Support ‘attainable’ housing
To the editor:
The cost of housing on Bainbridge Island has gone through the roof. The increase has been up to 28% in the last year, with the median price well over $1 million. Living here is becoming an unattainable dream for many.
I applaud Housing Resources Bainbridge and others who are trying to address the critical need for affordable housing. But there is also a need for housing that is not within the government definition of “affordable” but is still “attainable” by people with moderate incomes. There’s a gap between affordable/subsidized housing and current market prices.
I’m aware of one proposal for an “attainable” home. There may be others and, if so, we should consider them. The one I’ve heard of is for a 1600-square-foot home with an 800-square-foot footprint on 1/5 acre. Not a mega-mansion. There is apparently a wetland, so setbacks would be required but the proposal apparently conforms. I’ve also heard that the Planning Department’s original recommendation was abruptly changed from “neutral” to “reject.” Why? We need attainable housing, and if it can be achieved within the rules, why not?
When I moved to the island in 1979, a friend told me that the thing she didn’t like about Bainbridge was that “you can’t tell from someone’s address how much money he has.” My answer: That’s precisely what I do like about it. We need to be encouraging housing at all price levels so that baristas, teachers, firefighters, young families and older folks can continue to live here. Let’s do what we can to make that happen.
Ellin Spenser
Bainbridge Island
Like carbon fee
To the editor:
Missing from Phil Kerpen’s OpEd, “Not the time for higher energy taxes,” (BI Review, May 27) is any mention of the climate crisis. Kerpen is surprised that some US energy companies support a price on carbon as a key part of a solution to climate change.
The high cost of our dependence on fossil fuels is evident in skyrocketing gas prices. I agree with Kerpen that the sudden, unpredictable rise in fossil fuel prices we have seen — and one that mostly benefits oil company profits — is terrible. But as climate change affects our quality of life, climate catastrophes will soon outpace our ability to recover and adapt, and financial costs will keep rising.
A new report from Stanford University demonstrates that transitioning away from the unpredictability of polluting fossil fuels to renewables would reduce household annual energy costs by around 63% and create millions of new jobs.
A federal carbon fee levied on polluting industries would speed that transition and let the market determine which clean technologies win out. What’s more, money from the fee could be returned as a “carbon cashback” check to American households, providing invaluable monthly support.
Transition to cheaper, reliable, greener energy is already happening but needs to accelerate. As Congress discusses solutions to climate change and our energy future, I urge Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to support a price on carbon with a dividend returned directly to households already hurt by rising costs. I also appreciate Rep. Derek Kilmer’s support for this policy.
Mike Kelly
Bainbridge Island
Pump pain needed
To the editor:
“Pain at the pump” is definitely real, for sure, as Phil Kerpen points out in his op-ed from May 27. Kerpen accuses “many of America’s largest corporations (of) elevating green wokeness over economic and business logic by calling … for new taxes on energy.”
Let’s talk about green wokeness. I believe it is critical to “awaken” all of us and our leaders to the urgency of climate solutions. I believe it is time to solve the high-energy cost problem by incentivizing this country to get off fossil fuels and build the clean energy economy we need.
Fossil fuels and the resulting worldwide contamination of co2 in the atmosphere are causing profound damage to all of our lives, pain that ultimately will be far greater than rising gas prices. When fees on fossil fuels include a rebate to families, then the suffering is mitigated and the transition to clean energy is incentivized.
We know how to fix this existential climate problem. Pricing pollution and returning funds to families is a key part of that solution: effective, fair and durable. Let’s convert pain at the pump to a powerful climate fix. And as Kerpen would have to admit, that strategy uses actual economic and business logic. That’s a good thing.
Bobbie Morgan
Bainbridge Island
Protect Heritage Park
To the editor:
With the cumulative impacts occurring to habitats in North Kitsap, it is prudent to consider an alternative in the Sound to Olympics Trail sitting a road through the middle of North Kitsap Heritage Park.
A bike trail is a great amenity but the choice of the route should honor the natural resources of the park. This beautiful park has been undisturbed by paving and is a place of refuge, which benefits citizens as well as healthy habitat. We need an alternative that upholds the irreplaceable benefits to wildlife.
To address the biodiversity crisis and to mitigate climate change we must protect public lands and waters that wildlife depends on. Human actions are causing widespread degradation of habitat and the destruction of natural systems. We aren’t making needed adjustments quickly enough.
Look around North Kitsap and see the rampant degradation of habitat that has occurred just in the last 10 years: massive clear-cuts, new housing developments — each displaces creatures large and small.
The STO trail option would be a 10-foot-wide asphalt road with 2-foot shoulders. This extensive development would require retaining walls for sloping terrain. Bikes could travel with speed, at the cost of fragmenting animal populations and impacting plant communities.
A trail along the perimeter of the park would offer a more accessible and level route for cyclists, without threatening a sensitive ecosystem. Contact the Kitsap County commissioners and participate in upcoming public meetings on Heritage Park and the STO trail.
Beth Nichols
Indianola
