Re: Hearing June ; Growth Projections and Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansion

Transcription

1 June Roger Almskaar Land Use Consultant City of Bellingham Planning Commission 21 0 Lottie St Bellingham WA Re: Hearing June ; Growth Projections and Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansion Dear Commission Members: Please enter these comments and exhibits in the hearing record. I'm a Land Use Consultant, and have been in private practice in Whatcom County since Prior to that, I was a Planner for the county from 1971 to 1981; I drafted the county's first Shoreline Management Program. It was adopted in 1976, and was the county's most controversial issue of that period. Most of my practice now is assisting rural residents who want to short plat their land. These small scale projects have become very costly, controversial and complex in the brave new world of growth management, due in part to overly zealous state, and sometimes local, agency staff. I'm also a member of the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAWC); we have a Government Affairs committee which meets twice a month, mainly just trying to keep up with the ever increasing web of rules on land use generated at all levels of government. In general, I support the clear and well documented statements and positions in the two letters submitted by BIAWC May 5 and June 8 this year. Our members and staff have been engaged in the City's Comp Plan/rule update process since it was started. Speaking for myself, I believe we do have a major affordable housing problem in Bellingham, and the County as a whole. It is a crisis for many lower income people. I'm attaching a figure from the County's March 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D-EIS), which includes all the cities as well. Link to figure (Exhibit 1): Figure 4.7-6, p 4-140, indicates that median county wide housing costs were virtually identical at about $232,800 in the first quarter of 2012 with Snohomish County's. It's true that housing prices, mainly single family (but not average condos), have increased since then, but I doubt if this relationship has changed much. The other side of the housing equation is purchasing power. Its common knowledge that wages in general are much lower in Whatcom than Snohomish County. I'm attaching Table 1, a portion of the current 5 page report, May , on County Employment and Wages in Washington State, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics; link to report: ions/west/news-release/countyemploymentandwages washington.htm WMaplewood, # 104 Bellingham WA 98225

2 R Almskaar Letter, CoB Planning Commission Page 2 June 11, 2015 This Exhibit B includes the top 10 wage counties in the state; Whatcom is 9th (Skagit is not on this list). It shows that the average weekly wage in Whatcom is $782 (x 52 weeks = $40,664), compared to $1019 ($52,988 annual) for Snohomish. This Whatcom wage is $237 or 23% lower than the Snohomish value, a very significant difference. This information is important in that it shows that the cost of housing, relative to income is much higher here than in a somewhat similar nearby county. Moreover, this issue is significantly adverse for lower and middle income households. Rental costs are escalating too due to tight vacancy rates. What can Bellingham do about this? As the BIAWC letters say, make sure that there's enough buildable land available so that the private sector can build a wide variety of housing for all income levels. Builders want to do this, after all it makes good business sense. But the present limited and high priced inventory of finished lots and vacant parcels are the main short term constraint. High impact fees are an issue too. For example, the park fee is about $5000 for a house, whether it's an 800 sf "tiny" house, or a 10,000 sf mansion. It's both a regressive and selective tax, people who buy costly "used" houses don't pay it. There are very serious long term issues too. I have worked with developers trying to find land on which it's feasible to create a variety of building sites and projects. This is a very challenging and frustrating process. Many have given up. There are several negative factors not unique to Bellingham. The main ones are overly restrictive rules and lack of basic infrastructure in residential zoned areas with vacant land. Over regulation is a nationwide issue, with very serious negative effects on many business and citizens. It's more severe in some places than others. Washington is one of the most heavily regulated states. In many cases, critical area buffers on wetlands and streams take too much land out of use--for what the area was zoned for. I agree with protecting high value wetlands (eg marshes, bogs and swamps); but preservation and arbitrarily wide buffers are required on some poorly draining areas for which it's questionable whether they're wetlands or not, without any benefit to the environment. Zoning density standards are often too high, and design standards too inflexible. There are 3 large neighborhoods in the City zoned mainly for half acre lots, which is sprawl to many in an urban or rural area. Both Samish and South Neighborhoods contain ample vacant land. I don't think the private sector can afford to build much housing in South at this low density, while also building all the costly on-site infrastructure, and also paying high impact fees. It's true that not everyone wants or can afford to buy a detached single family home. But many without children or up in years, like me, want to own their home, not rent, without a lawn to mow, and many want a small private outdoor space, not a cramped third story

3 R Almskaar Letter, CoB Planning Commission Page 3 June 11, 2015 deck! I think it's fair to say that most who can afford to buy want more choices in density and design than the "stack em and pack em" mode advocated by the self labelled Smart Growth crowd. Regarding infrastructure, it appears that some do not know nor appreciate that the land developer has to build all the on-site utilities, streets, walkways, drainage, etc. Impact fees for infrastructure are very costly too, usually adding up to over $10,000 per unit, plus several thousand dollars for permits. Those who claim there are major subsidies to developers almost always ignore these facts, and the fact that the developer/builder must add these costs to the house or lot price, or go broke. They also ignore that the home owner will be paying taxes forever, to the tune of several thousand dollars a year. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above and in the BIAWC letters, I ask you to support the Berk "high" population and employment projections. They are with OFM's medium range. It would be folly to use the last few years of abnormal activity to plan for the next 20 years. Also, I support the addition of both the South Yew Street and Caitac areas to the UGA, ie Alternate D. This process is supposed to be long range planning; there are major prices for many to pay by adopting an unrealistic low value. A famous planner once said "Make no small plans"! Thanks for considering my comments. Please let me know if there are questions. Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant cc: BIAWC Attachments: Exhibits A and B

