Bellingham Housing Crisis: Government Policies Driving Costs Higher
- Brian Gass
- Sep 24
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 24
Why We’re Calling This Out
Bellingham’s housing crisis isn’t just about supply and demand — it’s about government policies that deliberately make homeownership harder. City planners have redefined single-family homes as “exclusionary” and shifted growth from ownership to rentals.
Planners see a high single-family zoned ownership, and they want to VILLANIZE this. Not only is this incompetent thinking in planning, but it also shows their denial of basic economics. The most considerable wealth-creating asset for the middle to lower class is HOME OWNERSHIP. Not only are the planners in Bellingham robbing people of their choice to buy a home, but they are also eliminating the most significant asset opportunity available.
This manufactured scarcity doesn’t just hurt first-time buyers — it also threatens existing homeowners, who need tomorrow’s buyers, and the Bellingham School District, which depends on families moving in.
"Equity" in Planning?
Not only is there a clear bias in the Planning Departments, but they also want to toss in "EQUITY" in their planning. Of course, they don't define "equity" in the documentation or explanations; they are also showing their shortsightedness and bias. I'm sure it's a shock to the planners in Bellingham, but Black and Hispanic homeowners typically derive a higher share of their wealth from owned homes than White and Asian households. (Pew Research, 2023)
Bellingham Housing Costs = Malpractice in Planning
In 2003, Bellingham’s UGA analysis projected more than 2,200 single-family homes would be built. Today, the City still claims 1,700 units of capacity remain, yet only 25% of single-family homes were actually delivered — while 75% of new housing has been rentals. This bait-and-switch means fewer opportunities for first-time buyers, less stability for families, and fewer kids entering the Bellingham School District.
According to the City’s own reports, there should be plenty of land for single-family growth. Instead, planners are using the false appearance of scarcity to push Middle Housing as the “solution.”
Exhibit A: City of Bellingham Calls Single-Family Homes “Exclusionary”
Bellingham housing costs can be traced to the city's attitude towards detached single family homes. At a City planning meeting, staff explicitly declared:“Because most of Bellingham’s 25 neighborhoods are single-family detached homes, and not everyone can afford them, that style of housing is now considered exclusionary.”Instead of asking how to make single-family homes more attainable, the City reframes the very concept as the problem.
Its lost on the Planning Department and the City, that they are the biggest reason for unafforability.
Exhibit B: Neighborhood Plans Erased in the Bellingham Housing Plan
The City is discarding neighborhood plans — the very documents that long guided zoning and growth in our communities.They will be replaced by citywide “implementation plans”
(capital facilities, urban villages, annexations, etc.) that emphasize density and fees — not homeownership.
Don't believe me? Well, just scour the COB's website or "proclamations" for yourself...you will not find any statements that speak of the benefits of owning your own home, or that they are serious about the dramatic increases seen from the deliberate restriction of availability
Exhibit C: Manipulated UGA Capacity and Land Supply
Annexation History: Since 2009, the City annexed over 1,200 acres, but little new housing resulted. (Whatcom County Draft Land Availability Analysis, 2025)
UGA Capacity: City claims ~1,700 units remain. But that number is padded:
Northern Heights was dropped from annexation but still “counted.”
Geneva is almost entirely in the watershed — development there is politically impossible.
South Yew Street was labeled “reserve,” but ~220 acres are already City-owned as Greenways.
Buildable Land Deductions: Wetlands, buffers, and “market factors” wipe out 40–60% of usable land before a permit is even possible. Yet they claim "1600 acres of buildable land", but after their "deductions" it ends up being less than 50% of actual availability.
👉 The City counts land as capacity while simultaneously removing it from housing supply.
Exhibit D: 2003 Projections vs. Reality – Rentals Replace Ownership
In 2003, the City’s UGA report projected ~2,200 single-family homes would be built.
But between 2003–2025, only ~25% of that projection materialized — while 75% of growth went to rentals.
Either the 2003 numbers were misleading from the start, or the City deliberately erased single-family land through acquisitions and restrictions.
Exhibit E: South Yew Street Reserve Area – Already Bought Out
2003–2018 Planning Documents: South Yew described as a reserve annexation area (520 acres, ~400–450 potential homes).-
2009: Removed due to Lake Padden water concerns, capital costs, and rural zoning.
2025: ~220 acres already purchased by the City (Greenways levy), locking it away permanently.
👉 On paper: 400–450 homes.👉 In reality: much of the land has been erased before annexation was ever considered.Capacity on paper. Scarcity in practice.
Exhibit F: Bellingham UGA Timeline – From Promise to Bait-and-Switch
In 2003, the City promised 2,200 units of UGA capacity for single family detached housing.
By 2025, they still claim 1,700 units remain, b
ut if almost nothing was built, what happened to the original promise?
Option 1: The 2003 projections were misleading from the start.
Option 2: The City has been incompetent in managing land capacity, erasing buildable lots while pretending they still exist.
Either the original projections were purposefully false, or the city mismanaged the available land, either way, the public was misled.
The Middle Housing Myth
The City is pushing Middle Housing as the solution to affordability — allowing duplexes,
triplexes, and fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods.
But according to their own reports:
In 2016, the UGA had capacity for 2,200 single-family homes.
In 2025, they still claim 1,700 units remain.
👉 If that’s true, then there is plenty of available land for traditional single-family growth.
So why Middle Housing?
The One Entity That’s Immune to Consequences
Developers risk their own money. If they ignore economic reality, they go broke.
Government risks nothing. It sets the rules, restricts supply, inflates permit costs, and rebrands homeownership as “exclusionary” — while still collecting fees and expanding its budget.
Closing Thought
Housing isn’t expensive because of natural market forces. It’s expensive because government policies deliberately manufacture scarcity and block the very ladder of opportunity that built Bellingham’s middle class.
If we let planners continue to redefine homeownership as a burden, we will lose the wealth, stability, and strong schools that come with it.
Developers risk failure.
Government risks nothing — and it shows
Protect Bellingham’s Future — Join Us
Get on our mailing list
s
Follow us on all social media outlets
Comments