Less detached homes are easier to heat

My studio apartment is often 69 - 72 degrees, even with the heat all the way off. The joys of not living in a detached single home.

A few weeks back, I noticed my radiator stopped working all together. The weather was mild, but I thought I should get it fixed anyway.

Turns out the valve that regulates the radiator gets clogged if the radiator is off most of the time. A maintenance person, who happens to be a coworker from my job (small world), unplugged the valve. He suggested I turn up the heat a couple of times each day so debris, that flows in pipes, can flush out. They have a trap, down in the boiler room that collects debris. There is always a bit of debris in pipe systems, I guess.

So now I turn up the heat with little, or no guilt about energy conservation. I turn it up when I'm sitting at my computer and not very active. The space often goes to 75 degrees while I'm sitting passively. Then I turn it down at night for sleeping or while I'm away.

The joys of living in a building. The utilities are fully covered by my reasonable rent. This winter has been quite cozy.

Hurray for ADUs, but some folks would just want less population growth

I like talking to many different kinds of people and I often change my tune, a bit, depending on who I am talking to. A while ago, I mentioned to a friend that Bellingham City Council passed the ordinance allowing auxiliary dwelling units to built in more single family zones. I was happy, but this friend was less enthused. He expressed regret that there was a blanket change to all residential zones. Rather than trying to defend the ADU vote, I changed my tune a bit and said that if population growth were to significantly slow down, there would be less need to build more homes. He agreed with that. He also liked hearing my slightly tongue in cheek comment that if more people were gay, we wouldn't have as much growth.

I'm glad there are more and more single and child free people here in the western world at least. The third world still has more population growth which we get some of via immigration.

Some people think it's selfish to embrace single living, but ironically, the best thing we can do for kids of the future is to leave them a world that isn't overcrowded. We also can do better to accommodate the population, like allowing more auxiliary dwelling units, in my opinion. Also there are lots of new apartment buildings being built in Bellingham's denser zones. Multi family zones. Lots of people keep wanting to move to Bellingham. There are several ways to solve this problem. Less population, yes. More density, yes. Maybe all of the above.

Bellingham City Council considers allowing auxiliary dwelling units in more of its residential zones

Entrance to city hall.

I am in favor of the idea to allow more neighborhoods to have legal Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs). This issue applies to many cities; especially growing cities. After a public hearing at City Council, I wrote some of my thoughts. It was a hearing I had to leave early from due to my work schedule so rather than speaking at the mic with a long waiting list, I write. Photos and writing on Flickr.

My impressions after the public comment period.

My own letter to the council.

Inexpensive way to help both homeowners and renters

Text of my letter to the editor, Bellingham Herald February 22 2012.

In some cities like Bellingham, there is a shortage of rental units leading to rising rents. At the same time, there are homeowners who are about to go into foreclosure because they can barely afford their mortgages. Why can't more of the homeowners take in renters to help pay the bills?

An extra income stream from renters is one way to help homeowners save their homes from foreclosure. At the same time it would provide more places for renters so rents could remain moderate. This could help solve two problems simultaneously.

In some cases, zoning would need to be changed from single-family residential to a less restrictive use that would allow a few rental units in the homes. It doesn't make sense to have much of the land area of our city used up in neighborhoods where the median price of a home is way above what the average person can afford. It also doesn't make sense for renters to face a housing shortage while single-family homes go empty and homeowners cannot afford the payments.

Given today's job market and financial situation, innovative solutions should be tried.

This article was in a recent Herald also about a shortage of rental properties in Bellingham.

Bailing Out Homeowners?

I hope they help renters also with the broader issue of affordable housing. More money for HUD.

Also they shouldn't just help current homeowners. What about those who have already been foreclosed on and are no longer in their homes? Back to square one.

How about people who never bought in the first place.

How about subsidizing more folks to become first time home buyers? Someone like me could buy a condominium if there was a $50,000 grant to help defray the cost. On my income, I could possibly put up the other $50,000 based on borrowing with house payments being around 1/3 my income. The grant would be a good boost toward the bottom of our local condo market which still hovers over $100,000.

If they want more people to be homeowners, let's get some new homeowners in the market. Grants for renters to become homeowners? Government pay half the mortgage? Then when you sell, the government's $50,000 investment would stay with the condo to keep it affordable for the next owner. There's actually a program like this that I read about.

What about the folks that have already had their homes foreclosed on? They are now out of the market as if they were starting over again. How about giving them money to get back into the market? Like giving folks money who haven't bought yet.

The Federal Reserve can just print up all this money. More money in circulation leading to inflation eventually.

Inflation across the general economy can bring everything up to the level that property values are still at, to a large extent.

