU Article on Let's Talk Forum

On May 6th the Western Front published an article by Harte Onewein entitled “Forums address 'rule of 3' issue.” You can read the article by clicking here. The article began by promoting the next Let's Talk forum at WWU on May 15th in Viking Union Room 565 from 4-5:30 and from 7-8:30. I sent the following letter to the editor of the Western Front to bring some balance to an article which I thought was one-sided.

"[...] First of all, I am gratified to see that the Western Front is giving more visibility to the Let’s Talk Forums. I have attended most of these gatherings and, at times, have been dismayed at the poor turnout. I will be at the sessions on the 15^th of May and encourage WWU students to attend.

I also am a firm believer in keeping a balanced approach to the subject as described in the article. The title refers to a Bellingham Municipal Code 20.08.020 which defines a single family for purposed of zoning, i.e., controlling density. I disagree with City Council Member Weiss and Attorney Lukoff’s statements as provided to the article’s author.

Mr. Weiss is looking to change a law which has been on the books for decades but has not been enforced in spite of many complaints about illegal rooming houses, which are the result of having more than three unrelated persons living in the same single family home. It seems aberrant to me that one would want to change a law that has not been tested in court. If a court has not ruled on the statute, what is the basis for changing the code? Mayor Dan Pike said that he would enforce the law, if elected mayor but, after dozens of years of inaction, the city council becomes interested in fiddling with the statute thus confounding the issue. This is called pushing the rope up the hill.

Mr. Lukoff, on the other hand, has declared that the law is illegal because of a Revised Code of Washington portion that one cannot discriminate in real estate transactions on the basis of sex, religion, etc. He proffers an example of gay couples not being able to share a home, however, his reasoning is specious. Gay couples in Washington can form a domestic partnership which creates a legal entity akin to a family. Perhaps two or more gay couples cannot share a home in Bellingham but neither can two or more married couples. As for Mr. Lukoff’s statement, “If you can’t discriminate against everyone then you can’t discriminate against anyone. That’s how the law works.”, I find this logic peculiar in that governments do create discriminatory laws, to wit affirmative action and selective service, for the perceived common weal. Mr. Lukoff has also failed to inform the writer of this article that similar zoning codes have been upheld in various jurisdictions throughout the country as a means to control density.

Mr. Lukoff has presented himself as an attorney who specializes in landlord-tenant relations. I have asked Mr. Lukoff on many occasions, through [this] blog ..., whether he represents the tenants or the landlords, as it makes a difference in judging his opinion on the zoning regulations and in placing his remarks in context. He has, to date, not responded."