Letter: Resisting development hurts families

Editor,

Ms. Edain is complaining about my civic involvement (letter, “Critic has no solutions to housing woes”), which seems odd compared to her years of civic involvement with both she and Rhonda Salerno’s lobbying efforts to stop housing development.

She and Councilmember Rhonda Salerno in Langley have been busily involved for many years to preclude or prevent housing development where they can. Often they and I are on opposite sides of issues — and that is our legal right.

One of the developments they were strongly against was to be called “Langley Passage” on Edgecliff Drive in Langley, on 10 acres. This development was to be 20 new two-bedroom and three-bedroom homes. The local developer/builder devoted significant time and money towards doing everything the city required and had plat approval subject to typical city conditions.

Ms. Edain and Ms. Salerno were not willing to accept the city approvals for the project, so they did everything in their citizen power to stop this development of homes — and convinced the council to impose so many building moratoriums, that the legal limits for such building moratoriums were exceeded. The builders sued the city and won.

The City of Langley has thick records, all of which are public information records, that the public (this means everyone) is entitled by law to review. Even easier is to search online for the old South Whidbey Record articles with headlines “Langley Passage” as well as in the headline “Moratorium Idea Elicits Big Reaction.”

Langley has a long reputation for being against development. The only multiple-unit development we have seen over the last 10 years have been the units at Upper Langley of 16 permanently designated affordable housing units and the affordable housing of the nine Tiny Homes In The Name of Christ (THINC).

Where do large families live? Outside of Langley. The reasons for the city’s lack of homes large enough for larger families can certainly be understood when reviewing prior council member moratoriums or other actions against housing development. The one category of housing that seems to always get enthusiastic city council reactions are the affordable housing units. There is an effort to create workforce housing, but I don’t see anyone building any at this time.

The state is requiring Langley to plan for something like an additional 468 new housing units to be planned for over the next 20 years — this is a huge increase, considering Langley has never added 468 new housing units in any 20-year period in more than 100 years.

The Washington State Department of Commerce guidance for the required comprehensive planning states this: “Cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must include a housing element in their comprehensive plans. The GMA housing goal directs local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.”

It’s all very interesting, isn’t it? Everyone has a right to civic engagement. And Langley needs to allow for more housing units of all sizes and price ranges. Let’s have some of those four-bedroom and five-bedroom homes built and see more children in Langley. Did you realize the median age of the Langley population per the last Census today is age 69.6? I think it is partially due to the significantly high number of small homes.

Leanne Finlay

Langley