More on Call to Action - 4 August City Council Meeting

The agenda for the City Council meeting of 4 August has appeared on the City Council web page. Click here to go to the meeting materials page. You can also click on the images above to bring up the agenda bill on the family definition.

We still need your input to the City Council on changing the definition of family. We also ask that you plan to speak your 3 minutes at the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. Ideally, the Council can decide to go forward now without changing the number from 3 to 4.

The action on the 4th of August will consist of a committee briefing. Since the amendment is of a development regulation it must go through several public hearings. The staff recommendation contains language increasing in the number of unrelated people from 3 to 4, in addition to language including state registered domestic partners. One other change eliminates the use of the phrase “single dwelling unit” and replaces it with the phrase “single housekeeping unit”. Since there is no definition offered of “housekeeping unit”, it is difficult to assess the further import of such a change. The Bellingham Municipal Code is silent on the definition of “housekeeping unit”, therefore, I surmise a definition must be created.

The Washington Administrative Code uses the term “housekeeping unit” but only it in its definition of a "family dwelling unit."

Family dwelling unit. "Family dwelling unit" means the dwelling unit occupied by a single person, any number of related persons, or a group not exceeding a total of eight related and unrelated nontransient persons living as a single noncommercial housekeeping unit. The term does not include a boarding or rooming house.

The City of Boston has adopted this rather wordy definition of “single housekeeping unit”:

A “single housekeeping” unit for the purposes of this section shall mean two or more persons, not so related, but living together as a single housekeeping unit. Persons shall be living as a single housekeeping unit when all members of the housekeeping unit are parties to a common lease or rental agreement that also provides for a period of tenancy common to all members, a common right to use and enjoy the entire dwelling or dwelling unit, despite informal arrangements among members to designate certain areas as individualized sleeping spaces; a single periodic rent payment to the owner or owner’s agent. Additionally, members sharing household living arrangements, including but not limited to, utility payments, groceries and common sanitary, living and cooking supplies and or facilities shall also be an indication that a dwelling or dwelling unit is being occupied as a “single housekeeping unit.”

See you at the City Council meeting on the 4th at 7 pm. Arrive early and sign up for your three minute comment period.

Call to Action on Zoning Code Change

I have learned through several sources that some staff recommendations on proposed changes to the definition of family and other changes to the single family zoning code (making infractions a civil offense and including domestic partnerships within the definition of family) will be presented at the 4 August City Council meeting. I do not know if there will be voting or just further discussion. Later this week, Thursday or Friday, the agenda for the meeting should be published and the purpose should be more clear. I will provide an update as soon as the City Council posts its agenda.

Nonetheless, I am urging you now to send a message to the council that the proposal by Jack Weiss to increase the number of unrelated individuals allowed in a single family rental from three to four is not acceptable. I have spoken with three members of the council who are not really keen on changing the number. The support for increasing the number from 3 to 4 is weak. My hat is off to Gene Knutson, the sole council member who publicly stated his opposition. You can help to ensure that the council keeps the code designation at three by doing several things:

1. Send a letter or email to the city council and voice your concerns. You can do that by going to the council website at (click on the link) http://www.cob.org/contact/council.aspx and sending an email to the council at large. You can also send individual emails to each member by clicking on the name and then scrolling to the bottom of the profile. If you have already sent a note recently, send it again.

2. Come to the City Council meeting next Monday, 4 August at 7pm, and express your opinion. Arrive early and sign the list for a speaking spot (3 minutes) during the public comment period. No need to be a great orator. Just be yourself.

Do both, if you can. If you can not come to the council meeting, then send a letter or email. If you want words or ideas, borrow freely from this blog.

You can also call your council representatives. Here are their phone numbers:

Jack Weiss: 738-2103
Gene Knutson: 734-4686
Barry Buchanan: 734-6639
Stan Snapp: 305-0607
Terry Bornemann: 305-0606
Barbara Ryan: 671-8376
Louise Bjornson: 733-7756

You can write a letter to the following address:

City Council
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225

I learned that the council received over 400 emails and letters on the subject of the bike lanes on Cornwall. Yes, the bike lanes! The issue of illegal rooming houses and increasing the number of unrelated renters (also called backdoor infill) is as at least as valid an issue as bike lanes. Tell your friends and neighbors about this blog entry. We need a strong turnout.

Amicable Jousting on Single Family Zoning

Councilman Stan Snapp and I are having a kind of written debate on single family zoning on D. J. Gray's Eye on Whatcom forum. Citizen Flat Tire also joins the discussion. Although it may not rise to the level of the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, you can read the zoning discussion by clicking here. We invite you to take part in the conversation. Our council needs your input.

Questions for the City Council. A Reader Asks.

At times, I reproduce a comment received on a previous blog entry – a comment which is unusually informational or insightful. I received the following from a reader who presently lives outside of Bellingham but who is planning to move to this city by the end of the year. His comment was in response to my blog entry of 15 July entitled “Unintended Consequences? You Judge.” on recent City Council discussions involving changes to the single family zoning code. (Click here to read that blog entry.)

“In regards the proposal by Jack Weiss to adjust the "rule of 3" to be the "rule of 4" it seems to me that the question to Mr Weiss and for the City Council should be what are the origins and justification for this action?

