Campus Community Coalition – Expanded Mission

The Campus Community Coalition, whose meetings I attend regularly, has reworked its mission and goals to fit with the broader context suggested by the name of the organization. (Click on the image at left) The Coalition was originally established over ten years ago to deal with a narrow range of issues concerning alcohol use and abuse by WWU students. For that reason it was placed under the office of Prevention and Wellness Services (Click here to go to the website). Several years ago, some members of the Coalition recognized that not all “town/gown” issues brought to the group fell under the rubric of Prevention and Wellness or had anything to do with alcohol consumption. With the arrival of Dr. Bruce Shepard, there was a push to move the coalition to the Office of University Relations which was recently filled by Steve Swan, a close associate of Dr. Shepard in his previous post in Wisconsin. (See my September 2008 letter to Dr. Shepard by clicking here)

I met with Mr. Swan last February (click here to read a summary of that meeting) in an attempt to persuade him that a Coalition with an expanded mission would not fit well if subordinated to an organization with a narrower mission than that of the Coalition itself. I had also met with Dr Eileen Coughlin, Vice President for Student Affairs and Academic Support, to whom I voiced the same idea. (Click here to read a summary of that meeting.) Other members of the Coalition have argued the point at meetings and in talks with Lara Welker, the Coalition’s director. In the past few weeks a decision was made to keep the Coalition in the Prevention and Wellness Services – at least for the time being. Although I am disappointed with the decision, the rationale was part budgetary as the Coalition is currently funded by WWU through the Wellness Office and part reticence in moving the entire mission to University Affairs where there was a lack of support staff. The door to moving the Coalition to the office of University Relations (Click here to read about this office) was not closed entirely as Mr. Swan is just now 4 months into the job and wants to get a better understanding of the Coalition and the issues before possibly moving it within the hierarchy. He did name Sherry Burkey, Associate VP for University Relations and Director of Legislative Affairs, (click here to go to the Legislative Affairs web page) to coordinate closely and directly with the Coalition on issues which fall outside the normal scope of Prevention and Wellness. Education on alcohol related issues will continue as a focus of the Coalition under the Wellness umbrella.

Since Mr. Swan has told me that he will also work closely with the Coalition, I am willing to wait to see if the new set-up will work. I am also encouraged by the fact that Dr. Shepard, in a demonstration of his commitment to the CCC, is continuing to fund the Coalition at its present level, even in the face of enormous budget cuts.

Citizens' Forum - Discussion on Neighborhood Schools- 2 June

Mark your calendar today for this Citizens' Forum event. The topic on 2 June will be "Neighborhood Schools – How Valuable Are They to Our Community". Click on the image on the left to view the flier with the place, time and directions. Attendees can expect to hear and comment on these questions:

What do our public schools mean to the neighborhoods they are in?

Walkability, smaller schools, involved neighbors – what is best for

children?

What are the economic realities and how should neighborhood

schools be financed?

The school board – its relationship and obligation to parents and the

community.

Will infill and a changing demographic impact our neighborhood

schools?

This is the fourth such discussion sponsored by the Citizens' Forum, the last having been held on 2 May on the subject of the Infill Tool Kit.

Sunnyland's Web Discussion on the Infill Tool Kit

There is an interesting discussion about the Infill Tool Kit taking place on the Sunnyland Neighborhood’s Google site. (Click here to read the email exchange.)

Here is a sampler:

“Regarding proposed the city proposed infill toolkit: Why not have some areas with lower density? Shouldn't we wait until existing multi-family zoned areas are near capacity before encroaching into single family neighborhoods? We should be talking more about adding trees, shrubs, and green areas to our beautiful city, and less about cramming shabby tract style housing into our unique single family neighborhoods. The city can't even regulate the many existing illegal rooming houses. Imagine the new triplex looming over your back yard, which is then later divided up internally to house double the original permitted residents, complete with all their cars zooming up and down your alley. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this picture if you enjoy it and consciously buy into such a neighborhood, but to have it shoved down your throat after supposedly buying into a single family zoned area is another thing entirely. Imagine what might happen if the city were to propose such infill into the Edgemoor neighborhood!”

