Is Bellingham Home Fund Deeply Flawed

Permalink +

Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:45 am  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Jack Petree presents why the Bellingham Proposition 1 - the Home Fund - is flawed and should be voted down.  Jack is a long time local political activist and often writes on housing and development issues.  

---------------

The Low-income Housing Levy is an ill-conceived tax increase with the undesirable consequence of bringing more harm to the poor than any other part of our population.

Those who want you to vote to increase your taxes to allegedly “help” the poor are basing their plea on appeals to your emotions.  Paraphrased, they claim, “You are heartless and cruel if you don’t vote for this tax increase.”  Buzzwords are liberally used.  If you don’t vote for this tax you are rejecting “seniors,” “veterans,” “the homeless,” and, worse, “children,” especially “homeless children.”

But if you really want to help the poorest among us, you will vote “No” on Proposition #1.  The proposition will increase the tax load on nearly 1/3 of Bellingham’s homeowners who are also low income, as well as on the 13,000 low income householders who rent and will see the tax applied to their apartments. 

In short, you are being asked to increase the financial burden on about 16,000 low income households in order to provide home fix ups, rental assistance and a few homes for less than 1,300 households.  That means about 12 low income people will have to pay more in taxes for every single low income person helped. 

The unintended harm to the poor was brought about because the so-called “Low Income Housing Levy” was rushed to the ballot prematurely.  As a result:

• The study meant to tell us whether the money is actually needed and where it should actually be spent will not be sent to the council until after you have already voted on Proposition #1.  The proposition was put on the ballot before accurate data was available.

• Proponents provide you with all sorts of pretty charts and promises about where the money will be spent but there is no plan for spending the money. 

According to the city’s ballot language, “Funding priorities would be set forth in an Administrative and Financing Plan adopted by the City Council following recommendations by a citizen advisory committee to the Mayor and Council;” 

• You will not find out how the money will actually be spent until after you have voted.

• Proponents indicate all the money will be spent on affordable housing.  The council was more honest in pointing out $1,260,000 will be spent on administration. That is money to be spent on administering programs already existing and already being administered with existing funds.

• Does a family of four making $54,000 per year really need housing assistance?  That is the HUD baseline for determining eligibility for subsidized housing in Bellingham.

• Perhaps most offensive, inappropriately shifting some tax money away from residents designated as “very low income” and “extremely low income” to citizens with somewhat higher incomes has already been openly discussed before council (the discussion is on video).  The council has been assured there are “strategic ways” to shift federal funds to, in effect, shift spending away from the very poorest among us and allow that money to be spent on less poor citizens.

If you are not yet convinced Proposition #1 is an ill-conceived tax increase, ask yourself these questions:

• Our plan for serving the poor in recent years has included city recommendations that builders be offered opportunities to build more homes per acre in return for commitments to build affordable housing.  In recent years, hundreds of “free” (homes built at developer expense without the need for a tax increase) affordable homes have been offered, only to be rejected by the city.  Why?

• Draft proposals for spending the new tax money target areas where the city’s own studies demonstrate housing cannot be built affordably.  That means we are really planning to spend the money to further city planning policy at the expense of the poor.  Why?

You cannot make housing more affordable by making it more expensive.  Homelessness is emotional for all.  However, appeals to emotion cannot help when government has already begun to “strategize” inappropriate funding shifts away from the most needy.  $21 million in new taxes will inequitably raise rents on low income wage earners and stifle job growth.  Those most in need must be helped, but we need an effective spending plan before we write a blank check.

-----------------

Publisher note:  I would like to post a guest article from an advocate for the Home Fund, but they must address the issues raised by Jack.  

Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 6:48 pm

Jack Petree’s article is disingenuous.  Jack acts as if he cares about the level of property taxes paid by “the poorest among us.”  In reality, the property taxes paid by the poorest among us (and everyone else) are already inflated because every Bellingham property owner is already paying higher taxes to subsidize developers and homebuilders.
 
How is that so?  Because impact fees that are authorized under RCW 82.02.050 and intended to require “new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development” are TOO LOW. 

For example, the Bellingham Park Impact Fee (PIF) collects only 35% of the cost associated with growth; taxpayers, including the poorest among us, pay the bulk of the remaining 65%.  School impact fees and transportation impact fees are designed to collect around half of the total cost, leaving existing property owners paying the balance.

In addition, under RCW 82.02.0690, the state legislature only allows counties, cities and towns to collect impact fees for “public streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities, school facilities, and fire protection facilities.”  Municipalities cannot collect impact fees for libraries, police protection facilities, jails, prisons, government buildings, museums, or any other public facility.  In other words, the development community receives a 100% subsidiary for each of these capital expenditures. 

And that’s just Bellingham.  Whatcom County, being out of compliance with the GMA, cannot collect any impact fees, so county taxpayers, including the poorest Bellingham homeowners – who also pay county taxes, subsidize 100% of all growth in the county.

If Jack Petree (and his ilk) were so concerned about the finances of the poorest among us, he would be fighting like hell to increase impact fees so that property taxes would not be inflated to subsidize those who profit from growth.

Does all this mean I support the Low-income Housing Levy?  If the decision were up to me, before I would support this levy, I would raise impact fees to the point where they accomplished the intent of the state legislature.  That is, I would first make sure that new growth and development paid the full proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development. It has been estimated that Bellingham taxpayers are currently subsidizing each single family house by as much as $19,000 and each multi-family unit by as much as $11,000, an average of $15,000.  And that only considers the subsidies for roads, parks, schools and fire protection equipment.  Considering the future costs associated with a new jail and other facilities for which impact fees cannot be collected, the subsidy is much, much larger.

The most recent Bellingham comprehensive plan projected population growth of more 31,601 over the 20-year planning period.  Growth has slowed substantially since then.  The next 20-year projection may come in at less than half that; let’s say 15,000, or 750 people per year.  Assuming 2 people per home, that would require 375 units per year.  At an average subsidy of $15,000 per unit, taxpayers are paying $5.6 MILLION more in taxes than they would be if growth paid its own way. 

I repeat, if impact fees covered the true costs of expanding the transportation, park, school, and fire protection systems, as needed to accommodate growth, then Bellingham property taxes could be reduced by $5.6 MILLION per year.  And that’s based on less than 50% of the growth projected in 2006.  If the growth projection remains the same, the tax subsidy could be almost $12 MILLION per year.

What if we actually raised impact fees and used a portion of the tax savings to help those in our community who have lived here for awhile but have not been able to afford decent housing? 

Would I support that?  Yes, I would.

Would you?


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 7:10 pm

The reference in paragraph four of my previous comment should read RCW 82.02.090(7) rather than 82.02.0690.


John Servais  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 9:59 pm

Well, as I asked Jack to allow me to post his article, then I must be of Jack’s “ilk” also.  Really?  Jack presents some arguments and I see no reason to personally insult him.

To the question of whether or not you, Larry, support the election issue levy, you are unable to answer your own question.  Any of us can construct a fantasy world and say then we would support something.  But the question is - given the reality of the world - do you support the levy?  Do you?  You asked the question, so we do deserve an answer.  And please justify the answer in one comprehensible paragraph.


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 10:10 pm

John, in my opinion, Jack Petree is a promoter of growth at any cost who opposes impact fees that would require those who profit from growth to pay the costs of growth.  His ‘ilk’ are others who also promote growth at any cost and oppose adequate impact fees.  If that defines you, so be it.

Based on your comment about me responding “in one comprehensible paragraph,” I gather you do not comprehend my earlier comment.  If so, why don’t you simply ask me to clarify?

To answer your question in a single paragraph: No, I do not support the Low-income housing levy at this time.  It is premature.  By first raising impact fees, the city will have sufficient funds to accomplish all of the objectives of the levy.  If, after raising impact fees, additional funds are needed, then I would likely support a tax-paid housing subsidy.  Currently, because impact fees are too low, we are providing a housing subsidy indiscriminately.  Those who purchase million dollar homes receive the same subsidy as those who purchase $100,000 homes.  That is simply wrong.  Why are we subsidizing the construction, sale and purchase of million dollar homes?  Can you answer that?


John Servais  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 10:30 pm

So, Larry, you are also against the levy.  You have your reasons and Jack has his.  There was no use in asking you to “clarify” as you never stated whether you were for or against the levy. 

You know, you said Jack did not care about the poor and that he was with others of that ilk.  The “ilk’ you wrote of in that sentence was not about impact fees.  A simple parsing of the sentence shows that.  Jack can be anything in your opinion, but the subject here is the Home Fund levy.  My concern - and comment - were about your insult of Jack.  The issues of impact fees, taxes, growth, etc are all legitimate topics. 


Larry Horowitz  //  Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 10:46 pm

John, I disagree with your parsing of my statement.  I wrote:

“If Jack Petree (and his ilk) were so concerned about the finances of the poorest among us, he would be fighting like hell to increase impact fees so that property taxes would not be inflated to subsidize those who profit from growth.”

To say it would be a gigantic leap to interpret my comment as stating that Petree does not care about the poor would be an understatement.  Petree emphasizes the impact of the proposed levy on the property taxes paid by the poorest among us.  If he really is so concerned about the property taxes paid by the poor, then he would do everything he could to make sure the poor were not paying property taxes to subsidize those who profit from growth.  Why hasn’t Petree expressed his concern about property taxes paid by the poor before?  Why has Petree shown no concern about the tax subsidy the poor pay to subsidize the construction of million dollar homes?

