The Only Growth Washington State, Whatcom County, and Bellingham Seem to Support Are Their Budgets

This is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, LANDLOCKED by Policy: A Lower Standard of Living, Sold as Progress.

The Gospel of Growth (For Them, Not You)

If you've paid attention to housing policy over the last two decades, you've heard the sermon: Growth is bad. Sprawl is wasteful. We need to live smaller, consume less, accept density. Your desire for a yard? Unsustainable. Your dream of homeownership? Outdated. Your expectation that you might afford what your parents had? Entitled.

This is the gospel of shrinkage. And it's preached with religious fervor.

But there's one thing that's exempt from this gospel.

One sacred cow that never makes it to the altar of austerity: Government budgets.

The Numbers Don't Lie (But Officials Hope You Won't Look)

Let me show you something interesting about Bellingham and Whatcom County over the last 20 years:

Housing permits: DOWN 75%

Planning department budgets: UP 300%

Read that again. We're building THREE-QUARTERS FEWER homes while spending THREE TIMES MORE on housing development costs.

If this were a business, shareholders would demand answers. If this were a hospital, patients would demand accountability. But in housing policy, this is called "smart growth."

The Promise They Want You to Forget

Twenty years ago, Whatcom County and Bellingham told residents they had planned for growth. They had identified enough land, they said, to accommodate 10,000 single-family homes. Enough capacity to meet the region's needs for the next 20 years.

That was the promise. That was the plan.

Here's what actually happened: 2,400 homes permitted. Not 10,000. Not even close.

That's 7,600 families locked out. That's an entire generation told their future doesn't include homeownership. That's a 76% failure rate.

And when you point this out? When you ask why they delivered less than a quarter of what they promised? They act like they never said it.

The Annexation Con: Promises Made, Promises Broken

But wait - it gets worse.

That 20-year plan didn't just promise capacity for 10,000 homes. It also promised something else:

Bellingham committed to annex all 15 Urban Growth Areas.

These weren't vague aspirations. These were official commitments in the Comprehensive Plan. The city told residents and county officials, "We'll grow responsibly. We'll annex these areas. We'll provide urban services. We'll accommodate growth."

So after 20 years, how many of those 15 Urban Growth Areas did Bellingham actually annex?

Zero.

Not one. Not a single UGA.

Read that again: The city promised to annex 15 areas. They annexed ZERO.

This isn't underperformance. This isn't falling short. This is complete abandonment of their commitments. And it explains exactly why they only permitted 2,400 homes instead of 10,000 - they refused to annex the land where those homes were supposed to be built.

The Open Space Bait-and-Switch

Now, you might be thinking: "Maybe they had good reasons. Maybe they were protecting open space and farmland."

Let's look at what actually happened with "open space" acquisition:

Yellow = Purchases Prior to 2005 Orange = Purchases After 2005

Geneva UGA: 27 acres purchased for open space

All other UGAs (13 areas): 0 acres purchased for open space

Yew Street North UGA: 350 acres purchased - half of all available land

Notice anything?

Yellow = Purchases Prior to 2005 Orange = Purchases After 2005

The city only bought significant open space in ONE location: Yew Street North - right along the city border, explicitly to PREVENT development from happening.

They didn't buy open space in the other 13 UGAs to create parks and trails for future residents. They bought 350 acres in one strategic location to block growth. And then - surprise! - Geneva (the only OTHER UGA where they bought any land at all) was removed entirely from the 2025 Comprehensive Plan.

So here's what "preserving open space" actually meant:

• Not annexing any of the 15 promised UGAs

• Not creating parks in 13 of those areas (0 acres purchased)

• Buying land strategically to prevent development (350 acres in Yew St North)

• Removing areas from future growth plans entirely (Geneva UGA deleted)

Yellow = Purchases Prior to 2005 Orange = Purchases After 2005

This isn't environmental protection. This is growth prevention disguised as conservation.

The Real Question: Open Space for Whom?

Here's the thing about open space: It's great. Parks are wonderful. Trails are valuable. Greenways improve communities.

But here's the question nobody's asking: If Bellingham has no intention of annexing these areas, why do residents there deserve zero investment in open space?

Think about it:

• 13 Urban Growth Areas: 0 acres of open space acquired in 20 years

• Future residents in those areas: No parks, no trails, no greenways

• City's actual strategy: Shrink the UGAs, don't annex anything, buy land only where it blocks development

So when officials talk about "preserving open space," what they actually mean is:

"We're going to buy land to PREVENT you from living here, we're NOT going to annex the areas where you COULD live, and we're NOT going to create parks in the areas we said we'd grow into - because we've decided we don't want growth at all."