One theme is that of trust of the city government with respect to its desire and capability to enforce any parts of the Took Kit, especially those which can have an effect on the single family neighborhoods such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and carriage houses. I have published two recent blog entries (click here and here to read them) on the Tool Kit and a recent (albeit anecdotal) ADU problem. A resident writes:

“As I see it...the city currently doesn't even (I could be wrong) have a code enforcement employee to make sure that compliance is being enforced and if you put all the regulations that are on such dwellings in the in-fill kit -specifically owner occupied units...who's going to enforce it, how's it going to be enforced, and what will be the consequences for non-compliance? Too many unanswered questions in my opinion to be comfortable with the tool kit as written. As it is, I have enough poorly maintained rentals surrounding me and I just can't do with anymore. I have a lot of neighbors in my vicinity that will agree with me on this subject but really even if you call the litter control officer it has taken up to eight weeks for the properties to get rid of the garbage piles […] So, as you can understand, I have no faith in the current system the city has for compliance...and this has nothing to do with the officer who is doing his job he is good at it but his hands are tied until the owners of the property do something.”

[Zonemaven Comment: For the record, the city has a Neighborhood Enforcement Officer, formerly the Litter Control Officer, who was “beknighted” last year by the City Council with additional duties relating to the enforcement of the code on illegal rooming houses.]

The Planning Commission is meeting again this Thursday, 30 April at 7pm to complete the hearing on the Infill Tool Kit. (Click here to read the relevant materials from the 16 April hearing which is still open through Thursday’s meeting). You can still provide oral testimony or you can send written comments to the Planning Commission. Check their contact information by clicking here.

Citizens' Forum - Discussion on Infill Tool Kit - 2 May

Mark your calendar today for the next in-depth discussion. The topic on 2 May will be "Infill and the Tool Kit". Click on the image on the left to view the flier with the place, time and directions.

This is the third such discussion sponsored by the Citizens' Forum, the last having been held on 21 March on the subject "The Infill Dilemma – by Choice or by Necessity?" Over 70 interested citizens attended this gathering. You can read the proposed Infill Tool Kit on-line by clicking here.

See you there.

Alice in ADUland

"We're all mad here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, Ch. 6

Recent emails sent to me by homeowners on Iowa Drive describe having found themselves falling down the rabbit hole into ADUland [ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit]. A long time problem home (described as having been occupied by squatters) on this quiet street abutting Whatcom Falls Park was sold in 2007 to an individual who announced plans to renovate the structure and to add an ADU. Relieved neighbors were happy to see someone who not only wanted to renovate the home but also was thrilled to be living near a park. The addition of the ADU was problematic from the start because of concerns over parking. Nonetheless, with the planned inclusion of a circular driveway and a four-car (tandem) garage, the ADU was approved by the city.

The owner moved into the main house and rented the ADU but over time this arrangement became blurred as the owner began to rent the main house, too. Since then, it has become a vacation rental that is advertised, even at this moment, on Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO.com). The four-car garage is now being used for storage according to Iowa Dr. residents thus negating a portion of the arrangement by which the ADU was approved. Cars now spill from the “circular driveway” into the street. The rental is currently being touted on VRBO thus: **Now accepting offers for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. The nearest venue, The Richmond Olypmic (sic) Oval, is only 48 miles from the home** Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Now the live-in homeowners on Iowa Dr. are faced with the fait accompli of an approved ADU. The owner of the property agreed to certain terms to gain approval from the city. He has, according to neighbors, moved into the ADU - sort 0f- but now seems to be ignoring both the spirit and the letter of that agreement and the law. (The owner must live in either the main house or the ADU. Click here to read the present code on ADUs.) Predictably, the neighbors are facing a time consuming and uphill climb in fighting for code enforcement.

