Sightline.org
An Organization fighting for a different cause
I’ve often wondered how affordable housing advocates (like ourselves) and organizations such as Sightline.org can so drastically differ in opinion on solutions for our housing crisis. It dawned on me recently why. We are fighting for two different causes.
What is Sightline's goal?
Sightline is attempting to help build better cities. Cooler housing forms, walkable neighborhoods, less traffic. They are also attempting to build bigger cities, denser cities, more populated cities. All of this requires developers, designers, architects and governments. So with these groups they place their energy. And their lobbying works.
Governments change zoning, and industry gets paid.
What's the Beef? Manipulation
Do you think Sightline would have gotten as far as they have if they argued that its for bigger cities, denser cities, and more populated cities? Or would governments change their codes and laws if the reason was simply for a new housing type that will only house a new set of residents and put money in the pockets of developers?
They had to find a reason for these changes. Something that would pull at the heart strings of residents and governments alike, thinking they were doing something good. You’ll note that in their writings, topics, agendas and call outs, just often enough, they call out terms like affordability and housing crisis.
This rhetoric is dangerous, though, as City leaders seem to feel that because of quotes like this Parking Minimums will actually have an effect on the Housing Affordability Crisis. Sightline article writers such as Katie Gould will say their writings are factual, and any misunderstanding is the responsibility of the reader. That may be true unless Sightline purposefully and patternistically writes in such a manner as to intentionally create that confusion. Which seems to be the case.
Her ‘article’ on the Old Town development that Mr. Pelton was quoted as discussing above, is sub-titled “Old Town’s first new building project has more than double the number of homes and less parking than the city’s old code would have allowed.” It makes it sound like the building exists and is actually providing those homes doesn’t it? The development only exists on paper.
My son often asks me how something is possible when he is watching a cartoon. Anything can be done on paper I tell him and its true here too.
Housing crisis...enter stage left
-To move forward their agenda of their perfect city, they coopted the housing affordability crisis. ”Every new unit counts”. “Eliminating parking minimums alone is obviously not going to solve the housing crisis. But it does constitute a necessary step in order to get to that end goal.”- City Council Member. You’ve heard these lines spowted by Bellingham Planning Commissioners and City Council members alike for over 5 years, because they’ve been indoctrinated by organizations such as Sightline. The problem is that THE solution never has a chance, because residents and governments think they are doing everything they can. DADU’s in all neighborhoods. Parking minimums. Single Family Zoning. Were never about affordable housing for our most challenged residents, but it’s a good play to get people to do what they want.
Why do I care? Because people are hurting, due to Sightline’s greed for the utopian city. They pull the wool over the eyes of governments and residents. Their talk is crisis. Their walk is ‘build baby build’.
If at the same time, they were solving for the Housing Crisis mentioned in bold above by a City Council member, and didn’t use Affordability for our at risk residents as a ploy, we wouldn’t have a problem with it. Everyone wins. Housing for everyone.
But that’s not happening. The Housing Affordability Crisis is used to allow for change to help the wealthy, and that’s wrong. Especially when its done by those who stand on a platform of Progressivism.
So What Do We Do?
First, we let Sightline, and other organizations such as the Whatcom Builders (Housing?) Alliance do their thing, but we must recognize what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Then we actually make progress on true affordability for those in need.
Personally, I like the 80-20 rule. Get 80% done with 20% effort. Or aka. get the low hanging fruit first. As stated on the main page, there are two projects that are just begging to be done that will move the needle forward. First is an Affordability Inclusionary Zoning study. Yes, it may not be time to implement, but when the time is right, Bellingham must be ready. Second, is to take advantage of every opportunity that currently is one sided to the developer, and make it balanced for the developer and residents. The most up to date example is the parking minimum ordinance. As written, developers get to make more… on more units, and spend less on parking; both creating higher profits. Some of that newly minted money created by the Mayor and the City Council should go toward permanently affordable housing.
Once you’ve see it, you’ll never hear the speeches, see the articles, and projects from Sightline and Whatcom Housing Alliance the same way again. We can finally get down to solving Bellingham’s most challenging problem.