I don’t believe it’s because Jack doesn’t care about the poor.  In fact, I’m sure he does.  Instead, I believe he cares more about making sure his developer clients continue to receive their growth subsidy and keep impact fees artificially low.  That being said, he has every opportunity to prove me wrong by supporting higher impact fees that would reduce the taxes paid by the poor.


Jack Petree  //  Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 7:05 am

I won’t point out Larry’s many errors except to say I do not believe I have ever opposed impact fees though, I have opposed fee levels that can be demonstrated to be excessive.

But the column is about the Prop. 1 levy and I have a couple of interesting personal things to say that may illuminate the discussion.

I am a senior (67) and a Veteran (Viet Nam) and I live in an old (75 years plus) house my wife and I purchased when she was preggers with our first child.  I am well below median income but, probably, just a bit above the formally designated low income level.  We’ve got 30 year old carpet on the floor because it costs too much to put down new…  kinda average.

It takes an entire social security check plus a part of another to pay the property taxes on our home each year. 

Property taxes have risen to be so high, in fact, that my ten year total for property taxes exceeds what we paid for the home.

Maybe I’m being a little selfish but, as a senior and a veteran, both groups the proponents of the tax say they want to help, I ask that you please stop trying to help me… I can’t afford your help anymore and that goes to the point of the column.  The tax and fee increases we are seeing now have a serious, and negative, impact on those of us in the below median wage segment of society.

It ta


Larry Horowitz  //  Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 9:01 am

Yes, the column is about the Prop 1 levy, a tax designed to subsidize low income housing.  We can continue to wallow in that vacuum, or we can focus our energies on the problem holistically.

The fact is: those who profit from growth are already being subsidized.  Instead of our tax dollars being used to effectively subsidize low income housing, they are used to subsidize every unit of new construction indiscriminately, including the most expensive million dollar houses and condos.  Rather than subsidizing EVERY unit - by collecting impact fees that recover less than 50% of the true costs - why not collect impact fees that cover the full proportionate share of these costs and laser-focus a portion of the additional revenue to really help those who need it?  Those who have lived in our community for a long time but, for one reason or another, cannot afford decent housing.

Collecting impact fees that cover the true costs of growth for roads, parks, schools and fire protection facilities would reduce Jack Petree’s tax burden – and yours – and provide the revenue needed to accomplish the goals of the Prop 1 levy without the burden of approving a new levy.

(And, Jack, while I feel for your situation, the fact that my property taxes are almost $3800 a year more than yours, the pain over here is really intense.)


Tip Johnson  //  Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 12:58 pm

Though I usually disagree with Jack, in this case I agree with his conclusion, if not his entire argument. 

First off - mostly disagreeing with Jack doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate him.  I do.  I appreciate Jack because he isn’t afraid to put his opinions down in writing, and put his name to them.  That’s what we are all about here at NWCitizen.  The fact that Jack sometimes gets paid for his work doesn’t particularly bother me either.  That’s just the difference between Jack’s folks and mine. The folks supporting issues I champion won’t squeeze off a nickel for a cause unless it is going to improve their backyard. I have forty years of public interest advocacy and nothing to show for it except for several impressive community achievements and the impossibility of getting offered a decent job in my own town.  At least Jack can get work. He’s obviously smarter than I am.

Beware of institutionalizing anything.  Institutions always serve themselves before their ostensible purpose.  Conjoining institutionalized aims and taxes usually results in the ratebase getting milked like a bunch of cows.  As for the poor, there are ways to really help them without stuffing a bunch of bureaucratic shirts. 

Some may recall my initiative for a winter shelter when the old Sears building was lying vacant.  I had to threaten to open the front door of City Hall on cold nights to make it happen, but happen it did.  And it was a disaster.  I won’t go into details, but some kinds of shelter can be a problem.

From that experience, I realized that for the most abjectly poor - typically homeless men with substance abuse or mental health problems - more good could be done for much less by loading 2x4s, plastic sheet and tin stoves into a pickup truck and dumping them at the curb in a few key locations.  Of course, society should do much more and would thereby save many other costs, but we aren’t and won’t so….

Mom’s with kids are a separate issue. For these folk, the best we can now offer are Walmart parking lots and live-in automobiles.  We ought to be ashamed of that.  However, most of these families will not be helped by the types of programs contemplated under the levy.  They lack sufficient income to qualify for equity incubator programs, must often wait for Section 8 housing and often can’t conform with rules and regulations of agencies like the Housing Authority.  Working single moms ought to be the prime focus of any community homelessness initiative, but I doubt the levy will produce much service provision addressing this need.