Although this account is anecdotal in nature, it demonstrates that my warnings regarding these seemingly benign additions are valid. Once the Infill Tool Kit is approved and neighborhoods accept them as a means of infill, there will be Iowa Drives all over town. Given the city’s generalized hesitation regarding enforcement and the insufficient number of enforcement personnel, how will the character of our neighborhoods be protected? Enough to drive one mad, no?

[Do you have an ADU horror story? If so, send it to me at zonemaven AT hotmail DOT com.)

Infill Tool Kit Still in the ICU

When last I wrote about the Infill Tool Kit on 13 Feb (click here to read that blog entry), I compared it to Rosemary’s Baby (of film fame) which (who?), unfortunately, had been allowed to be born. The Tool Kit is now in ICU as its parents (our municipal fathers and mothers) are fighting to save it and, it seems, successfully so. Part of the medical unit participating in the revival efforts is the Planning Commission that will meet on 16 April (click here to read the material) for a “Public Hearing - to consider amendments to the BMC to adopt an Infill Toolkit consisting of development regulations for selected housing forms.” This benign statement of purpose hides the fact that there are some very real problems with this “problem child” which, if the law is passed, will prove costly in the future.

For those of you who may have missed the “Town Hall” meeting of 16 March on the Tool Kit, you can view a video (click here) of the session on the Bellingham City website. This poorly attended meeting (by the very public it was meant to inform) was yet another part of the steps the city needs to take as it pushes this legislation through the required process. Fortunately, there were some citizens in the audience who actually read thoroughly the Tool Kit and voiced their concerns.

Foremost among the problems with this toolkit is that, in spite of the assurances from the city that it would not apply to single family neighborhoods, it indeed can apply, if someone simply asks that it does. That would kick off a Type VI legislative rezone process (click here to read about the process) to gain approval. (“In single family residential zones, these housing types may be permitted if approved as part of an amendment to this title through a Type VI process.”) This sentence should be removed from this proposed legislation. Our municipal management would have you believe that this relatively benign process is one that is capable of stopping such approvals; however, trusting in such is folly. As the Arabian adage goes, "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." Or, once the monied interests are involved, the pressure to cave to the dollars will overwhelm the process.

I am not categorically opposed to the types of housing in the tool kit. Truth be told, I would prefer to live in a town home myself. Unfortunately, there is not one sentence in the proposed legislation with regard to the manner in which all of this will be enforced, especially several years down the pike (pun intended). We already have one overloaded full-time code enforcement officer who did not have time for the additional duties of enforcing complaints on illegal rooming houses. This enforcement task was foisted upon our Litter Control Officer whose job was already in full time mode. Furthermore, these less expensive forms of housing will initially be owner-occupied but, as time goes by, live-in owners move up or out and renters will move in with attendant over-crowding but no effective control. You need go no further than the area of Wildflower Way and Sweetbay Dr. to see such effects in a neighborhood of small homes and small lots where the original owners are mostly gone and the remaining live-in owners are left to contend with the rentals (which are not controlled at all) and the overcrowding with all its disadvantages.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and carriage houses, which, inexplicably, are exempt from the density rules under this Tool Kit, already present a problem in that codes requiring that ADUs must be registered with the city are not now enforced. City staff admits that there are only 71 registered ADUs in the city and even found that a laughable figure during the Town Hall meeting on 16 March. (If you do not believe me, watch the video) This egregious admission of an inability to control ADUs now while at the same time advocating for increased use in the future of ADUs and their more upscale cousin, the carriage house, is mind-boggling doublethink.

We probably would not be having this discussion were in not for the fact that around 50% of our single family housing stock consists of rentals and that we have, if you count those attending the community colleges, well over 10,000 students seeking housing on an annual basis. None of this transience is controlled in any way, shape or form by the city or the university. This situation further distorts the rental market and leads also to an uncontrolled, de facto infill to which the city turns a blind eye while exhorting neighborhoods to come on board with the infill tool kit. Chutzpah incarnate.