Shrinking By Design

Here's what the 2025 Comprehensive Plan tells you about Bellingham's actual intentions:

Areas REMOVED from future growth: 

Geneva UGA (completely eliminated)

Areas with development BLOCKED by city land purchase: Yew Street North (350 acres - half the UGA)

Areas ANNEXED after 20 years of promises: Zero

New commitments to annex in the next 20 years: [Good luck finding any]

The city isn't planning for growth. It's planning for shrinkage. And every "open space" purchase is a strategic move to ensure growth can't happen.

The Fiscal Math They Don't Want You to See

Let's talk about what this actually costs:

350 acres purchased in Yew Street North to block development

If that land had been developed at modest single-family density (4 units/acre):

• 1,400 new homes (at 4/acre)

• 1,400 new property taxpayers

• $14-21 million in annual property tax revenue (at $10K-15K/year per home)

• Actual cost to city: Near zero (developers fund infrastructure through impact fees)

Instead, the city spent money to PREVENT this revenue. They bought land to ensure these 1,400 homes and 1,400 taxpayers would never exist.

Meanwhile, remember: City budgets are up 300%.

So the city has money to buy land that prevents tax revenue, but claims it can't afford to accommodate growth. Does that make sense to you?

The Pattern Is Clear

Let's connect all the dots:

1. Promise to annex 15 UGAs → Annex zero

2. Promise capacity for 10,000 homes → Permit 2,400

3. Promise to create open space → Buy 27 acres in 13 UGAs, 350 acres in one location to block development

4. Promise to accommodate growth → Remove UGAs from future plans and shrink buildable land

5. Promise responsible planning → Grow budgets 300% while permits fall 75%

This isn't incompetence. This isn't falling short of goals. This is deliberate.

The city made promises it never intended to keep. It committed to annexations it refused to perform. It identified capacity it declined to use. And when you point this out, they act like they never said it.

The Solution That Makes It Worse

So what's their response to this catastrophic underperformance?

Expand capacity? Remove barriers? Apologize?

No. They're proposing to SHRINK buildable land.

Urban Growth Area reductions. "Smart growth" policies. Concentrating density in existing urban areas. In other words, their solution to failing to build 10,000 homes is to make it HARDER to build homes.

Imagine a hospital that promised 10,000 beds, built 2,400, and then announced they were closing wards. You'd be outraged.

But in housing policy, this is called progress.

What's Growing (While You're Told to Shrink)

Let's catalog what's actually growing while you're told to accept less:

Planning Department Staffing:

• More planners reviewing fewer projects

• More environmental consultants conducting studies that recommend doing nothing

• More bureaucratic positions with no connection to actual housing production

Consultant Contracts:

• $500,000 studies to examine why we need more density

• Multi-year environmental reviews that protect nothing but DO delay housing

• "Visioning" processes that envision everything except affordability

Impact Fees:

• Traffic impact fees that fund road expansion (but not near new housing)

• Park impact fees that create parks you can't afford to live near

• School impact fees that don't build schools where housing is approved

• Collectively adding $30,000-$50,000 per unit while funding ZERO affordable housing

Regulatory Complexity:

• More design review requirements

• More public hearing processes

• More approval stages

• More opportunities for delay

• More reasons to say "no"

Pet Projects:

• Streetcars to nowhere: $200 million

• "Urban vitality" programs that gentrify neighborhoods while claiming to help them

• Public art installations that cost more than affordable housing units

• Bike lanes that sit empty while traffic gets worse

All of this while housing permits fall 75%.

The Sacred Cows That Never Get Cut

You know what's never called "wasteful"?

You know what's never on the chopping block when budgets get tight?

You know what's never subjected to the same "sustainability" analysis that you are?

Government spending.

When officials demand that you shrink your expectations, shrink your living space, shrink your dreams - they're not applying that same standard to themselves. Their budgets are growing. Their staff is expanding. Their consultant contracts are flowing.

And here's the kicker: The regulatory costs they've imposed - $140,000 to $160,000 per lot in Bellingham - could fund their entire planning budget if eliminated. We could have BOTH affordable housing AND proper planning. But that would require them to admit they're the problem.

Sacred cows don't sacrifice themselves.

