Larry S. Horowitz
Bellingham, Washington
May 28, 2015
Bellingham City Council
Bellingham, WA
Via email:
[email protected]
cc via email: Kelli Linville, Belli ngham Mayor
Rick Septer, Bellingham Planning Director
Greg Aucutt, Bellingham Assistant Planning Director
Clare Fogelsong, Bellingham Natural Resources Policy Manager
Bellingham Planning Commission
Anthony Boscolo, Dept of Commerce Growth Management Services Sr. Planner
Members of the Association of BeWngham Citizens (ABC)
Re: What 's Growth Got T o Do Wi th It?
Dear Members of the Bellingham City Council,
Within the next month or so, you will be tasked with adopti ng a PopulaUon Growth Forecast
for the 2016 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan update. When you do, please consider these
decisive issues.
I.
Infinite growth in a finite world
"Infinite growth of material consumption in a finite world is an impossibility." So says
prominent economist E.F. Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful : a study of economics as
if people mattered.
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a
madman or an economist," adds General Systems Theory cofounder Kenneth Boulding.
It is well understood that there are planetary and regional limits to growth . Once carrying
capacities are exceeded and we overshoot these growth constraints, very bad things happen.
Climate change. Biodiversity loss. Food shortages. Water shortages. Energy shortages. The
list goes on and on.
At some point, either condi tions will get very bad in Bellingham and Whatcom County or our
leaders - you - will have considered t hese limits to growth in planning for our future and
wisely chose not to overshoot them.
One of the key limits is water quantity. Although we have been assured that Bellingham has
both paper and wet water rights sufficient to handle a historical long-term drought, we are
currently experiencing dwindling rivers and snowpack at historic lows that have caused
Governor lnslee to issue a statewide drought emergency only two weeks ago, on May 15.
It is hard to believe that Bellingham would actually begin diverting water from the Nooksack
to quench our thirst if there is insufficient water for the needs of our farmers, fish , and
Page 2
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
County friends - even if we have the legal right to do so. Our plan calls for reducing Lake
Whatcom by three vertical feet, then diverting the Nooksack River.
 During a time of extreme drought, would you be willing to make the decision to reduce
Lake Whatcom by three feet and then divert water away from our friends in the county?
Many of us have requested the Planning Department and Planning Commission to consider
these various growth constraints, but they are too busy conducting a UGA beauty contest. We
believe there are more burning questions to consider than whether Caitac is prettier than Yew
Street.
We hope Council has the maturity and wisdom to take these growth constraints into account.
II.
Is additional growth beneficial or detrimental?
Growth in Bellingham, Whatcom County, and throughout the world has become both an
addiction and a fetish. But have we adequately considered whether additional growth is truly
beneficial?


Is it possible that the costs associated with growth exceed the benefits we receive?
Have we exceeded our Optimal Scale to the point where growth in Bellingham and
Whatcom County has become uneconomical?
In this graph, Marginal Cost refers to the cost of
producing one more unit of a good or service. Marginal
Benefit is the benefit gained from one more unit. This
graph shows the marginal costs and benefits of GDP
growth. Costs tend to rise and benefits tend to decrease
for each additional unit of growth. We should stop
growing GDP, therefore, when Marginal Costs are exactly
equal to Marginal Benefits (the Optimal Scale).
If the Marginal Cost is less than the Marginal Benefit, then
growth is Economic (the green part of the graph).
When the Marginal Cost rises above the Marginal Benefit,
growth is Uneconomic (the brown part).
Page 3
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Before committing ourselves to even more growth, isn’t it time we have a genuine dialogue
about the costs and benefits that additional growth will bring?
Two months ago, I asked Planning Director Rick Sepler to engage in a dialogue in which we
honestly address the question ‘to grow or not to grow?’. I pointed out that this subject is
generally skipped when we start talking about where and how we should grow.
Rick responded by explaining that the question to grow or not to grow “is not part of the GMA
construct” so there was no benefit in arguing that issue. I disagree. Before adopting a
Population Growth Forecast, I believe there is a great deal of benefit to be gained by
comparing the costs of growth with the benefits.
Isn’t analyzing the costs and benefits of different proposals something governments do all the
time?
Do we want to suffer the same fate as California?
III.
Exponential Growth vs. Logistic Growth
Is infinite growth even natural?
The Blue Whale, Earth’s largest animal, stops growing at just under 100 feet. And the Giant
Sequoia, our largest tree, stops at under 300 feet. It would be unnatural for the Blue Whale
and Giant Sequoia to grow forever.

Are there natural laws that preclude infinite growth?

Are we attempting to violate natural law?
Based on everything we know, it’s clear that, at some point, additional growth will not be an
option.
Regarding population growth, Pierre Verhulst, who developed the Logistic Model of
Population Growth in 1838, found that the initial stage of growth is approximately
exponential. Then, as saturation begins, resources become more scarce, competition
increases, and growth slows. At maturity, when carrying capacity is reached, growth stops.
Page 4
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
The website Boundless.com provides the following graph comparing Exponential Growth with
Logistic Growth.
When resources are unlimited,
populations exhibit Exponential
Growth, resulting in a J-shaped
curve. When resources are
limited,
populations
exhibit
Logistic Growth.
In Logistic Growth, population
expansion decreases as resources
become scarce. It levels off
when the carrying capacity of
the environment is reached,
resulting in an S-shaped curve.
As land, water and other resources in Bellingham and Whatcom County are becoming scarce and competition for these resources is intensifying - it is clear we have entered what Verhulst
refers to as the bottleneck phase. Historical population data (discussed below) confirms that
growth rates in Bellingham and Whatcom County are decreasing dramatically.
We should not – and cannot - continue to plan for exponential growth. Bellingham and
Whatcom County are not unique. We will reach our carrying capacity and growth will stop;
otherwise conditions will deteriorate radically.
There are 23 countries with populations greater than 1 million that are currently experiencing
population declines. Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, Canada, Romania,
Cuba, Greece, Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Belarus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, Moldova, Lithuania, Albania, Latvia and Estonia.
It is a fact that growth will not continue forever. We need to ask ourselves:
 What is Bellingham’s optimal size in terms of carrying capacity and net economic benefit?
We have already become overly dependent on an unnatural, infinite growth model that relies
heavily on the development and construction industries. When growth stops, unemployment
in these industries will rise dramatically. This model is neither sustainable nor supportable.
Rather than accelerate toward the edge of the cliff and face increasingly expanding
unemployment rolls, let’s begin the process of slowing down while time is on our side.
Page 5
IV.
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Think globally, act locally.
The Global Footprint Network informs us that if everyone lived the lifestyle of the average
American, we would need 5 planets with the mass and resources of Earth.
Understanding the global imperative to reduce our Ecological Footprint, it is inconceivable
that every local jurisdiction can continue to plan for endless growth.
We need to be the change we want to see in the world. Let’s act with wisdom and maturity
and seek equilibrium with nature.
Let’s consider our carrying capacity and limits to growth and determine whether we have
reached the point of uneconomic growth.
In Oregon, the City of Medford’s Comprehensive Plan reminds us of the self-fulfilling nature of
population forecasts:
“Population forecasts are often self-fulfilling because long range land use,
transportation, and infrastructure plans are designed to accommodate the forecasted
growth by containing policies that affect land supply and public investments in
infrastructure and services.
“Cities can affect their rate of growth through policies affecting provision of
infrastructure and land supply. Such policies may also cause population and
employment changes to shift among more than one jurisdiction.
“How much population a city chooses to accommodate is a policy decision that
represents the city’s vision for the future.” (Emphasis added.)
Because Bellingham promotes itself as a great place to live; because those who profit from
growth advertise for people to relocate here; and because taxpayers are forced to subsidize
growth with their tax dollars, much of Bellingham’s population growth in the past has been
synthetic, rather than naturally-occurring, growth.
I am not suggesting that we stop people from moving to Bellingham; but, I am suggesting that
our leaders adopt policies that eliminate the synthetic growth and allow Bellingham to grow
naturally and organically.
Given all the problems growth has caused and continues to cause in our area, we need to stop
promoting and subsidizing additional population growth. We’re like the perpetual dieter
gorging on scones and ice cream.
We have made so little progress on growth-related problems - like restoring the health of
Lake Whatcom. Let’s slow down and put our own house in order before we make it more
difficult to do so by growing beyond our means.
Problems don’t get solved by growing larger. If anything, the larger we grow, the more our
problems compound.
Page 6
V.
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Support our County leaders, but don’t do their work.
Whatcom County has a problem. There are thousands and thousands of developable lots that
were subdivided years ago. There is nothing Bellingham leaders can do about that; but, there
is something Whatcom County leaders can do.
Let’s not play games with our Population Growth Forecast. Instead, let’s encourage the
County to investigate legal ways to reduce the number of lots in the County.
Planning Director Rick Sepler is aware of certain measures the county can take.
encourage the County to take action to resolve the County’s potential for sprawl.
VI.
Let’s
Historical Population Data
When the Planning Commission previously recommended the BERK high population projection
of 1,562 additional residents per year, which Council ultimately adopted, the information
provided by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) and used by BERK only included
population data through 2010. We now have four additional years of data through 2014.
Bellingham’s average population growth from 2010 to 2014 was 462, or 30% of the high
projection.
Let me repeat: The average population growth in Bellingham over the past four years was
less than 30% of the BERK high forecast.
In fact, the last time Bellingham’s population grew by 1,562 was eight years ago in 2007, the
height of the housing and migration bubble. The average growth for the seven years since the
bubble burst has been 587 people per year, or 38% of the high projection.
Some pro-growth, pro-development members of the community were extremely excited about
the substantial growth in 2013 of… only 948 people; however, growth in 2014 fell back down
to 443, resuming the long–term downward trend.
The following graph illustrates Bellingham’s average annual population increase beginning in
1969, the first year of data available from OFM. Each blue circle represents the average
annual increase from the year in question through 2014.
The first blue circle represents the average annual increase from 1969 through 2014, or 997
people per year. This is the longest trend available.
In other words, Bellingham’s average annual population increase over the past 45 years has
been less than the BERK low growth forecast of 1,017.
As you can see, the City’s average annual growth has also been at or below the BERK low
growth forecast for the past thirteen years, since 2002.
As is the tendency, when the migration bubble burst after 1990, the averages reverted back
to the mean of approximately 1,000 per year and have remained below the mean for the last
nine years.
Page 7
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Bellingham (City Only) Average Annual Population Increase
From Starting Year Through 2014
Source: OFM Intercensal (1990-2010); OFM Postcensal (1968-1989; 2011-2014)
1,800
BERK 1990-2000:
1,624
1,600
HIGH
1,562
BERK 1990-2010:
1,527
BERK 2000-2010:
1,429
1,400
MEDIUM
1,235
1,200
LOW
1,017
1,000
800
600
400
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Because the BERK data excludes the last four years, the BERK medium forecast is neither
accurate nor the most likely. Had BERK included the last four years, they would have
produced a projection with a lower medium forecast.
Dr. John McLaughlin, who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford University in Population Biology, has
carefully analyzed the historical population data for Bellingham and Whatcom County.
Recently, Dr. McLaughlin conducted growth forecast simulations for Bellingham using three
different models of population growth. Of the three, the 3rd order, linear autoregressive
model provides the highest prediction accuracy.
Perfect prediction accuracy equals 1.0. After running 1000 stochastic simulations based on all
OFM population growth data for Bellingham from 1969 through 2014, the 3rd order linear
autoregressive model produced a very high prediction accuracy of 0.810.
By comparison, the BERK medium forecast has a prediction accuracy of 0.006.
forecast is even worse at -0.031, and the low forecast is slightly better at 0.027.
The high
Page 8
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
According to Dr. McLaughlin, the 3rd order, linear autoregressive model produced an annual
average population growth forecast for Bellingham from 2014 through 2036 of 823 people per
year, or about:
 20% below the BERK low forecast of 1,017;
 33% below the BERK medium forecast of 1,235; and
 47% below the BERK high forecast of 1,562.
 Based on accurate and up-to-date historical population data, the most likely Population
Growth Forecast is 823 people per year.
VII.
Preserving Bellingham’s unique sense of place
The City has a page on its website for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update that includes a
section for the unscientific, online Comprehensive Plan Survey conducted between September
15 and October 20, 2014.
Not only are the results of the survey unreliable from a scientific standpoint, but the
questions were all based on the presumption that the City had already adopted the BERK high
growth forecast of 1,562 per year, or 35,926 additional residents over the 23-year period from
2013 to 2036. Even though the high projection was only preliminary and non-binding, citizens
were not given any opportunity to express their opinions on how much we should grow.
By contrast, the City conducted four separate scientific Resident Surveys since our comp plan
was adopted in 2005/2006. (http://www.cob.org/government/public/opinion/index.aspx)
In every one of these surveys (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2013), Bellingham residents
overwhelmingly indicated that our growth-related problems are the ones “facing Bellingham
today that city leaders [need to] do something about.” The highest responses included: Too
much development; overpopulation; overcrowding; growing too large; improper infill; and
traffic congestion.
In addition, in the 2006 and 2008 surveys, the vast majority of Bellingham residents agreed
with the statement that “Bellingham is growing too fast and losing its character.” Not
surprisingly, this question was omitted from the 2010 and 2013 surveys.
Residents do not believe that city leaders are doing a good job dealing with growth and
preserving our unique sense of place. They want less – and slower – growth.
As Planning Director Rick Sepler wrote, “As a planner, I believe that no one knows the
community as well as the people who live and work there.” These four Resident Surveys
provide the planners and leaders with the information they need to adopt the City’s
Population Growth Forecast for its 2016 comp plan update.
As you know, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Whatcom County to adopt a growth
forecast no lower than the OFM Low Projection of 19,780 additional residents and no higher
than the OFM High Projection of 125,069 additional residents. The non-binding resolution
signed by Whatcom County and its cities calls for an additional 74,781 residents county-wide.
Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of leeway for the county and cities to reduce their
projections and still comply with GMA.
Page 9
VIII.
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Affordable Housing
Housing affordability is an increasingly important issue and something Bellingham residents
care deeply about. I began working closely with former Councilmember Joan Beardsley on
this issue back in 2006 before Joan became ill.
At that time, it was clear to me that the housing affordability problem is not well-defined. I
believe that is still the case.
The most important questions are:

What are we trying to accomplish? and

Who are we trying to help?
Bellingham residents have proven to be very generous when it comes to helping fellow
residents. In terms of affordable housing, it appears that Bellingham residents are quite
willing to provide assistance to long-time Bellingham residents who need help with housing
costs.
On the other hand, I do not believe elected officials have a mandate to use tax dollars to
subsidize the construction of inexpensive homes so that non-Bellingham residents will move
here and take occupancy. Or worse, to sell these inexpensive homes to out of state residents
to be rented back to those who live here.
All things being equal, the cost of an existing home will generally be less expensive than an
identical new home on a similar lot. Because there are more existing homes on the market at
any time than new homes, it makes sense to focus our strategy on helping long-time
Bellingham residents afford to either purchase an existing home, rent an existing home, or
rent an apartment.
I still have the information I prepared for Joan Beardsley in 2006 (called the Bellingham
Affordable Housing Endowment), and I’m happy to share what Joan and I worked on back
then.
Regarding the issue at hand – the adoption of the Population Growth Forecast – it’s important
to understand that it will be substantially easier to help long-time Bellingham residents afford
housing with less population growth than with more.
More population growth will increase the demand for housing and cause housing to become
more expensive. As larger cities can attest, you cannot build your way out of the housing
affordability problem.
Within the same geographic region, housing costs are uniformly higher in larger cities than
smaller ones. Even in Whatcom County, we find that homes in Ferndale and Lynden are less
expensive than Bellingham. Higher rates of growth in Bellingham will not change that
dynamic.
Page 10
IX.
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Learning from Michael Lilliquist (and Eric Hirst)
Before Michael Lilliquist was elected to Council, he and Eric Hirst published a letter in the
February 18, 2009 issue of the Cascadia Weekly titled Quantity or Quality?: The challenge of
creating our future.
Here are a few things we can learn from Michael and Eric (Emphasis added):

Planning is more than following past trends. It means deciding upon a goal and working
toward it.

The consequences of never-ending population growth are so clearly bad that we ought to
take every opportunity to change our ways. The past is destiny only if we continue to do
the same old things, follow the same old rules and reward the same old practices. If we
want a different future, we need to start picking a different goal – lower population
growth. Then we need to roll up our sleeves and enact the changes that will preserve our
resources and quality of life we value.

Rather than accept past trends, we should plan our future population based upon policy
considerations and public values. Local citizens strongly favor slower growth and better
character of growth.

The current projections are based upon old data that do not reflect current economic
conditions.

Planning for high population growth commits the county to providing an unaffordable level
of government services and infrastructure.

A lower projection is less risky and easier to modify to adjust to actual growth patterns in
the future. A higher projection commits us to difficult-to-undo zoning changes.

If any shortfall occurs in the coming years, we will see it coming years ahead of any actual
need.

Bellingham Planning Director Tim Stewart recently warned of the negative consequences
of a ‘failure to plan for growth’. Futurewise suggests that planning for unwanted growth is
an even greater failure.
There will always be risk and uncertainly when adopting a Population Growth Forecast; but
the risk of adopting a lower forecast is minimal and less than adopting one that is too high.
Unlike a high forecast that requires an irrevocable commitment to expansion, a low forecast
provides the option to expand when expansion is warranted.
More importantly, the low forecast best represents the community’s informed consent with
respect to community goals and values as reflected in the four recent, scientifically-based
Resident Surveys.
Page 11
X.
Bellingham City Council
May 28, 2015
Conclusion: Adopt the lowest Population Growth Forecast.
The most effective responses to each and every issue raised have all converged on a single
response:

Adopt the lowest Population Growth Forecast.
Except for the minority of Bellingham residents who are associated with industries that profit
from the development and sale of real estate (and especially the few who own land just
outside the UGA or represent those who do), there have been virtually no comments from the
public calling for anything but the lowest Population Growth Forecast.
Those of us who have no financial incentive for higher growth – and whose property taxes are
currently being used to subsidize growth - provide a consistent message to adopt the lowest
growth forecast.
We respectfully request that you represent us when you vote.
Sincerely,
Larry S. Horowitz