Paradoxically, as the city asks the neighborhoods to ”step up to the plate” on the Infill Tool Kit (they had no choice with unplanned infill à la illegal rooming house), the city effectively has abandoned the review of neighborhood plans and the Mayor has moved his Neighborhood Service Coordinator to a waterfront office where she will now spend 50% of her time working on the waterfront’s master plan. The “waterfront” is taking on quasi-ozymandian proportions in a tanking economy. I exhorted the Mayor, in an earlier blog to turn his attention from the waterfront to the neighborhoods. After all, who are the voters who live at the waterfront?

NB: Read more Zonemaven comments on the Tool Kit from November, 2008 by clicking here.

Infill Tool Kit - The Municipal Rosemary's Baby

The Infill Tool Kit final draft was posted yesterday on the City of Bellingham website. (Click here to read the document.) A plan, which should have been recognized as stillborn as it exited from the womb of Planning Academy II, continues to be offered nourishment by a planning department that does not recognize that it is schlepping around a sinister creature. This version of “Rosemary’s Baby” will now be presented to the City Council in a reprise of the 1968 film in which the parents as the main characters (the Council and City Hall), although dimly aware something is amiss, are the only ones who are not alert to the true character of the child (the “kit”/kid).

Finding that the final draft was on the city’s website, I posted the following on NWCitizen yesterday as a comment on an article by Larry Horowitz entitled Infill, Sinfill and Sprawl (click here to read Larry’s posting - worth your time):

“An appropriate column for today as the City of Bellingham has just released its final draft of the infill toolkit, which, we are told by Tim Stewart, will not be applicable to “current” single family zoned areas. One might think that this is an admission of the decades of neglect in enforcing the city’s zoning laws which has turned many neighborhoods into rooming house districts but to date nobody at City Hall would fess up to that being the intent. Perhaps they know that they are virtually incapable or unwilling to effectively enforce certain codes having to do with single family zoning or with the current crop of ADUs for that matter. To wit: There are only slightly more than 60 ADUs registered, as required, in the entire city (Is that not a risible number?), however, you have not seen any push at the Planning Office to register those which surely exist by the hundreds.

The city’s problem now is to sell this toolkit to neighborhoods not yet invaded by clandestine infill in the way of rooming houses. This will be a tough sell in that the citizenry knows full well that the chances of zoning codes being enforced after these infill toolkit thingies are built will be about as non-existent as the code enforcement has been over the last several decades on rentals and ADUs. 'Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.' Shame on the city.”

Zonemaven Meeting with New VP for University Relations

Last Monday I met with Steve Swan, the new Vice-President for University Relations at Western Washington University. The meeting was occasioned by my blog of 2 February (click here to read that entry) in which I gave my impressions of the Citizens’ Forum discussion of growth issues the previous Saturday. I lamented the absence of many council (city and county) members, not to mention members of the various planning commissions. I also noted the absence of anyone from the hierarchy of WWU to include Mr. Swan who just recently assumed his duties.

Mr. Swan immediately contacted me to say that he had had a previous commitment and was not able to attend. He also suggested that we get together soon, a refreshing change from the initial reactions I received following my letter to WWU President Shepard last fall (click here to read that letter). I was mildly optimistic that a conversation with Mr. Swan would be useful and I was not disappointed. I found someone willing to listen.

Our discussion was based mainly on the recommendations I had made to WWU President Shepard in my September letter and on the meeting that I subsequently had with Dr. Eileen Coughlin, Vice-President for Student Affairs and Academic Support Services, and Mr. Ted Pratt, Dean of Students (click here to read a summary of our meeting).

Initially, I reiterated my disappointment with the remarks that Dr. Shepard had made to the Bellingham Herald in an interview last September (click here to read the transcript) and that served as a basis for my letter. With Mr. Swan, I sensed openings in several areas. First, a conversation has begun with respect to the appropriateness of the Campus Community Coalition being subordinated (narrowly so) to the Office of Prevention and Wellness Services. The scope of interest of the Coalition has evolved beyond issues of alcohol consumption. Although that subject should remain one of interest to the Coalition, the greater Bellingham community sees the Coalition in a much broader context of relationships between the campus, the city government and the citizenry. This broader scope may finally be recognized.