By my research, the housing stock in Bham was approximately 33,500 units at the end of 2007, up from approximately 26000 10 years ago. The corresponding population numbers are 75,900 and 63,200 respectively. So the density in Bham is approximately 2.27 persons per housing unit last year compared to 2.43 persons per unit 10 years prior. Moreover, the Whatcom County Real Estate Report (WCRER) 2008 reports similar information, saying that from the year 2000, Bham housing stock has increased 18.9% while population has increased just 12%. Finally, on 3 July the Bham Herald reported that population growth in Whatcom County is slowing and only about a fifth of new county residents are choosing to live in Bellingham. In short, the high level numbers don't indicate a need for the City Council taking any action on the rule of 3 in order to "fix" housing availability.

Conversely, several negative effects of changing the rule can be noted.

First, this type of off-the-books infill is a tax avoidance and ultimately a shifting of the property tax burden. The units potentially affected by this rule are single family detached homes being rented, a bit over 25% of the housing stock, let's use your number 9500 units. Those landlords can reap a tax avoidance windfall because any shortfall in taxes to support infrastructure and services for the additional residents paying them rent, would have to be made up by all property owners. In practice, I would expect a fairly narrow demographic (18-25 years old renters) and a minority of neighborhoods (near to colleges) to make up the bulk of properties taking advantage of any change. In short, the benefits of this rule change would likely be shared by a narrow demographic who do not pay property tax and a minority of property owners because the tax burden that supports their renters is distributed to all property owners.

Second, increased occupancy of existing SFD provides infill that bypasses the mechanisms for improving the quality of housing stock. The building codes gradually evolve to provide higher standards for safety and energy efficiency. Development and redevelopment gradually roll these higher standards into the housing stock so that occupants are more comfortable and safer with less energy consumption. It would be interesting to hear from the building official and staff responsible for the quality and safety of housing in regards this matter. If the City Council adopts the rule change, aren't they undermining their staff and their responsibility?

Third, this type of infill hurts the local economy insofar as it defers or eliminates new housing units that would represent jobs and materials purchases supporting local businesses. Recently the market has served the local economy well with a construction boom, but with construction slowing, and unemployment rising, and population growth decreasing, changing the rule of 3 will simply delay economic recovery for the housing industry some little bit.

And then there are the quality-of-life arguments around noise, traffic, crime, etc.

My suspicion is that the proposed change to the rule of three is special interest lobbying, the natural course of politics, or possibly a mis-perception of actual need. It could be a legitimate reason that I don't know about. Whatever the origin of the proposal, my experience is the best way to influence any Council is to go to their meeting and ask them to address the data and the arguments against - to provide justification. If they have legitimate justification we all learn something. If it becomes a matter of public record that they have no justification refuting objective arguments against, they are unlikely to vote in favor. If they vote in favor without justification, you have ammunition for future battles.

I cannot go to City Council meetings to argue, or even send written arguments, as I do not live in Bham, but care greatly about this matter as I am planning a move back to Bham by the end of this year. I hope you or someone you know will take the time to address the Council directly.”

Well said. Again I ask my readers to write to the member of the City Council (Go to http://www.cob.org/contact/council.aspx to send them your thoughts.) I would appreciate hearing directly from this anonymous poster at my Zonemaven email address: zonemaven AT hotmail DOT com.

Unintended Consequences? You Judge.

In my blog entry of 3 July (click here to read that entry) I posited that one deleterious effect of increasing the number of unrelated persons in the definition of family for the purposes of zoning would be an immediate sanctioning by the city council of an increase of more than 9,000 possible renters within the single family neighborhoods, a back-door infill, as it were, with no input from those affected. There are some additional results if the number is increased from 3 to 4.

Our landlord representatives have on various occasions, in front of the council and in the newspapers, offered that theirs is an honorable profession and that most adhere to the laws. A regrettably small percentage of landlords are those who are causing the problems and bringing opprobrium on the group, they say. Taking the landlord representatives at their word, I would assume that most of the 9,000 or more rentals in Bellingham are either occupied by families related by blood or by groups of no more than three unrelated persons as the law states. If one raises the number of unrelated individuals to 4, then the overwhelming percentage of law-abiding landlords will have the legal green light to increase the number of unrelated renters in any home, regardless of its size. If the going rate for a single family home rental were the equivalent of $400 per renter under the so-called “rule of three”, a monthly rent of $1200 would be the result. Any landlord worth her mathematical salt, will immediately recognize that she, without changing the per capita cost for the current batch of renters, can add one more renter at $400 per month, thus increasing the overall rental rate for that particular home to $1,600 – a healthy 33% increase in rental income. The renters do not see their individual monthly rate increase and the landlord gets the windfall. And it is all legal. Oh, happy day!

Meanwhile, the family woman with her husband and two children, who are of modest resources and even more modest incomes, would like to rent that same house but now find that they are financially shut out of the process when the rent climbs 33%, from $1,200 to $1,600. The effect is even more profound on the single parent, single income family. The perverse outcome of raising the number of unrelated individuals is that in a market in which, low wage earners, 8,000 or more students from WWU and thousands more from WCC and BTC vie for housing, the groups of unrelated individuals become a more lucrative target for landlords. The higher you raise the number of unrelated individuals, the more market distortion you achieve and the more you invite uncontrolled infill.

Again, I ask my readers to contact the City Council members (click here to send a message) and the Mayor (click here to send him a message) to tell them that changing the number of authorized unrelated persons in a rental home is counterproductive and infringes on the ability of the neighborhoods to control infill.

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.