Lund’s responsive, innovative Bellingham housing plan deserves full approval

Mayor Kim Lund’s recent executive order to expand housing options meaningfully addresses the key drivers of the housing crisis. It is responsive and innovative, but its most potent actions require council approval. These votes will reignite long-smoldering debates about the merits of higher housing density, colored by nostalgia, environmental concerns and suspicion of profit-seeking housing developers.

Following Monday’s vote to eliminate parking minimums, council should promptly approve the other two interim ordinances Lund proposed: streamline design review and allow “middle housing” citywide (small-scale multifamily housing like four-plexes on formerly single-family lots).

Both of these items are required under state law by mid-2026 anyway. But this is a crisis and accelerating implementation is responsible leadership. It’s better to get it mostly right this year than totally right next year.

Despite the inevitable demise of single-family zoning, councilmembers hear emotional objections to altering “neighborhood character” and concerns about the environmental impacts of new construction. Some equity-minded neighbors insist they don’t oppose more housing, only for-profit development, arguing that increased density and exemption from parking minimums or prolonged design review processes should only be offered in exchange for permanent affordability.

I don’t believe these are bad-faith arguments, but they are counterproductive to the goals and values we share. 

It is admittedly hard to see change in your neighborhood, where cherished memories formed and relationships took root, but it’s even harder to find an affordable place to live in Bellingham. Static neighborhoods belong in the world of HOAs and restrictive covenants. Vibrant cities are inherently dynamic, ever-changing places.

Improving housing access and affordability is reason enough to advance these critical policies. But increased housing density in urban areas is also the most effective local strategy to address global warming. Adding housing in cities limits sprawl, preserving forests and wetlands that absorb carbon — as well as farmland vital to our local food system.

Removing inflexible requirements for a minimum number of parking spots per home allows housing designs that are more adaptable to urban lots and residents’ priorities. More infill housing means shorter commutes, and more mixed-use development allows access to neighborhood shops and restaurants without a car. That’s significant, given that a third of Bellingham’s carbon emissions come from transportation.

Some of my friends see lifting development restrictions for market-rate housing as a giveaway to wealthy interests and a missed opportunity to incentivize the creation of affordable homes. I share their misgivings about a housing market that puts stability out of reach for so many and renders a core human need — shelter — as susceptible to manipulation as other financial instruments. But restricting the construction of new market-rate homes doesn’t generate an equal number of new affordable homes in their place. 

Removing density, parking and design review restrictions makes it easier for nonprofits to develop more homes at a lower per-unit cost on a quicker timeline. But these organizations still lack the staff capacity and public subsidy dollars to meet the overwhelming demand for affordable homes.

The Washington Department of Commerce projects Whatcom County needs 34,000 new homes in the next 20 years. More than 60% of those need to be affordable for residents earning less than 80% of the area median income. Adjusting for Bellingham’s share of the county population, that means building more than 700 new homes every year. For comparison, Bellingham permitted only 422 new homes last year, and 413 so far this year.

Progressive voters like me, aware that a generation of policymakers used “supply-side economics” to justify an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%, are uncomfortable acknowledging that the housing crisis is fundamentally a supply issue. But it is a basic fact that we have artificially restrained the creation of new housing.

Single-family zoning was not always the norm. Such restrictions are only decades — not centuries — old, rooted in classist and racist efforts to segregate neighborhoods and a modernist desire for functional separation. Great cities evolved naturally, with cheap accessible housing giving way to more permanent structures and denser housing, along with integrated amenities like corner shops and restaurants that residents desire. 

We plainly need more market-rate housing — and even so-called luxury housing — because with insufficient supply, wealthy buyers just bid higher for cheaper, smaller houses that otherwise would have been affordable to people less well-off. More market-rate housing alone is not a panacea, but it will blunt rising housing costs and bolster the effectiveness of limited affordable housing subsidies. 

Confronting this crisis requires urgent, multi-pronged action, followed by careful monitoring and amendment as needed. Council should break from its traditionally subdued approach to policymaking and quickly approve Lund’s proposals.

Eamonn Collins teaches chemistry and environmental science at the Lummi Nation School and volunteers as Board Vice President of the Kulshan Community Land Trust. He was recently elected to the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission.