An investigative report...

How Whatcom County Protected a Corrupt Natural Resources Planner—And Became Corrupt Itself

A Seven-Part Investigation into Corruption, Cover-Up, and Intimidation

Over the next few weeks, we'll reveal not just how one Whatcom County employee allegedly used his regulatory power to profit almost three quarters of a million dollars from wetland mitigation and permit manipulation—but how the county knew about it, investigated itself, found no wrongdoing, allows the employee to continue to be in a position to help himself, and then threatened citizens who dared to speak up.

Coming in this series:

Part 1: The scheme—how a county wetland regulator bought properties cheaply and sold them for huge profits
Part 2: The girlfriend, the mother, and the mitigation scam—the evidence gets worse
Part 3: The complaint—120 pages of evidence that Whatcom County couldn't ignore
Part 4: The whitewash—how the county's "independent" investigation was designed to find nothing
Part 5: The all-clear letter—how county attorneys made obvious corruption disappear on paper
Part 6: The threats—what happens when citizens share information about corruption
Part 7: Your move, County Council—specific demands for accountability

Articles

The Housing Affordability Crisis: How Regulations Create the Market for Corruption

Washington State faces a housing crisis manufactured by its own regulatory system. According to the Building Industry Association of Washington's 2024 study, regulations imposed at local, state, and federal levels account for approximately $204,000—or 29.5%—of the median new home sales price of $690,701 . In some counties, regulatory costs alone add over $164,000 to the cost of each new home. These aren't just abstract numbers. They represent middle-class families priced out

INTRODUCTION: How Whatcom County Protected a Corrupt Natural Resources Planner—And Became Corrupt Itself

When the Gatekeepers Become the Profiteers There is only one entity that controls what is built, where, from whom, in what numbers, and ultimately what it will sell for—and that entity is your local planning department . Want to split your lot? Not if you don't agree with your planning department. You pay thousands for a wetlands study from a licensed company, and your planning department can simply reject it–– not because it's invalid, but because they aren't on the "approve

Image of county planner picking the pocket of a property owner

PART 1: When a Corrupt Whatcom County Planner Started Helping Himself

The Story Begins with an Elderly Property Owner An 80-year-old man and his wife owned a lot in Whatcom County for 10+ years. He'd paid $150,000 for it in 2007, paid taxes on it faithfully, and dreamed of eventually building a home there. In July 2017, in getting prepared for the building permit, the owners filed a Critical Area Review (CAR) for the property. Part of the process is to have the area reviewed by a wetlands and critical areas planner. Matt Mahaffie, a Wetlands an

PART 2: The Girlfriend, The Mother, The Mitigation Credits Hustle, and Robbing an Elderly Seller: The Evidence Gets Worse

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Throughout this story, I might refer to an "investigation" or comments related to it. Please know that we have an entire story coming up next that goes in-depth on it. I'll give you the punchline first: It was designed to protect the county and the corrupt planner, not to seek justice or to pay any attention to the VICTIMS. Planning Departments Have Far More Power Than You Think In our first article, we exposed how corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Plan

COMING SOON

PART 3: The Complaint—120 Pages of Evidence That Whatcom County Couldn't Ignore

When citizens discovered what the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner Matt Mahaffie was doing, they didn't just complain—they built an airtight case. Attorney James Grifo submitted 120 pages of property records, permit documents, and transaction evidence directly invoking RCW 42.23.070, Washington's anti-corruption statute. The evidence included property transactions involving the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner Matt Mahaffie's live-in girlfriend

PART 4: The Whitewash—How the County's "Independent" Investigation Was Designed to Find Nothing

Whatcom County hired attorney outside attorney Kathleen Haggard to "investigate" the corruption allegations. But Haggard never interviewed key witnesses, lied about active county employees as being "former" staff to avoid questioning them, and concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing—despite overwhelming documentation. One such important fact, Tom Brissenden, the second corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner was the person approving the corrupt Whatcom County N

PART 5: The All-Clear Letter—How Whatom County Prosecuting Attorneys Made Obvious Corruption Disappear on Paper

After Haggard's whitewash investigation, Whatcom County prosecutors issued an "all-clear" letter declaring the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner Matt Mahaffie did nothing wrong. The letter ignored conflict of interest statutes, dismissed the use of county resources for private gain, and somehow concluded that a regulator buying properties he flagged as unbuildable and then approving them for development was perfectly legal. But the letter revealed something mor

PART 6: The Threats—What Happens When Citizens Share Information About Corruption

When citizens refused to accept the county's whitewash and continued sharing evidence of Mahaffie's corruption, prosecutors took a disturbing turn. They sent threatening letters to complainants, suggesting they could face legal consequences for "defaming" a public employee—despite the fact that sharing documentary evidence with journalists and officials is protected by the First Amendment. The message was clear: shut up, or we'll come after you. This is what accountability lo

PART 7: Your Move, County Council—Specific Demands for Accountability

The evidence is overwhelming. The cover-up is documented. The threats against citizens are on the record. The County Executive's office has shown it won't take corruption seriously—it protects it. Now Whatcom County Council faces a choice: investigate this corruption properly under RCW 42.23.070, refer it to the Washington State Attorney General, and hold all complicit officials accountable—or watch as this escalates beyond their control. This investigation started with three

Have Information About Whatcom County Planning Corruption?

If you or anyone you know has dealt with the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner Matthew Mahaffie or any other planner at the Whatcom County Planning & Development Services Department and felt you were not dealt with honestly or fairly, we want to hear your story.

Protected Contact: protected@realissuespodcast.org

Your information will be held in strict confidence and protected under First Amendment journalistic source protection. We take source confidentiality seriously and will not disclose your identity without your explicit permission.

EDITORIAL STANDARDS & LEGAL NOTICE

This investigative series examines conduct by public officials in their official capacities. All information is derived from:

Public records obtained through legal channels
Court documents and legal filings
Government reports and official correspondence
Property records and corporate filings
Documents provided by sources with firsthand knowledge

Our Standards:

We name public officials because they are accountable to the public
We cite our sources and provide supporting documentation
We distinguish between facts, allegations, and opinion
We offered all subjects the opportunity to respond before publication

Reader Conduct: We oppose harassment, threats, or illegal activity directed at any individual. This series presents evidence for public accountability through proper legal and governmental channels. We encourage readers to:

Share this information with elected officials and oversight bodies
Demand accountability through proper governmental processes
File complaints through official channels if warranted
Do NOT engage in harassment, threats, or illegal conduct

Legal Status:

The statements in this series represent protected opinion based on disclosed facts, or constitute reporting of factual matters derived from public records and firsthand sources. Where we state conclusions (such as characterizing conduct as "corrupt"), these represent our opinion as journalists based on the presented evidence.

Anti-Doxing Commitment:

While we identify public officials by name in connection with their official conduct, we do not publish:

Home addresses (except as already in public property records we're reporting on)
Personal phone numbers or non-work email addresses
Information about family members not involved in the matters discussed
Social security numbers, financial account information, or other private data