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.


Something Gristly to Chew On: The rest of the story -

Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 11:01 am  //  Tip Johnson

It's just how things roll in Whatcom County

3 comments; last on Oct 25, 2014

Point Roberts vs. the FCC:  Modern David and Goliath

Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 2:44 pm  //  John Lesow

Update Oct 22: John Lesow has posted a comment with considerable more information on this issue.

1 comments; last on Oct 22, 2014

Johns Repair

Specializing in German vehicles...

Tune in TONIGHT for Political Comedy

Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 6:36 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley does a local political comedy show

1 comments; last on Oct 15, 2014

Bham Planning Director - Rick Sepler Chosen

Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 6:24 pm  //  John Servais

Three final candidates for Bellingham Planning Director spoke today at a cozy 'meet and greet' of government employees and developers.

6 comments; last on Oct 11, 2014

The Business of Government

Sat, Oct 04, 2014, 12:23 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein we see that sometimes government can do what business can't.

9 comments; last on Oct 07, 2014

Rental Conditions -  A Real Estate Inspector’s View

Fri, Oct 03, 2014, 10:26 am  //  Dick Conoboy

An experienced real estate inspector provides a window to the dangeroous conditions found in rentals in Bellingham

3 comments; last on Oct 05, 2014

Few Surprises at the Tea Party Debate

Thu, Oct 02, 2014, 2:33 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley files a full report of the Tea Party debate for State Leg candidates

1 comments; last on Oct 04, 2014

Satpal Sidhu, Candidate for State Representative, 42nd District

Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 8:00 am  //  Guest writer

Wherein a Fulbright scholar, professional engineer and successful business owner files for public office

4 comments; last on Oct 02, 2014

Hickory, Dickory, Docketing…Yet Another Spot Rezone

Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 5:07 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Last Thursday, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the docketing of the spot rezone of 801 Samish from Residential Single to Commerical Planned (non-retail)

6 comments; last on Oct 03, 2014

Samish Way Experience - Drug Dealing Dangers?

Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 10:26 am  //  John Servais

We post a disturbing report of a personal encounter along Samish Way, with the permission of John Stark, who experienced it.

2 comments; last on Sep 17, 2014

Who Will Be Appointed to Lehman’s City Council Seat?

Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 8:21 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley and John share the short list of who might replace Cathy Lehman on the Bellingham city council on January 5.

8 comments; last on Sep 10, 2014

An Imminent Threat:  The State Plans for CBR Disaster While Counties Punt

Mon, Aug 25, 2014, 11:48 am  //  Terry Wechsler

While the state spends hundreds of thousands of dollars defining risks of crude by rail, Skagit County finds no significant adverse impacts of a crude-by-rail proposal.

1 comments; last on Aug 28, 2014

You can’t fight city hall: city hall doesn’t fight fair

Fri, Aug 22, 2014, 2:06 pm  //  Guest writer

Patrick McKee of the Sunnyland Neighborhood guest-writes about the August 11 City Council slap-dash zoning changes.

2 comments; last on Aug 23, 2014

Good Friends and Neighbors:  What $54 Million Doesn’t Buy, Part 2

Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:54 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Not content with causing massive inconvenience, BNSF is now literally dumping on county residents.

10 comments; last on Aug 26, 2014

Devil In the Details

Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 3:48 pm  //  Guest writer

Judith Green of the Sunnyland Neighborhood guest writes this brief summary of what went wrong with the planning last week.

1 comments; last on Aug 22, 2014

Good Friends and Neighbors:  What $54 Million Doesn’t Buy

Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 7:12 am  //  Terry Wechsler

A massive upgrade of the Cascade [rail] Corridor has left residents stranded and the sheriff asking Washington, DC, to intervene.

7 comments; last on Sep 02, 2014

Reliable Prosperity

Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 3:13 pm  //  Guest writer

Sandy Robson guest writes of the need for real prosperity at Cherry Point, not a destructive short term coal port that destroys the fishing grounds.

5 comments; last on Oct 02, 2014

Fleetwood versus Ericksen: What Happened in Round One?

Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 10:52 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Some Context for the Primary Results

0 comments

The Rule of Law - Bellingham Style

Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:31 pm  //  John Servais

Bellingham City Council abruptly changes zoning codes to force Planning Department plan on Sunnyland residents.

7 comments; last on Aug 14, 2014

Final Updated Election Results

Fri, Aug 08, 2014, 10:10 am  //  John Servais

Updated Wed evening. The Tuesday evening 8:20 pm Auditor report on the election is in.

5 comments; last on Aug 08, 2014

Councilmember Murphy’s Proposed Rental Ordinance Is Deeply Flawed

Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 8:00 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Councilmember Murphy's proposal is based on a complaint-based rental ordinance from Tacoma, demonstrated to do little for the health and safety of tenants.