4 A /rn s ka PiV l e tfev WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE EIS AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Figure First Quarter Median Home Prices for Selected Washington Counties, $500,000 $450,000 -> King Statewide Average $400,000 - Snohomish - Whatcom $350,000 - Thurston $300,000 - Skagit - Pierce - Clark $200,000 - Benton $150, Spokane Source: Whatcom Count y Rea l Estate Research Report 2012, BERK, Median home prices have declined across Washington since the housing market crash in In Whatcom County, the median home price has dropped from $289,900 in 2007 to $232,800 in Over the past five years, compared to other counties, Whatcom County median home prices have been relatively high. Currently, median home prices are about the same as Snohomish County and only trail prices in King County. When income levels are factored in, housing affordability in Whatcom County starts to approach levels in King County. The Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report includes a section on Whatcom County Affordability that calculates an affordability index to measure housing affordability among different counties (Crellin, 2012). Trends in the housing affordability index for first time homebuyers, show n in Figure highlight Whatcom County's relatively low housing affordability. The exhibit shows that it has been more challenging to become a first-time homebuyer in W hatcom County than in metropolitan Seattle during the last two years. DRAFT I March 2015,,,,,,

5 County Employment and Wages in Washington - Third Quarter 2014 Western Informati... Page 1of5 J ~ "~ / { / d0 I~ A to Z lnde. I FAQs I ~bout BLS I Contact Us Subscribe to Updates ID Home I Subjects I Data Tools I Publications Economic Releases Western Information Office / U S Follow Us ) I What's New I Relel\Se calendar I Site Map Search BLS.gov I Students I Beta I hbor Sf"'f/&flc,; PRINT: a Search Western Region Western Home I Western Geography I Western Subjects Western Archives Contact Western Geographic Infonnation > ~ > News Release County Employment and Wages in Washington - Third Quarter 2014 News Release Information Employment increased in all 10 of Washington's large counties from September 2013 to September 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. {Large counties are defined as t hose with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2013 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted t hat employment increases ranged from 5.0 percent in Clark County to 1.1 percent in Whatcom County. Nationally, employment advanced 2.0 percent from September 2013 to September 2014 as 306 of the 339 largest U.S. counties gained jobs. Weld, Colo., had the largest percentage increase over the year (8.8 percent). Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment with a loss of 4.0 percent SAN Thursday, May 28, 2015 Contacts Tec hnical information: (415) BLSinfoSF@bls.gov ww'w.bfs.qov/regionslwest Media contact: (415) Among the 10 largest counties in Washington, employment was highest in King County ( 1,252,800) in Sept ember 2014, while Benton County had the smallest employment level (82,700). Together, Washington's large counties accounted for 84.5 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 339 largest counties made up 71.8 percent of total U.S. employment, which stood at million in September PDF ~~ Average weekly wages Increased in all 10 of Washington's largest counties from the third quarter of 2013 to the third quarter of King county had the highest average weekly wage ($1,452) followed by Snohomish County ($1,019). Both counties exceeded the national average weekly wage of $949, which rose 2.9 percent over the year in the third quarter of (See table 1.) Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 29 counties in Washington with employment below 75,000. All of these smaller counties had average weekly wages below the national average in the t hird quarter of (See t2.q!.e.l.) Table 1. Covered employment and w ages in the United States and the 10 largest counties in W ashington, third quarter Employment! - - Average Weekly Wage ill - - Area i- -, United States I!! i Area ~ , I-.,. 1 Percent change, i National ra nking ' Average I National Percent change, : National ranking i September September ' by percent I weekly, ranking by I' third quarter 2013 'I by percent 1 (thousands) W change ill! wage! level ill, -14 W, change ill i o' =r - $ ~ - -2:91 j ;- :_~a sh ing.t~n -~T_::_ 3, 1 ~~-~ ---=- ~21~-- =r:_ ~o87f.--_ 6l ~ 3~, Benton,, 82 _ ~ - 930! 11 0! _ 15! L Wash. ' ~.. _ I Clark, Wash. ~ 43.0 ~- 5.0i---_ 1/ --=._ - ~o i-- ~:-=--- 2 ~! King, Wash. -i 1,252.8: -~ 57j _ 1,452~ - - ~ _ 5.!_. ; i -~~s ap, W~ ---~ _ 3<1 72.i !._3l ~3 ( I Pierce, Wash. I : 86! 010 : 112; 3.01 ~ : Snohomis~ - -;69.9t- 2.2! ,jf--1.o~ ~,-- - -;51- Wash. ~ ;~;:::.!: ~- - 1 :-:-:: ~ --,,t-- ::i- --:r----::::-- - '.{ ~ Whatcom, -- I ~ I!77\ wash. 1 I_ wash. l 119 l 3.1 L i Footnotes: j ill Average weekly wages were calculaled using unrounded data. {! Percent changes were computed from quarterty employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. I Ql Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. i!11 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. I :_ ~ 7~ i 26.'.l_ ~\- j Yaki ma, --r -- -::-::t I 73~ 658 L 331' 3~ 1. _ '.'! - ~ ~ 16 8r -=:: Nole Dala are prel1mm-ary Covered empfuyment and wages includes workers covered by UnemploymenfTriSurance (UI) and UnemploymeritCompensa11on for I,Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. _, :