The median price of homes sold in Bellingham in 2024 is up 7.6 percent over the previous year. At an average cost of $765,000, a 20 percent downpayment is roughly $127,000.
Now consider the average median household income, which is just under $55,000 a year. It paints a bleak picture of just how out of reach home ownership is in this area.
And this is just one facet of our severe housing crisis.
How did we get to this point? Myriad reasons, including an economy that has drastically increased the cost of supplies and unprecedented population growth that has outpaced expectations as well as rates of construction. Zoning laws and property taxes have also contributed to the problem. However, there is another, less-obvious reason our city faces such a significant housing shortage: the NIMBY.
NIMBY is an acronym for the phrase, “Not In My Backyard,” a mindset that plays a pivotal role in the number of affordable and available homes for our residents. NIMBYs may recognize, and support, the need to address our housing crisis. They may even be in agreement on solutions to the situation—as long as they, and their own residential circumstances, are not directly impacted.
This way of thinking stalls efforts to create affordable housing for everyone in Bellingham.
How can one group of residents prevent development on such a large scale? Participatory democracy. While democratic platforms like local elections and community input meetings create opportunities for city residents to ensure their voices are heard, they are biased and disproportionately benefit NIMBYs – exacerbating the housing shortage.
Who, or What, Is a NIMBY?
As with any group with a label, NIMBYs have a stereotype. They are typically white, male homeowners who are upper-middle or upper class and retired. Not everyone who fits that description falls into the NIMBY category, of course. Members of this demographic are called NIMBYs only if they are privileged and seek to preserve that privilege, and their mentality and behavior perpetuates economic inequality.
These are the residents who actively and passionately fight anything that impacts their property values or quality of life, especially denser or more affordable housing for people of a different class. Of course, they do not publicly use elitism as their reason for blocking development – instead they cite the impacts of noise or traffic congestion. Not only do they fight against development, but when these wealthy individuals band together, they’re exceedingly successful at blocking it, increasing housing insecurity and leading to more economic and social instability.
The Fight Against Increased Housing Opportunities
The case for more housing is compelling. The U.S. census shows that 59% of homes in Bellingham are rented, and 58% of those tenants are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. According to the City of Bellingham website, 1 in 4 local working families don’t have enough money for basic necessities.
The issue of course extends beyond affordable housing: a shortage also exists for any housing at all. Also on Bellingham’s website, on any given night, 742 people in Bellingham don’t have a place to sleep.
The logical solution is to build more homes. Most people would agree with that, until they’re faced with the possibility of a new housing development, apartment complex, or shelter being built nearby. Why would anyone object when the situation is so dire? This is a simple question with several complex answers.
Change is hard. Humans are creatures of habit and changes threaten the consistency and stability of our environments. Change leads to unknowns and we perceive unknowns as being scary: therefore, change is scary and scary is naturally interpreted as bad. That is an oversimplified way to address why we resist change but the thought process is clear; our deep-seated need to preserve our routines make us resistant to adapting to a new scenario.
Quality of life. Let’s face it: the negative externalities of home construction are plentiful. When you consider the noise that accompanies building sites and the increase in construction traffic, it is no surprise that the majority of homeowners, NIMBYs or not, dread the prospect of nearby development.
It’s not just housing. New construction begets more new construction. Additional housing often requires infrastructure changes in the form of a new ingress and egress to the neighborhood. New roads, grocery stores, and even new schools must be built to support the increased density, all activities that can be perceived as negatives for those who want to preserve the status quo.
Property values. The law of supply and demand holds that more homes drive prices down, potentially devaluing existing residences. Homeowners naturally want to preserve their home’s value, however NIMBY homeowners also worry about the types of people who would live in rental units and multi-family homes.
“Whoever Yells the Loudest and Longest Wins.”
NIMBYs regularly attend zoning and planning board meetings, where local elected officials often find themselves facing conflicting viewpoints. Some attendees may speak out about homelessness, while others at the same meeting want to prevent the building of a new shelter. When NIMBYism results in exclusionary zoning, it can block affordable housing in some communities altogether. Unfortunately, local elected officials often defer to NIMBYs because doing so is the path of least resistance.
The hallmarks of NIMBYism typically include long, and often hostile, public proceedings and increased development costs. In addition to arguing about property values or the noise issues associated with construction, NIMBYs will find a way to stall the project. For instance, they might file an environmental lawsuit—demanding the developers conduct additional, time-consuming research and provide more data about the ecological impacts of a proposed building site. The result? Construction may be delayed for years.
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” as the saying goes, and when angry neighborhood associations band together in solidarity against a proposed project, it can block the construction of vital infrastructure. According to journalist Jerusalem Demsas, “Deference to community input is a big part of why the U.S. is suffering from a nearly 3.8-million-home shortage.”
A Look In The Mirror
As easy as it is to blame NIMBYs for contributing to the current housing crisis in Bellingham, there is another reality we must face: we all have a bit of NIMBY inside. Most of us aren’t thrilled with the prospect of the chaos that accompanies new construction. We may grumble about a new development obscuring our view or changing the scenery. We instinctively resist anything that threatens our comfort zone unless it is of our choosing.
Certainly there are some short-term negative effects of development, but consider the long-term benefits for the greater good of our community. We need more – and more affordable – homes built closer to our jobs and schools: the state of our economy desperately depends on it. Housing more people and reducing both the high prices of homes and increasing rental costs is a critical step to narrowing the economic chasm and beginning to stem the tide of our current housing shortage.
Solving this crisis requires compromising. After all, nothing changes if nothing changes. Finding common ground is paramount to our future, helping to build a better economy, slow the growing wealth gap, and provide all residents of Bellingham with the housing they deserve.
Comments