Finally, there are the wholesome young families, with or without children, who have one or two jobs and are trying to get a start in the housing market.  Or the elders with or without pets who have some guaranteed, if minimal income.  The Housing Authority can handle a lot of these.  Also, there are programs that subsidize home buying and then sharecrop any appreciation.  It works, but is arguably a better deal for the shirts than the clients.

So what can we do that will really help the poor?  It’s based upon supply and demand.  Jack’s right, build enough units and prices will go down.  But following the industry’s market perception, most “affordable units” built aren’t really affordable enough to help the poor.  Builders fear that truly affordable units won’t sell profitably to qualified buyers and that government programs are onerous or will be unreliable.  Neighbors rightly fear that toolkit density giveaways will only line developers pockets at the neighborhood’s expense.

Whole cultures live comfortably in yurts, but yurts do not comply with building codes.  The truth is that we have zoned and regulated affordable housing out of existence. Efforts are underway to extend that even further, by enforcing who can live with whom, in what kind of family, or by imposing measures designed eliminate the most affordable housing stock available through inspection and remediation. I’m not arguing against safe standards, but state law already affords opportunity for tenants and landlords to address those issues.

The single most important thing we could do to improve our stock of affordable housing is to approve liberalized accessory dwelling unit provisions.  This is the best way to meet infill targets, add diversity to the housing stock, help homeowners meet their mortgage obligations, give tenants affordable housing and a chance to save toward a downpayment, keep rental housing well supervised, and add eyes-on-the-street security for everyone.

Give property owners the green light for cottages and cabins that the toolkit gives developers.  This could really help our less fortunate neighbors and costs government and taxpayers nothing. Yet we oppose, ignore, or table it time and again.  If we are serious about sheltering the poor, we don’t need to soak the ratebase.  Just make it legal for homeowners to help.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 6:04 pm

For John and Larry - The word “ilk” is not necessarily pejorative and has a long history:  “When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, “kind or sort,” is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning “of the same place, territorial designation, or name.” This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning “Guthrie of Guthrie.” “Same” is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.”  See + Link Any pejorative inference may be due to the pronunciation of the word - not far from “ick”.  The user of ilk need not necessarily imply a derogatory meaning.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 6:12 pm

For Jack,

I would like to get some source information regarding the figures quoted in your piece” The proposition will increase the tax load on nearly 1/3 of Bellingham’s homeowners who are also low income, as well as on the 13,000 low income householders who rent and will see the tax applied to their apartments.”  What defines “low income” for the purposes stated here?  What is the source of the 13,000 number as applied to renters?  We have over 10,000 student renters whom I would not classify necessarily as being high income residents. So is the 13,000 in addition to the student population?  That would surely change the givens.


Dick Conoboy  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 6:40 pm

For Tip:

You say: “Efforts are underway to extend that even further, by enforcing who can live with whom, in what kind of family, or by imposing measures designed eliminate the most affordable housing stock available through inspection and remediation.”  Just what efforts are you speaking of?  The council has not looked at the issue of the number of people in a rental for years.  Work on ensuring the health and safety of renters regardless of their relationships is long overdue.  Moreover, overcrowding by illegally modifying rental structures has nothing to do with affordable housing.  It is just plain dangerous for a variety of reasons.  As for ADUs, we have been down this path before. If the city were serious about offering this as a workable alternative for increasing affordable housing, it would give guarantees to the citizenry that these places would be habitable and conform to codes.  Instead, the current laws on ADUs are ignored as you are well aware, enforcement being a four letter word in these here parts.  The point was brought home a few years ago by a city staffer who indicated that there were only 71 registered ADUs in all of Bellingham.  This caused a spontaneous burst of laughter among all those in the council chambers that evening.  Need I say more?

Furthermore, Washington state laws on standards for rentals are quite useless as they depend on action by individuals and not the state.  This gives the landlords distinct advantages over tenants whose recourse is most often a legal one that requires attorneys, courts and attendant costs.  Let’s not kid ourselves that such passive statutes are helpful in any meaningful fashion.  One glimmer of possibility is the recent enactment of a state statute that actually speaks to rental inspections but the action is left to the individual cities and there the new law sits while the citizens wait for the next fire (remember the last four in town since 2011?) or some similar disaster to endanger our tenants.


Jack Petree  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 7:33 pm

Dick,

Go to cob.org and then to neighborhood planning then to consolidated plan then to draft for new plan… I know it is a draft and that is one of the problems because the proposition was put on the ballot before the document (new consolidated plan) meant to show need is even done… it will not be done until after the ballot.  Neither will the plan to show how the money will really be spent.