The Question That Breaks the Frame

Here's what I want to know:

If housing is unaffordable because land is scarce and expensive, why did they promise capacity for 10,000 homes?

If we're running out of land, why did they permit only 24% of what they said was available?

If you identified 15 Urban Growth Areas appropriate for annexation, why did you annex zero?

If you believe in open space for residents, why did you buy 350 acres in one location to BLOCK residents and 0 acres in 13 locations to SERVE residents?

If sustainability requires sacrifice, why are government budgets exempt?

If we need to shrink our environmental footprint, why do planning offices get sprawling campuses while residents get micro-units?

If we're in a housing crisis, why are the people tasked with solving it EXPANDING while housing production CONTRACTS?

These aren't rhetorical questions. They're accountability questions. And they don't have good answers - which is why officials avoid them.

Fiscal Sprawl: The Sprawl They Won't Name

We hear a lot about "urban sprawl." It's the boogeyman of every planning document, the justification for every restriction, the reason you can't have a yard.

But there's another kind of sprawl that's never mentioned: Fiscal sprawl.

Fiscal sprawl is the unbounded spatial and programmatic expansion of government spending and obligations, detached from clear tax-price discipline or service gains. It's:

• City budgets that grow 300% while buildable land shrinks 75%

• Staff positions that multiply while housing production collapses

• Consultant contracts that flow freely while families are priced out

• Bureaucratic expansion with no connection to actual outcomes

• Impact fees collected but never spent on what they're supposedly funding

While urban sprawl is allegedly a big no-no, fiscal sprawl is ACTUALLY destroying housing affordability. But you'll never hear officials talk about it - because

THEY'RE the ones doing it.

What We Don't Accept Anywhere Else

Let's try a thought experiment.

Scenario 1: Business A company promises 10,000 units of product, delivers 2,400, then announces they're reducing production capacity - while raising prices and expanding management.

Your reaction: Fraud. Breach of contract. Class action lawsuit.

Scenario 2: Healthcare

A hospital promises beds for 10,000 patients, builds for 2,400, then announces they're closing wards - but hiring more administrators and increasing the budget.

Your reaction: Malpractice. Demand accountability. Vote out the board.

Scenario 3: Education

A school district promises classroom space for 10,000 students, accommodates 2,400, then announces they're closing schools - but tuition is going up and they need a bigger district office.

Your reaction: Betrayal. Incompetence. Recall the board.

Scenario 4: Housing Policy

The government promises land for 10,000 homes and to annex 15 Urban Growth Areas. Twenty years later: permits 2,400 homes, annexes ZERO UGAs, then announces they're shrinking buildable land - while planning budgets grow 300%.

Their expectation: You accept this as "smart growth."

Its no wonder housing has become so unaffordable!

Why Is Sacrifice Only Noble When YOU Do It?

Here's the pattern:

1. Government declares a crisis (housing affordability)

2. Government demands sacrifice (from residents)

3. Government exempts itself (budgets untouchable)

4. Government frames it as morality (sustainability, equity, climate)

5. Government blames YOU for resisting (NIMBYs, sprawl-lovers, deniers)

But here's what they're actually saying:

Your yard: Wasteful. Their consultant contract: Essential.

Your space: Excessive. Their budget increase: Necessary.

Your dream: Outdated. Their pet project: Visionary.

Your quality of life: Negotiable. Their bureaucratic expansion: Non-negotiable.

Why is austerity only for the people who can least afford it - and never for the government imposing it?

The Things They Want You to Give Up

Let's be clear about what's actually on the table when officials talk about "accepting less":

• Space for your family - Smaller homes, smaller lots, or no lot at all

• Privacy - Shared walls, neighbors six inches away, noise and density you didn't choose

• A yard for your kids - "Wasteful," "unsustainable," "inefficient use of land"

• Stability through ownership - Lifetime renting is your new normal

• Generational wealth-building - Equity? That was for your parents' generation

• Living near where you work - Can't afford it, so enjoy the commute

• Quality of life - Traffic, crowding, noise - but call it "urban vitality"

• The expectation of upward mobility - Each step up the ladder is now financially impossible

These aren't luxuries. These are the things that made communities thrive for 100 years.

These are what your parents had. These are what made life worth living.

And the government is asking you to give them up, while growing their own budgets by 300%.