14 comments; last on Oct 01, 2014

Trial by Fire:  A Rising Tide of Civil Disobedience

Fri, Aug 01, 2014, 4:47 am  //  Terry Wechsler

Carefully planned actions are rolling across the state to make the point that it's not OK to expose us to risks associated with CBR.

7 comments; last on Aug 04, 2014

Northwest Citizen Releases Polling of Whatcom Voters

Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 11:40 am  //  Riley Sweeney

Northwest Citizen has conducted a phone poll of likely voters, with some surprising results!

9 comments; last on Jul 29, 2014

Plan Commission & Samish Neighbors Bypassed on Rezone Docketing

Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 7:52 am  //  Dick Conoboy

In contravention of the Bellingham Municipal Code, the City Council will consider on 4 August a last minute docketing request that ignores the Planning Commission and Samish Neighborhood.

1 comments; last on Jul 30, 2014

Sunnyland Planning Process Explained - Partially

Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 10:47 pm  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Mike Rostron explains how Bellingham city planners played loose and illegal with planning processes.

0 comments

City Council Approves Resident’s Sunnyland Plan

Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 7:22 pm  //  John Servais

Sunnlyland residents win one - after a seven year effort. Planning Department failed them and all of us.

2 comments; last on Jul 23, 2014

What Landlords Need to Know about Rental Registration

Mon, Jul 21, 2014, 5:30 am  //  Guest writer

Landlords are so caught up opposing a licensing and inspection ordinance, they cannot see the upside for them in ridding the city of bad rentals.

19 comments; last on Aug 01, 2014

Sunnyland Deja Vu

Fri, Jul 18, 2014, 1:24 pm  //  Guest writer

Judith Green explains how the Bellingham Planning Department is trying to cram their plan onto a neighborhood.

5 comments; last on Jul 21, 2014

Trial by Fire:  Call to Action to Comment on the BP Pier Expansion

Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 2:26 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Years after BP completed its north dock, the Army Corps of Engineers released a draft EIS and it's really really stupid.

0 comments

Intrado Not to Intrude in Bellingham

Tue, Jul 08, 2014, 8:20 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The city council "persuades" the city administration to withdraw a request for an intrusive police threat warning system

2 comments; last on Jul 08, 2014

Power to the Permit! (or Closely Hold This!)

Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 6:54 am  //  Terry Wechsler

It is time we stop allowing corporations to externalize the costs associated with their risky business practices, and demand more from our regulators who hold the keys to…

3 comments; last on Jul 13, 2014

Manifest Clandestine-y

Mon, Jul 07, 2014, 5:04 am  //  Guest writer

Guest writer Sandy Robson breaks the story of officials from Washington treated to a coal-promoting junket to Wyoming.

2 comments; last on Jul 13, 2014

A Question of Freedom

Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 5:00 am  //  Guest writer

Ferndale's most famous landmark is frequently commented on and is often in the news. Here is their side of the story.

4 comments; last on Jul 07, 2014

Trial by Fire: Lessons Not Learned One Year after Lac-Megantic

Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 5:14 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

On the anniversary of the Lac-Megantic disaster, communities throughout North America rally in solidarity to remember and protest wholly inadequate government response to crude-by-rail's risks.

4 comments; last on Jul 12, 2014

Sins of Omission

Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 9:01 pm  //  Guest writer

In the Weekly, Tim Johnson left out three words in quoting Craig Cole - and his story misleads readers. Guest article by Sandy Robson.

11 comments; last on Jul 01, 2014

DOJ Grant Brings Confusion and Anger to City Council Meeting

Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 10:24 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The Bellingham Police Department wants to purchase "threat assessment" software with federal monies. Citizen comments were vehement and negative. City Council confused.

5 comments; last on Jul 03, 2014

Widespread Slaughter Won’t Work

Tue, Jun 17, 2014, 10:18 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the failings of a bad policy framework are revealed

1 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

Fireworks Ban in Bellingham in Effect as of 18 June

Tue, Jun 17, 2014, 7:53 am  //  Dick Conoboy

The possession and use of consumer fireworks are no longer permitted within the city limits.

1 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

Herald and Weekly Withhold the News

Wed, Jun 11, 2014, 11:39 am  //  John Servais

Wyoming Senators and coal honchos were in Whatcom County June 10 - to hold a news conference with select reporters.

7 comments; last on Jun 20, 2014

Dawn Sturwold Retiring End of Month

Tue, Jun 10, 2014, 11:20 am  //  John Servais

Bellingham Hearing Examiner, Dawn Sturwold, retires in three weeks. Successor selection is hidden from all of us.

3 comments; last on Jun 11, 2014

Stay the Frack Out of Our Forearc Redux

Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 2:07 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Part 2: Following Ken Oplinger to California, and Home Again

4 comments; last on Jun 19, 2014

The Road to Perdition

Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 12:39 am  //  Guest writer

A Venn diagram where coal, the Endangered Species Act, Republicans, and Wyoming’s Board of Education collide.