Second is the waterfront, a subject that has been a prime concern of the university for many months now. At the same time, I told Mr. Swan that there was no concomitant talk of looking to public-private partnerships to ease a rental situation which forces students into creating illegal rooming houses as a substitute for affordable housing. Further talk of Huxley College at the waterfront suggested an increase in 500 students, which, according to Mr. Swan, is no longer the case. He stated that Huxley cannot absorb 500 more students. Nonetheless, I opined that there was still a serious problem in that each year over 8,000 students seek housing and that attempts to engage the university administration about the deleterious effect of this onslaught on the rental market have not met with much success. For its part, the city does not appear to have engaged the university on the issue of affordable housing being overrun by students and, as I have stated many times in this blog, have used the neighborhoods as sponges to take up the slack, even though that means turning a blind eye to its own zoning codes.

Third, there have been suggestions by some, including me, that the student code be amended to include sanctions for off-campus transgressions such as is the case at Washington State University in Pullman. Although Mr. Swan did not believe that this was necessary at WWU, I pursued the subject by noting that, although the university may think that off-campus behaviors ought to be controlled by the city government, there are not enough assets within the police department or other government offices to monitor, control or otherwise regulate thousands of students. Since local citizens often find that the city government cannot always respond to complaints, there ought to be a conduit for submitting complaints directly to the university. I suggested the office of University Judicial Affairs (Click here to see that website) be designated as the office to which local citizens could direct letters pertaining to student behavior which reflects badly upon the institution. This will also serve as a barometer within the university to track student behavior and to call repetitive complaints to the attention of the students involved.

We also spoke briefly about the advertizing of rentals at the Viking Student Union and in the Western Front which violate the Bellingham Municipal Code. I told Mr. Swan that the VU had already taken some actions on limiting this sort of advertizing (Click here and here to read my blog entries) but that I had heard nothing from the Western Front. We agreed that the university ought not be in a position of allowing such advertisements. This sends the wrong message from an institution which should be promoting honesty and integrity. I told Mr. Swan that, since I was already working with Mr. Ted Pratt, Dean of Students, and Mr. Jim Schuster, Director of the Viking Union, on the subject, I would keep him informed.

I also recommended to Mr. Swan that his office reach out to the Bellingham City Council which had expressed last August in a motion by Council Member Jack Weiss its desire to begin a dialogue with the new WWU administration. (Click here to read my blog on that topic) To date, the council has not indicated that a new outreach had been initiated from its offices.

My thanks again to Mr. Swan for his time. I am looking forward to further exchanges with him on the topics above.

Let This Be Our Teachable Moment

Yesterday, 4 February, a fire caused considerable damage to an apartment just blocks from Western Washington University. You can read the short article on this as it appeared in the Herald by clicking here. Nobody was hurt in yesterday’s blaze but the results could have easily been otherwise. (Click here to read my blog entry on an incident with quite a different outcome.)

Several months ago, I posted here a blog entry by a blogger in Lexington, Kentucky who also writes about illegal rooming houses in his town, which is home to the University of Kentucky. I am repeating here, in part, what he had to say (you can read his full blog entry by clicking here).

“But health and safety? That ought to be keeping people up at night, because God forbid it should ever happen here, but the internet is full of stories about rat traps and hell holes masquerading as rooming houses, boarding houses, lodging houses, apartment houses—call them what you want—burning to the ground and taking some poor unfortunate along for the ride.

And all too often, that’s when the teachable moment arrives. Only after such a tragedy shakes public officials from whatever stupor it is that immobilizes them, that insulates them, that locks their common sense tight in a box and keeps it from intruding on the business of the day, do they see what needs to be done and act accordingly. Apparently it’s human nature.

We’ve been lucky to have avoided this type of tragedy in Lexington, but make no mistake about it—it’s nothing more than dumb luck standing between where we are now and where we hope to never be. For years and years, we’ve debated about what has come to be called the student housing problem, more properly called the illegal lodging house problem, and we’ve come up empty. No concrete action. And in the absence of meaningful change, the problem has gotten worse. Entropy has a way of doing that, especially when it’s fueled by greed.”