Either that or property values will have to come down some more.

One should also ask, "is home ownership the holy grail of life?" Should everyone strive to be a homeowner?

Or are we better off finding other solutions for some people; like affordable rent?

I've had a good landlord so far.

Another solution to the housing debacle is to allow more renters in single family neighborhoods. Let homeowners rent out rooms to help pay their mortgages.

That could help both renters and homeowners.

These changes would have to be done at the local level, but Obama can use the "bully pulpit" to advocate this.

Allow more density. It could reduce commute times also as more people could afford to live closer to work. Reduce traffic. Save energy.

Bump up density in many of the current residential zones. Wouldn't be as much of a problem if people weren't so dependent on automobiles.

Traffic? Parking in the neighborhood? Cars in the front yard?

It wouldn't look so bad if it was bikes inside the house or people taking the bus.

So many things interrelate.

Let people rent their homes, help renters

Best homeowner bailout idea I've heard so far is to rent foreclosed homes back to the former owners. That's the best idea, if government bails out homeowners.

Since many homeowners are in a larger place than they can afford (often large carbon footprint) government can also encourage these people to take in other renters.

Mother in law apartments.

Helps pay the mortgage and utilities. Also provides more space for renters who tend to be "lower footprint" than owners.

Some zoning will oppose this in single family zones, but maybe it's time to reduce the amount of space devoted to single family; especially as our population and sprawl keep growing.

We need to encourage lower footprint lifestyles. Especially now since it's on the credit card; the federal deficit.

Here in Bellingham, there's a new "toolkit" that's been worked out by city government to manage things like mother in law apartments in single family zones. It provides some guidelines to facilitate a compromise between allowing more flexibility and protecting single family.

Problem is, I just read that a city planer has ruled this toolkit will not be used in single family unless the city council approves each application.

Toolkit may be rendered almost useless since it's application is restricted to higher density zones that already have that flexibility, even without the toolkit.

Efforts to help homeowners should include renters

One way to help both homeowners and renters would be to allow struggling homeowners to rent out space in their house for renters. This would provide more places for rent to help renters. Also help pay the homeowner's mortgage.

I'm sure this is happening a lot, but it runs amok of local zoning rules in many cases. Here's where zoning rules should be rethought. Federal government could encourage local communities to allow these solutions to happen.

The entire economy can benefit from availability of more affordable housing. In some cases this could mean higher neighborhood densities which also means shorter commutes.

I'm remembering "carbon footprint," "energy independence" as goals of an economy as well. Not just maximizing prosperity.

If the government ends up taking over foreclosed properties, here is one idea.

They could allow HUD to manage these properties and use them as rentals.

I hear people groaning. Stereotypes of welfare moms moving into neighborhoods and sinking property values still further.

Not that I wish to put people into poverty, but remember, many middle class and upper middle class have made out quite well on selling their home over the past years of this bubble. Here in Bellingham, we see affects of this wealth in the many retired and "retired early" folks moving here.

55 is the new 65.

Retire early if you sold at the right time. Sold, not just in California, but many markets.

The good news is, the spending power of these new retirees keeps our retailing economy strong in spite of the fact that we have lost much of our local industrial base, including Georgia Pacific, for instance.

The bad news is, it's harder to get onto that bandwagon for people entering the housing market, or even just finding an affordable place to rent.

Is the "home seller retire early economy" sustainable? Is this a distortion of our economy?

Much of this housing bubble has had the assistance of the federal government.

Programs have helped people get into homes over the years. After getting help, people have often sold their house for a huge profit. In some cases a profit created by the formation of this price bubble.

Assistance for being a homeowner could be rethought and turned into a "partial ownership" solution. Since it looks like political candidates are suggesting a raft of new proposals to assist home owners in the wake of the recent crisis it's time to have this kind of discussion.

Both McCain and Obama have various proposals.

Homeowner assistance programs should be redesigned to expect something back from people that get assistance.

Give something back, years down the road when the house sells.

This could help reign in those house value bubbles that damage the economy.

More than just wealthy bankers have profited from the bubbles. A lot of lucky homeowners profited if they sold at the right time.

Bellingham is debating it's party houses

Single family homes that are now being rented by a big group of students. Often noisy. I have thought that denser zoning might be able to improve this situation, ironically. Instead of "single family" zones, allow the big houses to be broken up into several studio apartments. It's harder to have a big party in a studio apartment.

Density is better for the environment, in more ways than one.

Studio apartments for studious students. How's that for a slogan.

McMansion McMania

In Seattle, they are considering limiting house height and trying to control McMansion McMania where people are buying a lot, then tearing down the modest sized house and filling the lot with a gargantuan house.