Anyway, go to chapter 2, table 15, page 46 and add up the figures…

Good question… 32% in my mind is “nearly 1/3” and, you can add the renters for yourself…

Thanks for asking,

Jack


Tip Johnson  //  Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 8:41 pm

@DC - I was referring in part to your efforts, but not singling you out.  Many of the sentiments your blog addresses have been recurrent themes in city planning - and not just here - over the more than three decades of my involvement in local government.

We will probably just have to disagree on the utility of the Landlord/Tenants Act. During junior high and high school, I worked for a landlord with usually around twenty rental houses in a university district.  Later I worked for a real estate investor with both residential and commercial rental properties.  I learned that being a landlord isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, that good tenants are hard to find, and that a percentage of tenants will use the law to take advantage of you.  One of the last things I would choose to do is manage rental properties.


Michael Lilliquist  //  Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 11:58 pm

Jack,

Contrary to your assertion, the draft Admin & Financing Plan is available now, a month before the voters will decide. And, no surprise, it is pretty much what has always been intended and spoken of.  Your attempt to raise suspicion and mistrust was uncalled for. You also tried to introduce unjustified doubt in several other ways, none of them particularly helpful. Indeed, doubt seems to be your primary tool for persuasion.

Now, I have some concerns and reservations with the draft A & F plan, and it can be modified and hopefully improved based on input. So let’s get involved in a constructive discussion.


Jack Petree  //  Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 2:57 pm

Michael,

My deadline on the Herald piece was Sept 20.  The DRAFT A&E plan was first seen in a public venue Monday, Oct, 8 when presented to the City Council as a discussion item only.  There has been no public comment nor Council action on that plan.  Ballots go out in one week (ok,one week and one day)  CDAB, a committee no more than a couple of dozen people in the entire have ever even heard of, will get its first shot at the plan tonight after a public hearing on the Consolidated Plan.  Aside from its introduction as a discussion item Monday, the public has yet to see the A & F Plan.

Now, how can a plan be called “available now” when it was just presented to Council 4 days ago and has not undergone either public comment nor Council process?

So far as that goes, the Consolidated Plan is also not completed.  There is a public hearing only a few people have heard about in front of CDAB tonight and then, at some time in the future, David will finish the plan, presumably based on input tonight, and bring it forward to the Council for possible public hearings and Council Action.

 


Hue Beattie  //  Sat, Oct 13, 2012, 5:58 pm

jack is off on his knowledge of CDAB.It has been around for many years and was designed to divy up Federal block grant funds.Many have served on it over the years and I resent your comment.


Rob Stratton  //  Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 9:34 am

We do not need “impact” fees, as a young person growing in Bellingham I had a lot more “services” before impact fees.

Impact fees directly hurt lower middle class and poor people this is basic economics. You make building a house cost more and the price to buy or rent it costs more, that simple.

Why all this demonizing of profit? Profit is what motivates people to provide services at an affordable rate which then raises everyone’s standard of living. I don’t hear anybody using the term “wageateer” as a perjoritive. Many of our politicians make more money off of our taxes than most self owned business struggling to make a living. No body condmening rich sport stars or hollywood actors for their enormous wages.


Homeowner to city: Please buy me out

Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 10:17 am  //  John Servais

Padden Creek daylighting project strays far from city promises to homeowner that his property would remain intact.

3 comments; last on Aug 26, 2015

How Our Community Can Welcome Our Troops Home

Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 5:11 am  //  Guest writer

Traditional communal warrior reintegration practices could help our returning combat veterans.

0 comments


Black Lives Matter, Occupy WS & Whatcom Jail

Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 7:55 pm  //  Whatcom Citizen

A Whatcom Citizen writes of protest movements and how our proposed county mega jail is related to them.

15 comments; last on Sep 04, 2015

$15/hr Minimum Wage - Seriously?

Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 5:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Moves to set the minimum wage to $15, even if successful, are woefully insufficient. And why aren't people speaking out about abusive work scheduling?

1 comments; last on Aug 20, 2015

Local retired librarian injured by police

Tue, Aug 18, 2015, 12:17 am  //  Guest writer

Bruce Radtke, a retired Bellingham librarian, reported to be assaulted by police for handing out leaflets

5 comments; last on Aug 27, 2015

Predictive Policing Comes to Bellingham

Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:39 pm  //  Guest writer

Is the tail wagging the dog? Edward Alexander guest writes on why predictive software for our police needs basic questions answered before purchase.

1 comments; last on Aug 22, 2015

Gunfight at Cornwall Park on Wednesday

Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 11:29 am  //  John Servais

Nothing in the Herald this morning, so NWCitizen is informing citizens of shootout at Cornwall Park.