I understand that the Bellingham City Council may soon (finally?) consider a landlord licensing ordinance (a subject last brought up in August 2008) which will affect the thousands of single family home rentals in this city that have never undergone the slightest control or inspection. These are the accidents waiting to happen. Not only will this be a first step in protecting the thousands of students who rent homes throughout the city, but it will also protect thousands of families whose only choice is to rent a home and thereby place themselves at the mercy of a landlord who now operates with impunity.

So, I call on the members of the City Council and the Mayor to ensure that this fire yesterday becomes our teachable moment and that they not be swayed by the weeping and gnashing of teeth which is surely to emerge from the landlords who will cry their nonsensical gloom and doom, financial disaster and property rights violation. Enough is enough. It is time to end the landlords’ tyranny over the system and avoid the ultimate teachable moment.

Zonemaven Reflects on Citizens' Forum Discussion

Last Saturday about 40 citizens met to discuss growth issues for Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham. (Click here to read my original blog entry announcing this event) This blog entry is not designed to be a summary of the give and take but to provide some comments on several aspects of the discussion which easily filled the allotted two hours. I will leave it to others to summarize the overall points of view and will post links to those summaries as they become available. Nonetheless, I found the session very informative and free-flowing especially without an official entity, seated on high, as if in judgment.

Only two members of the Bellingham City Council attended. Nobody came from the present Whatcom County Council but there may have been one from the County Planning Commission. Not a soul came from the Bellingham Planning Commission. I know these folks are busy, however, had I been in their shoes, I would have wanted to hear directly from the citizens. But that is the view from my angle. The Herald was also noticeable in its non-attendance. I will resist the urge to further characterize these absences. [I do note that certain “experts” (government and private sector planners) will offer a teaching experience to Whatcom County residents on Tuesday, 3 February in the afternoon (click here to see the Herald piece on this “short course”). Healthy doses of skepticism should be ingested prior to this event.]

I also noticed the dearth of any people from the administration of Western Washington University at our Saturday gathering. Dan Warner, a professor at WWU, made a presentation, however, he was not there to represent the university but came as a member of Futurewise. I had sent notification emails to all the senior staff and management of WWU prior to the event. I included the new Vice-President for University Relations, Steve Swan, in my notification email but, if he attended, he did so clandestinely. In my view, this is yet another instance which typifies the university’s absence from the conversation on growth in Bellingham. This is an institution which houses only 3,500 or so of its students and expects the neighborhoods to accommodate the rest – 8,000 or 9,000 give or take a few.

“When the students arrive, who cares where they rent?

That’s not our department, says WWU’s president.”*

The reason for my disappointment is the persitant disengagement of the university from a major quality of life issue for the permanent residents and homeowners of this town and from a situation in which the large numbers of its students distort the rental market rates and make it more and more difficult for a single family to rent a home in this city. I recently gave an example of this in my blog entry of last October 9^th (click here to read the entry) wherein a family was forced out of a rental whose price rose to $2,200 per month and had to move to the county. Five students now rent the place illegally at $550/month each. The three members of the ousted family are now commuters from the county.

This warping of rental rates was also brought up during the meeting by a prominent member of the York Neighborhood, which has seen its share of illegal rooming houses but which also does more than most neighborhoods to be inclusive of all its residents. This neighborhood may soon be nominated for sainthood as it is considering actually working with the city on higher density infill on its downtown side border. (Click here to read the Herald article on the subject.) As commendable as this is, the neighborhood association ought to demand a quid pro quo from the city by which the city would rid the neighborhood of its plague of illegal rooming houses. In fact, if all the neighborhoods would adopt such a stance, perhaps the city would begin to pay attention to its codes and, by extension, to its neighborhoods.

*Thanks to mathematician and songwriter Tom Lehrer the spirit of whose lyrics I have appropriated here from the song entitled “Wernher von Braun”.

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That’s not my department, says Wernher von Braun.”

Check out the entire lyrics for this by clicking here.