McMansions tend to appear in low density residential areas. Around Bellingham, they are drawn to county areas that are zoned for one and five acre lots like magnets. These lots are basically too small to be real farms yet too large to be affordable for the modest. They are prime candidates for mansion mania.

For many reasons one to five acre plots are a bad idea.

Up here, we don't yet seem to have the phenomena of tearing down modest size homes for the big ones. There's still some elbow room where the new monsters can go on new lots.

In Seattle, where population is larger and there is less space, monster homes squeeze into smaller city lots tearing out the existing house. They may as well be apartment buildings as they can be similar in size.

People are sometimes annoyed by such blatant wealth, plus the natural resources consumed in building for one household. I hear that restrictions are being considered.

Rather than restrictions, a libertarian solution could be bumping up the zoning density where McMansions proliferate. They might as well be apartments and business buildings anyway. Why not? In some of Bellingham's older neighborhoods, big mansions are now being used for apartments and rooming houses. Many old mansions have evolved into student housing near the university.

I'm not necessarily a libertarian, but that way of thinking is a good tool; sort of like asking, "what would Jesus drive, if in fact Jesus would drive."

Allowing apartments and mixed use zoning in the McMansion areas would end a form of corporate welfare that protects these giant homes with single family zones. It would create more neighborhoods of mixed use and "income diversity."

Some argue that increased density adds traffic, but it can also spur better bus service and more pedestrian destinations.

* Picture I happened to have in my collection of some fairly large houses in a new part of Pullman, WA.

Drive till you qualify drives sprawl

Qualify for a mortgage that is, and or just an affordable place to live.

One of the most senseless realities of economics in regards protecting the environment.

Drive out from the city till you find an affordable place to live. Drive out till you qualify for a mortgage. Lower income people having to move farther out usually means more driving and sprawl into rural environments.

This may be one of the biggest environmental problems we face. Things need to be done to remedy this bad economic reality.

Solutions include:

* In-filling in the cities and towns to provide more affordable housing for both renters and owners.

* Population control.

* Public transit, rather than automobiles, out to some of the hinterlands so people who live out there don't have to drive so much.

* The Internet and tele-commuting to cut down on that long commute to work.

* Clustered development in the hinterlands.

* People not expecting to live in such large houses or yards.

* Higher gas prices and / or lower property values, thus creating a different market environment so "drive till you qualify" no longer makes economic sense.

Economic sense and environmental sense need to match up in a better way.

Here is a cartoon idea about low and moderate income people facing two monsters.

Monster in the city is high property values / rents and mortgages.

Monster in the country is rising gas prices.

Inclusive Neighborhoods

Photo looking up into Bellingham Farmer's Market clock tower. Light fixtures.

There is a lot of talk about Inclusive zoning these days. Allowing a mixture of housing types and price ranges with-in a neighborhood.

That, instead of places where only (expensive) single family homes are allowed while, across town, a ghetto of apartments is kept in one area. Like, "keep those apartments from escaping."

Inclusive zoning means a mix of housing types and income levels. Also a mix of land uses in one neighborhood. That means one can take a stroll, near one's home, and pass houses, a park, a church and an ice cream parlor.

That's more inviting than some boring "subdivision mile" with nothing but garage doors visible.

It brings diverse income groups together. More trust and understanding between social classes.

Also allows people to live closer to services and activities. Cuts car dependency.

I recently saw a good article about this concept in the July 26 06 Cascade Weekly. Written by one of our city council members, Joan Beardsley. She talked quite a bit about the good effects that "inclusive neighborhoods" have on schools.

In the past, people have spent much effort bussing kids across town to bring various elements of our society together. Well, another way to bring us together can be in how we plan our neighborhoods.

Bring various income classes together, for instance.

After pondering those encouraging words, I had a conversation with a friend in Ecuador, South America.

A conversation via Skype Internet phone.

My friend, in Ecuador, spoke of a negative consequence when the gap between wealthy and poor gets too wide. Latin American nations are noted for wide gaps between income classes.

Something that could be in USA's future, if we don't watch out. The income gap keeps getting wider.

He said single family homes are loosing popularity for the middle class in Ecuador.

Loosing popularity because the crime rate is so high that detached homes are vulnerable to break ins, robberies, even armed robberies.

It's like class warfare.

So the middle class is turning to high rises.

Condominium projects, rather than detached homes.

A condominium complex can provide centralized entrances for security and things like "windows high off the ground," away from the break-in zone.

Interesting observation.

It seems like bringing American income classes together, to lower the crime rate, might help us save the single family home.

Ironically, we may need to be less exclusive about our single family neighborhoods to save them.

Save them from the ravages of societal breakdown.