2 comments; last on Jun 02, 2014

Feint, Calumny, Solidarity

Wed, May 28, 2014, 3:15 pm  //  Guest writer

A perspective by guest writer Ellen Murphy reflects on the Whatcom Watch and the threatened law suit by Craig Cole.

22 comments; last on Jun 01, 2014

Extracting Profit and Destroying Experience: The Waterfront Plan

Tue, May 27, 2014, 1:23 am  //  Wendy Harris

Why was so little consideration given to the concept of developing the waterfront for eco-tourism?

5 comments; last on Jun 11, 2014

How Park Improvements Generate Heat

Mon, May 26, 2014, 7:51 pm  //  Wendy Harris

City park improvements have implications on the local and global scale.

2 comments; last on May 29, 2014

Montana & Wyoming to WA: Permit Coal Export Terminals… Or Else

Thu, May 22, 2014, 12:10 am  //  Guest writer

Wyoming is ready to try and legally force us to limit our environmental scoping for the Cherry Point coal terminal

4 comments; last on Jun 17, 2014

The Trojan Slaughterhouse and the Scrivener’s Errors

Sun, May 18, 2014, 11:57 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Reckless rezones and far-fetched explanations result in more slaughterhouses and meat packing plants

3 comments; last on May 20, 2014

Who Filed for Charter Review Commission?

Sat, May 17, 2014, 2:34 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

Riley takes a closer look at the Charter Review Commission candidates

2 comments; last on May 21, 2014

Bellingham’s 2013 Water Quality Report: The Facts But Not the Truth

Tue, May 13, 2014, 5:04 pm  //  Wendy Harris

Bellingham's annual water quality report indicates that city hall's propoganda machine is going strong

1 comments; last on May 14, 2014

Stay the Frack Out of Our Forearc

Sun, May 11, 2014, 2:20 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

Part 1: Introduction to the Bellingham Basin’s Potential for Fracking, Earthquakes, and Earthquakes Due to Fracking

3 comments; last on May 14, 2014

Riley scoops Herald - again

Fri, May 09, 2014, 10:02 am  //  John Servais

The Political Junkie for Whatcom County - that would be Riley Sweeney - has Overstreet not running for reelection in the 42nd.

1 comments; last on May 13, 2014

An Imminent Threat

Fri, May 09, 2014, 6:10 am  //  Terry Wechsler

Why Washington must step in and assume lead agency status in Skagit County for the Shell crude by rail proposal.

6 comments; last on Jun 21, 2014

The Whatcom Republicans’ Huge PCO Advantage

Tue, May 06, 2014, 5:52 pm  //  Riley Sweeney

The value of a Precinct Committee Officer . . .

1 comments; last on May 07, 2014

‘Legislative Sausage” or “Slaughter this Ordinance”

Mon, May 05, 2014, 3:34 pm  //  Tip Johnson

Wherein the gyrations of the bid for widespread county slaughter are exposed.

2 comments; last on May 07, 2014

Move To Amend - Persons vs Corporations

Thu, May 01, 2014, 10:21 pm  //  Guest writer

Move to Amend is a national movement to amend the U.S. Constitution and define persons as people and speech as not money.

7 comments; last on Jun 02, 2014

SweenyPolitics:  Fleetwood files against Ericksen

Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 8:20 am  //  John Servais

Riley posted this morning that Seth Fleetwood has decided to challenge Doug Ericksen for state senate in the 42nd District.

1 comments; last on Apr 30, 2014

Planning or Development Commission?

Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 6:28 am  //  Dick Conoboy

Every Bellingham Planning Commission member has ties to development or development-related businesses.

4 comments; last on Apr 30, 2014

“Friends and Neighbors”?

Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 1:59 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

A closer look at Whatcom County's industrial "stewards of the environment."

4 comments; last on Aug 28, 2014

Action Alert for Tonight: Waterfront Wildlife and Habitat Threatened

Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 11:43 am  //  Wendy Harris

The public needs to support city council and request that a waterfront habitat assessment include terrestrial species and habitat connectivity.

0 comments

Water, Water Everywhere, but ...

Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 2:57 pm  //  Terry Wechsler

or How Not to Plan for Future Generations' Water Needs

12 comments; last on Jun 30, 2014

 

Election Info

Candidate Filings

Primary election results

Whatcom Auditor

Coal, Oil & Trains

Community Wise Bellingham

Powder River Basin R. C.

Local Blogs & News

Bellingham Herald

Bham Herald Politics Blog
Bham Politics & Economics
Cascadia Weekly
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light

Twilight Zoning
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch

Local Causes

Chuckanut Community Forest

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

Governments

Bellingham

Port of Bellingham
Skagit County
US - The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County

Weather & Climate

Cliff Mass Weather Blog

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

Leisure

Adventures NW

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

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, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
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 - economics
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

NwCitizen 1995 - 2007

Early Northwest Citizen

Quiet, Offline or Dead

Bellingham Police Activity

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