On March 30th, 2025 the Cascadia Daily published an opinion piece by Andrew Reding on housing. At the time Andrew Reding was only a Whatcom County Charter Review Commissioner after several failed attempts at other elected positions. He is now running against an important, experienced and dedicated Bellingham City Council member, Michael Lilliquist of Ward 6.
Andrew Reding is known to weaponize organizations such as the Whatcom Democrats, Whatcom Housing Alliance and the City of Bellingham itself to silence concerned citizens who disagree with his policy ideas. These concerned residents know his ideas are insufficient, overly simple, and have no connection with the problems Bellingham faces in 2025 and beyond.
His entire platform is based on Bellingham housing, as if it was an important subject to him prior to running this current campaign. As the Chair of the Whatcom Democrats, it was not an important topic, while the residents he ostracizes as NIMBY were the Democratsones who introduced resolutions on affordability and homelessness.
A glance at his reasons for being elected are laughable. That our affordability problem is purely because of residents who are homeowners, and their wildly expensive housing.
“When they sell their homes, it is mostly this group [‘older, more politically engaged residents’], not developers, who are realizing huge capital gains”. – Cascadia Daily article
The statement that older, politically engaged homeowners are the “big winners” and the primary cause of the affordable housing crisis distracts from the true causes of unaffordability and thus the creation of real solutions. While long-term homeowner’s assets appreciate on paper, in their lifetimes they often are hurt, and even lose their homes, by an escalating tax burden if the Mayor does not begin to control its budget. In fact these gains are largely a consequence of the housing shortage, not its fundamental cause. This, while developers build and sell quickly for many quick bucks.
Ironically, half of Andrew’s solution to Bellingham Housing Affordability is to build luxury housing. Trickle down economics was proven as a failure in the 1980s, and in a market such as Bellingham’s with an increasing rise in new well off residents, would be even more catastrophic.
Here’s why new construction benefits everyone. “Can luxury housing do anything for homelessness?” -Andrew Reding website
The other portions of his campaign sound good but are impossible, are already being implemented by the incumbent, or barely would make a tiny dent in the affordability crisis our Workforce faces.
Based on his endorsees, it seems as though his campaign is backed by developers instead of the people of Bellingham. In fact, he failed to obtain the endorsement of the very Whatcom Democrat organization he weaponized for many years, nor the other two regional democratic organizations in the area, the 40th and the 42nd districts.
Real Housing Issues
The real drivers of the crisis, particularly for Bellingham’s workforce and younger generations, are more accurately found in the 1) practices of landlords with manipulative rental systems, 2) the strategic decisions (and lobby) of developers, and 3) the significant purchasing power of wealthy newcomers.
The City of Bellingham is not doing enough to create workforce housing, relying on programs that fall short and failing to implement proven strategies.
Let’s break down how these groups actively contribute to the crisis, alongside the gaps in the city’s approach:
1. Landlords and Manipulative Rental Systems: The Immediate Pressure on Renters
The most direct and crushing impact of the housing crisis is felt by renters, who constitute a significant portion of Bellingham’s workforce. Landlords, particularly those operating with a profit-maximization mindset, are at the forefront of this pressure.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/nx-s1-5087586/realpage-rent-lawsuit-doj-real-estate-software-landlords-justice-department-price-fixing
Aggressive Rent Maximization
Unlike homeowners whose gains are realized upon sale (often after death), landlords directly control the monthly cost of living for thousands of residents. In a high-demand, low-supply market like Bellingham, many landlords leverage this imbalance to push rents to the absolute maximum the market will bear, often far exceeding wage growth. This isn’t a “hidden tax”, as was ridiculously discussed in Reding’s Opinion piece, but a very visible and immediate burden on household budgets.
Exploitation of Limited Tenant Protections
In the absence of robust rent stabilization policies or stronger tenant protections (e.g., limits on excessive move-out fees, stricter “no-cause” eviction rules), landlords have significant power. This allows them to quickly raise rents between tenants, or even evict existing tenants to re-list units at significantly higher prices, rather than incentivizing long-term, stable tenancy. Even with new Washington state laws, landlords will still have the upper hand.
Hidden Fees and Barriers to Access
Beyond base rent, many rental systems impose a myriad of non-refundable application fees, excessive pet deposits, and administrative charges that disproportionately burden lower-income applicants and make it harder to secure housing. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bellingham/comments/su5nbe/can_we_talk_about_rent_prices_like_please/
2. Developers: Building for Profit, Not for Affordability
While new construction is essential for increasing supply, the type of housing being built and the motivations behind its development are critical factors. Developers, as businesses, are driven by profit, which often means prioritizing high-end units over genuinely affordable workforce housing.
Focus on Luxury and High-End Markets
Developers are incentivized to build housing that yields the highest return on investment. In a desirable market like Bellingham, this often translates to luxury apartments or large single-family homes that cater to the top tier of earners, rather than the “missing middle” or deeply affordable housing needed by essential workers. This adds supply, but at a price point that does little to alleviate the crisis for the majority. It is well recognized that City created Inclusionary Zoning is required to help developers ‘pencil out’ affordability for our workforce.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Land-Use%20Reforms%20and%20Housing%20Costs.pdf
Land Speculation and Escalating Costs
Developers (and land speculators) often acquire land and hold it, waiting for optimal market conditions to maximize their profit. This speculation drives up land costs, which are then passed on to the final housing price, making any new construction inherently more expensive.