1 comments; last on Aug 13, 2015

Whatcom Conservation District Elections

Sun, Aug 09, 2015, 11:52 am  //  Guest writer

Barbara Perry has been researching the secretive election processes of the Whatcom Conservation District. Really secretive. Probably fraudulent.

1 comments; last on Aug 12, 2015

Election Results - Aug 4 Primary

Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 8:09 pm  //  John Servais

9:52 - final post for tonight. A running blog about the election results on this August evening. Feel free to comment.

8 comments; last on Aug 06, 2015

The Hansen’s Giant Rental Megaplex - Part 2

Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 10:14 am  //  Dick Conoboy

While the city deals with permitting on the Hansen rental megaplexes, the council has asked for proposals from staff on design standards for historic areas.

9 comments; last on Aug 07, 2015

Whatcom Co.: 90 Million Gallons of Water a Day

Wed, Jul 22, 2015, 12:42 am  //  Guest writer

Eric Hirst provides us all with a well researched report on Whatcom County water issues - rights, Lake Whatcom, ground water and more.

10 comments; last on Aug 12, 2015

Electromagnetic Radiation: Who’s Looking Out for You?

Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 4:13 pm  //  John Lesow

The fight to keep Point Roberts from becoming a Radio Tower Farm is not over.

3 comments; last on Jul 22, 2015

Kudos to Our Police

Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 5:38 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Bellingham police are obviously trained to de-escalate armed confrontations. This is the way it should be.

6 comments; last on Jul 14, 2015

Lois Garlick was our hero

Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 8:27 am  //  John Servais

Lois Garlick has died. For many decades, she and George served as environmental stewards and leaders in preserving wildlife and nature.

2 comments; last on Jul 10, 2015

Whatcom County Council adds ballot measure

Wed, Jul 08, 2015, 9:27 am  //  John Servais

Last minute political maneuvering by liberal council seeks to counter conservative review commission ballot proposals.

1 comments; last on Aug 12, 2015

Charter amendments approved

Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:13 am  //  John Servais

The Charter Review Commission made Monday evening's meeting their last - and forwarded 8 charter amendments to the County Council

3 comments; last on Jul 08, 2015

Family Home For Rent: $44,000/year

Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 5:34 am  //  Dick Conoboy

For Rent: York neighborhood, new, 7 bedroom single-family home, near WWU. Only $44,000 a year. City planning not paying attention.

6 comments; last on Jul 09, 2015

Charter Commission Tricks

Mon, Jul 06, 2015, 4:30 pm  //  John Servais

Two dirty tricks by the uber-conservative minority on the Charter Review Commission aimed to put their agenda before the council.

3 comments; last on Jul 07, 2015

Drought Tree Emergency!

Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 2:55 pm  //  David Camp

Trees are dying for lack of water! Only citizen action can save them.

0 comments

Fireworks and Clay Butler

Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:47 am  //  Dick Conoboy

If your 4th of July holiday is much more quiet this year, you can thank Clay Bulter who passed away at the end of May.

0 comments

A Tale of Three Rezones

Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 5:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Samish Neighborhood Plan has been the subject of three undesired rezones in the last year. The city ignores its own guidelines to the detriment of all.

0 comments

County prosecutor plays cruel games

Thu, Jun 25, 2015, 6:00 pm  //  John Servais

Updated at 6 pm. Our county justice system has spent 6 years trying to teach Luba Pekisheva that she should not defend herself. Justice denied and miscarried.

8 comments; last on Jul 22, 2015

Proposed New County Lockup - Financial Analysis

Mon, Jun 22, 2015, 5:00 pm  //  David Camp

A look at the proposal in historic financial context with projections and several questions for the proponents.

8 comments; last on Jul 10, 2015

Hansen-Iron Street Rental Megaplex Planned for York Neighborhood

Mon, Jun 01, 2015, 3:49 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Three extraordinarily large (7-bedroom) single family home rentals are proposed by developers Dave and Jon Hansen on Iron St. in the York Neighborhood.

7 comments; last on Jun 10, 2015

Chiara D’Angelo comes down from anchor chain

Mon, May 25, 2015, 8:17 pm  //  John Servais

Young Chiara spent 3 nights hanging from the anchor chain of Shell Oil's Arctic Challenger as a protest to arctic oil drilling.

0 comments

Flash Mob Protests Arctic Drilling

Thu, May 21, 2015, 11:50 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein we ponder the fate of humanity

0 comments

Joy Gilfilen Declares for County Executive

Mon, May 18, 2015, 11:17 pm  //  John Servais

Joy Gilfilen is challenging incumbent Jack Louws for County Executive.

4 comments; last on May 20, 2015

85 County Single Candidate Elections

Fri, May 15, 2015, 6:10 pm  //  John Servais

Running update of who is filing for office in Whatcom County. Posts during day Friday and final update Friday evening.

4 comments; last on May 17, 2015

Updated:  Ski to Sea Tries to Bully Bellingham

Wed, May 13, 2015, 5:30 pm  //  John Servais

Updated | Ski to Sea race does not need to race through sensitive Chuckanut Community Forest Park for special mountain bike leg. City did not renege.

10 comments; last on May 15, 2015

County proposes free pass for vacation rentals

Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 2:05 pm  //  Guest writer

Tani Sutley writes a second article on the increasing number of vacation rentals - and the County Council bill to let them expand dramatically.

4 comments; last on May 02, 2015

Student Housing Project Revived for Lincoln St. Development Site

Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 5:03 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Puget Neighborhood is about to become a bit more crowded but less than originally planned. 600+ students to be housed south of Fred Meyer.

6 comments; last on Apr 12, 2015

A Perspective on Port Politics

Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 1:15 pm  //  John Servais

The port's latest bone-headed deal calls for the good citizens of Whatcom County to consider the options...unless we're enjoying our Groundhog Day.

3 comments; last on Apr 07, 2015

Irish Thuggery

Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 8:30 pm  //  Tip Johnson

The difference between a threat and a promise

5 comments; last on Apr 03, 2015

Port Gives Away Our Bellingham Waterfront

Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 12:20 am  //  John Servais

Port of Bellingham today sold out our public waterfront to a foreign shell company formed 6 days ago. Sold it cheap and with a screwy arrangement.

32 comments; last on Apr 05, 2015

The Last Lessons of Dr. David T. Mason

Sat, Mar 21, 2015, 11:16 am  //  Guest writer

Kamalla Kaur worked with David Mason on his biographical materials and offers this tribute to his illustrious life.

2 comments; last on Mar 23, 2015

County Meth Ordinance Sent Back to Committee

Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 5:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Whatcom County Council has sent discussion on changing the meth ordinance back to the Public Works, Health and Safety Committee

0 comments

Robyn du Pre` Has Passed On

Thu, Mar 12, 2015, 1:06 pm  //  John Servais

Add your thoughts and remembrances. Robyn du Pre` was a stalwart and true environmental advocate for Bellingham and Whatcom County. She died this week.

9 comments; last on Mar 23, 2015

How the Party Treats Jeb and Hillary Tells You Everything

Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:39 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley shares some insight into the national political parties

5 comments; last on Mar 09, 2015

Dealing with Meth Contamination - A Race to the Bottom in Whatcom County

Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 6:31 am  //  Dick Conoboy

In a hearing, possibly on 3 March, the Whatcom County Council will consider an ordinance changing the rules for contaminated meth use sites.

1 comments; last on Feb 27, 2015

Rent-to-Own Scam on Tenants

Mon, Feb 09, 2015, 6:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Not all rent-to-own propositions are an unwise method to buy a home but some are schemes to rip off the unsuspecting tenant.

0 comments

The Hidden Election

Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:34 am  //  Guest writer

No ballot mailed to you. You must request a ballot for voting in the Whatcom Conservation District election. Deadline to apply is Feb 9. By Barbara Perry

0 comments

Little Hong Kong by the Bay

Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 10:56 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein Bellingham's billion dollar boondoggle is revisited

5 comments; last on Aug 14, 2015

A Call to Action to Support the Lummi Nation

Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 9:55 am  //  Terry Wechsler

The Lummi requested on Jan. 5, 2015, that the federal government, through the Army Corps of Engineers, honor Art. V of the Treaty of Point Elliott and deny…

1 comments; last on Feb 04, 2015

The Pickett House Museum

Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 12:32 pm  //  Guest writer

Adventures of George Pickett in the Pacific Northwest Wilderness

5 comments; last on Jan 28, 2015

Call to Action—Shell Anacortes Crude by Rail Proposal

Sat, Jan 24, 2015, 3:15 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

The fourth area refinery crude by rail infrastructure project to receive permits without benefit of environmental review is being appealed, and provides an opportunity to make precedent.

0 comments

Riley Sweeney to Receive Paul deArmond Award

Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 12:13 am  //  John Servais

The second annual award for Citizen Journalism will be to The Political Junkie himself who runs the Sweeney Politics blog, Riley Sweeney.

2 comments; last on Jan 24, 2015

The Annexation Games

Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 3:07 am  //  Guest writer

Guest article by Sandra Alfers. Water and sewer connections drive unwanted annexation. Trickle Creek homeowners are muzzled by a "no protest zone."

1 comments; last on Jan 20, 2015

A Walk With Hope

Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 10:14 pm  //  Guest writer

Ellen Murphy gives us a poem for this Martin Luther King day of remembrance.

2 comments; last on Jan 21, 2015

Dead or Alive: How do you like your herring?