The Expenses They'll Never Cut

Want to know what's NEVER on the chopping block? Here's the partial list:

• Consultant contracts that study problems for years without solving anything

• Environmental reviews that take 2+ years, cost tens of thousands, and protect nothing

• Impact fees that are collected for infrastructure but spent on everything else

• Design review committees that ban affordable materials in the name of "aesthetics."

• Multiple approval stages that create opportunities for delay and denial

• Duplicative processes between city and county governments

• Staff positions that expand while housing production contracts

• Pet projects like streetcars, public art, and "urban vitality" programs

All of these cost money. All of these add to the $140,000-$160,000 in regulatory costs per lot. All of these make housing unaffordable.

And none of them are ever called "wasteful."

The Con, Exposed

Here's how the con works:

Step 1: Government creates artificial scarcity through regulations ($140K-160K per lot)

Step 2: Government blames "the market" for high prices

Step 3: Government demands YOU accept less (smaller homes, lifetime renting)

Step 4: Government expands ITS OWN budget and authority to "solve" the crisis THEY created

Step 5: Government calls this "smart growth" and you're a NIMBY if you object

Do you see it now?

The crisis isn't a bug. It's a feature. Because the crisis justifies the expansion. The problem creates the budget. And as long as housing stays expensive, they get to keep growing.

The Alternative They Don't Want You to Consider

Here's what's possible if we actually cut the regulatory bloat:

• Eliminate the $140K-160K in artificial costs per lot

• Return to the affordability ratios of 20 years ago (3-4x median income, not 8-10x)

• Actually deliver the 10,000 homes that were promised

• Actually annex the 15 UGAs that were committed to

• Create an affordability ladder where each rung is actually reachable

• Generate NEW property taxpayers instead of draining subsidy budgets

• Build generational wealth instead of permanent dependency

• Fund proper planning through actual tax revenue from new homes

We could have BOTH. Affordable housing AND functioning government. But we can't have both as long as government refuses to cut the regulatory costs that fund its own expansion.

The Choice We're Actually Making

This isn't about growth vs. no-growth. It's not about sprawl vs. density. It's not even about affordability vs. NIMBYism.

This is about who gets to grow and who's forced to shrink.

Right now, the answer is clear:

• Government grows

• Residents shrink

• Budgets expand

• Dreams contract

• Bureaucracy multiplies

• Opportunity divides

• Spending increases

• Housing decreases

And we're supposed to accept this. Be grateful for it. Call it progress.

What You Deserve (And Why You're Not Getting It)

You deserve what your parents had. Not because you're entitled. But because it WORKED.

Because it built strong communities. Because it created wealth instead of dependency.

Because it made life worth living.

You deserve:

• A home you can afford on a realistic income

• Space for your family to grow

• The ability to build equity and wealth

• An affordability ladder where each rung is reachable

• Government that serves you instead of expanding at your expense

• The annexations and growth capacity that were promised

• Open space investments that serve residents, not block them

You're not getting these things because government has decided its own growth is more important than yours.

And every "solution" they propose requires you to pretend they're not the problem.

The Question We Need to Start Asking

Next time an official tells you we need to accept less, ask them this:

"What are YOU willing to cut from YOUR budget?"

Next time they say we need to live smaller, ask them:

"Why are planning department budgets up 300% while permits are down 75%?"

Next time they say sustainability requires sacrifice, ask them:

"Why is that sacrifice only demanded from residents, never from government?"

Next time they talk about responsible growth planning, ask them:

"You promised to annex 15 UGAs. You annexed zero. Why should we believe your next 20-year plan?"

And when they don't have good answers - and they won't - ask them:

"If you can't control your own budget growth, why should I trust you to control mine?"

The Only Growth They Support

Washington State, Whatcom County, and Bellingham have made their priorities clear:

The only growth they support is their own.

The only expansion they permit is bureaucratic.

The only budgets that matter are government budgets.

The only promises that get kept are the ones to shrink your options.

And you? You get to shrink. Accept less. Pay more. And call it progress.

Unless you decide you've had enough.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brian is a housing reform advocate and author of the forthcoming book LANDLOCKED by Policy: A Lower Standard, Sold as Progress.

He is a licensed Designated Broker for ONE Real Estate Inc in Bellingham, WA.

He lives in Bellingham, Washington, where he's spent years analyzing the regulatory costs that make housing unaffordable. His work combines rigorous data analysis with practical solutions for creating permanently affordable housing without subsidies. Learn more at realhousingreform.org.

Reserve your FREE copy today!

And get access to the first two chapters!

Learn More!