Influence on Policy and Zoning
Developers actively engage in lobbying efforts to influence zoning decisions and permitting processes. While some advocacy can lead to increased density, it often prioritizes projects that align with their profit models, sometimes at the expense of broader community affordability goals or requirements for a significant percentage of affordable units. Due to a lack of experience, developers have said that they don’t know how to build affordable units, although with the help of City based zoning programs, there is no difference.
3. Rich Newcomers: Inflating Demand and Pricing Out Locals
Bellingham’s desirability attracts individuals with significant wealth, often accumulated in higher-cost markets. Their purchasing power creates a demand shock that directly inflates housing costs for everyone earning local wages.
Reding ostracizes Bellingham’s current aging population with an increased tax burden, instead of discussing the true reasons for our affordability crisis. In his opinion piece he deflects responsibility away from landlords and developers. Those who are recognized historically and nationally for having a huge overweighted responsibility for the housing crisis of our workforce. Sadly, this is capitalism and further proof that a City government based program to incentivize land lords and developers is needed.
Disproportionate Purchasing Power
Wealthy newcomers, particularly remote workers or retirees from more expensive regions (like the Seattle area or California), arrive with higher savings, equity from previous home sales, or higher incomes. This allows them to make all-cash offers or bid significantly above asking prices, instantly pricing out local families and individuals who rely on local wages and traditional financing.
Demand-Side Pressure
A sudden influx of high-income buyers and renters into a limited housing market creates intense competition, specifically post Covid work from home patterns, ‘climate refugees’, and baby boomer retirees. When a significant portion of demand comes from those with vastly superior financial resources, it inevitably drives up prices across the board.
Impact on Local Wage Earners
The housing market becomes decoupled from local wages. Essential workers, teachers, healthcare professionals, and service industry employees, whose incomes are tied to the local economy, find themselves unable to afford to live in the city they serve, leading to longer commutes, talent drain, and a less stable workforce for local businesses.
The City’s Insufficient Response: Why Current Efforts Fall Short
The MFTE Program: A Limited Solution with Significant Drawbacks
The Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program, while intended to incentivize development, is not doing enough to create workforce housing. While it has stimulated some housing production (particularly for smaller units), the 12-year affordable housing option has historically gone unused due to feasibility issues for developers under previous income thresholds. While the City Council is taking steps to amend the program the fact that the affordable component has never been used indicates a systemic failure to generate actual affordable units for the workforce.
Furthermore, the MFTE program represents a hidden tax burden on the community. By providing property tax exemptions for developers, it takes away essential services because of the loss of tax revenue and impact fees that would otherwise fund schools, public safety, parks, and other critical city functions. Studies, even in other cities like Seattle, show that these foregone taxes represent millions of dollars in lost revenue, or result in shifted tax burdens onto other property owners. This means the community is subsidizing development that often doesn’t meet the needs of the workforce, without sufficient direct benefit in return.
Absence of a Comprehensive Inclusionary Zoning Program
Although the MFTE program is an Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) tool, ellingham does not have a comprehensive (IZ) program, which is a critical tool for solving workforce housing affordability. Inclusionary zoning mandates or incentivizes developers to set aside a percentage of units in new market-rate developments as affordable for lower and middle-income households.
Without such a program, the city is missing a fundamental mechanism to ensure that new housing contributes to solving, rather than exacerbating, the affordability crisis. As a 2025 analysis noted, the idea of an Inclusionary Zoning study was discussed by the Planning Commission in 2020, but the Mayor confirmed in January 2025 that no such study was planned, and current plans only “monitor” for opportunities, signaling a lack of concrete action. This passive approach means important opportunities to create mixed-income housing directly linked to new development are being missed.
As housing in Bellingham still relies on developers to build, and landlords to rent, non-tax based incentives are paramount to any solution. Reducing parking minimums, is the #1 recognized solution, as is extremely profitable for the developers bottom line, costs the city and residents nothing, thus creating an opportunity for a win-win solution for housing affordability and developers, allowing for the creation of extensive supply.
Andrew Reding as the chair of the Whatcom Democrats advocated a resolution for the wholesale removal of parking minimums without Affordability in return. This gift, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, lost Bellingham an opportunity to put a huge dent in Bellingham’s affordability crisis.
“Affordability for All” via Market Rate Solutions Will Fail:
The notion that “affordability for all” can be achieved solely by utilizing market-rate solutions or simply increasing supply is a well-debunked myth in the context of a true housing crisis, yet Andrew Reding fully supports it.
Market-rate development, left unchecked, will continue to chase the highest profits, which means building for higher-income brackets, or as was advocated by Planning Commissioner Ali Taysi of AVT Consulting, smaller and smaller inhumane units. As a “trickle-down” theory of housing affordability, based on Reagon-omics, market rate solutions rarely work fast enough or comprehensively enough to meet the needs of a diverse workforce, and with Bellingham’s increasing popularity, it is impossible.
It is widely known and accepted among housing economists and urban planners that city support such as comprehensive inclusionary zoning is required to address workforce affordability. https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-2027-consolidated-plan-overview.pdf [page 7]
Without proactive, mandatory measures like inclusionary zoning, the gap between market rents/prices and local wages will continue to widen, making housing increasingly out of reach for the very people who keep Bellingham running.
In summary, the core of Bellingham’s affordable housing crisis for its workforce is not primarily caused by older homeowners benefiting from their equity, but by the active, profit-driven decisions of landlords and developers, compounded by the inflationary impact of wealthy newcomers. Crucially, the city’s current policies, like the underutilized and revenue-draining MFTE program, and the glaring absence of a comprehensive inclusionary zoning strategy, demonstrate a fundamental inadequacy in addressing these root causes and proactively creating the workforce housing Bellingham desperately needs.