Sun, Jan 18, 2015, 9:15 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the ridiculous is ridiculed

5 comments; last on Jan 21, 2015

Lodging Goals for Whatcom County

Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 2:54 pm  //  Guest writer

Tani Sutley guest writes about the vacation rentals situation and presents goals for the county council to consider for improving our rural neighborhoods.

1 comments; last on Jan 10, 2015

Water is Valuable

Wed, Dec 31, 2014, 1:16 am  //  Guest writer

Duuhhh! Try doing without it. Marian Beddill provides an overview of our rural Whatcom County water situation and the efforts to find fair solutions.

3 comments; last on Jan 08, 2015

Riley’s Top 5 Whatcom Political Stories of 2014

Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 1:23 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

The Herald gave us their top 10 stories, Riley gives you his top 5

0 comments

Coal Ship Collisions Study Is Released

Thu, Dec 18, 2014, 5:04 pm  //  John Servais

One part of the environmental study for the proposed Cherry Point mega coal terminal has been completed and released. It deals with ship collisions - they call it…

2 comments; last on Dec 22, 2014

Twas the Week Before Christmas…

Thu, Dec 18, 2014, 12:26 pm  //  John Servais

Bellingham Public Works shows how tone deaf they can be to business concerns. They insisted on street work that takes away up to 80 parking spaces in Fairhaven…

0 comments

Bellingham City Council Approves Rental Inspections

Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:51 pm  //  Dick Conoboy

7-0! City Council Unanimous. Rentals Will Be Inspected in Bellingham. Thanks go to WWU students for speaking out to city council.

5 comments; last on May 02, 2015

Council Moving Rapidly on Rental Registration and Inspections

Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 5:05 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Bellingham City Council has added an inspection component to the registration-only rental ordinance proposal of Councilmember Murphy

4 comments; last on Dec 16, 2014

New Year’s Eve and Consumer Fireworks - Ban in Effect

Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 6:37 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The ban on consumer fireworks that took effect last summer is valid all year, even New Year's Eve

1 comments; last on Dec 11, 2014

Ship Breaks Loose at Port of Bellingham

Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 1:31 pm  //  John Servais

The Horizon Lines ship - the many year resident of the Port of Bellingham - broke loose this morning due to failure of some system. A few photos.

3 comments; last on Dec 10, 2014

Whatcom County and the New Sharing Economy

Tue, Dec 09, 2014, 2:25 am  //  Guest writer

Tani Sutley writes of how unregulated vacation rentals are invading the Lake Whatcom watershed. She urges action before the Planning Commission meeting on 11 December.

4 comments; last on Jan 03, 2015

War and Peace

Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 2:20 pm  //  Richard Lewis

Poet Richard Lewis reflects on Elizabeth Warren

3 comments; last on Dec 07, 2014

 

New Links

Bellingham Wins

Noisy Waters

Election Info

Election Results

WA State Elections
Whatcom County Elections

Coal, Oil & Trains

Coal Stop

Community Wise Bham
Powder River Basin R. C.

Local Blogs & News

Bellingham Herald

Bham Business Journal
Bham Politics & Econ
Cascadia Weekly
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
Noisy Waters
Northern Light
Twilight Zoning
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch

Local Causes

Chuckanut C. Forest

City Club of Bellingham
Conservation NW
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lake Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters
Whatcom Peace & Justice

Governments

- Whatcom County

Bellingham
Port of Bellingham
Skagit County
US House
US Senate
US Supreme Court
US The White House
WA State
WA State Elections
Whatcom COG

NWCitizen 1995-2007

Early Northwest Citizen

Weather & Climate

Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Climate Audit
Nat Hurricane Center
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That?

Leisure

Adventures NW

Bellingham Wins
Edge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Recreation Northwest
Sailing Anarchy

Good Web Sites

Al-Jazeera online

Alaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Change The Mascot
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Crosscut Seattle
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Doonesbury
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
GlobalPost
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project
Irish Times
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Joel Connelly
Juan Cole
Julia Ioffe/New Republic
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Michael Moore
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Stand for the Troops
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Talking Points Memo
TED
The Crisis Papers
The Intercept
the Oatmeal
Tom Paine.com
truthout
Vox
War and Piece
Washington Votes
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com

Quiet, Offline or Dead

Bellingham Register

Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Bob Sanders
Carl Weimer
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizen Ted
Citizens of Bellingham
Cordata & Meridian
David Hackworth
Facebook Port Reform
HamsterTalk
Intrnational Herald Tribune
Jack Petree
MikeatthePort
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Northwest Review
Orcinus
Post-Oklahoman
Protect Bellingham Parks
Sweeney Politics
The American Telegraph
Wally Wonders