On November 4th, Bellingham Public Works will make a recommendation to the City Council to remove a bridge and displace four families against their wishes.  

My husband and I are affected homeowners. The city is proposing to take our property and demolish our family home. The community has not been involved in the decision making process.

We have written a letter (below) to the City Council imploring them to reject this recommendation. As a Bellingham resident concerned about how the city makes decisions, please consider lending your signature and your support to our letter. Your signatures will be added to a paper copy circulating in our neighborhoods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
October 19, 2024

Bellingham City Council, 210 Lottie St, Bellingham WA 98225

Dear Members of the Bellingham City Council,

Without a bridge over Chuckanut Creek, our home at 3625 18th St. will be inaccessible. This has been our family home for nearly 20 years, where we have raised three children. We strongly oppose the Public Works Department’s recommendation to not replace the bridge – a proposal that is more expensive than the alternatives, displaces families, and reduces the housing supply in the City. We urge the Council to direct Public Works to replace the bridge, as there are viable alternatives that align with conservation goals while preserving an important part of our historic neighborhood. We are not alone—this letter is co-signed by many of our neighbors in Chuckanut Village and beyond.

While we strongly support the City’s commitment to mitigating risk to properties from future flooding, and benefits to habitat and the environment (we are both environmental science professors at Western with expertise in environmental engineering, habitat restoration, and climate change impacts) we strongly disagree that the current recommendation is a fair or acceptable way to do so. 

We ask that you consider four key issues as you weigh a decision that could force people from their homes and dismantle a close-knit community.

• First, Public Works claims that “Given the expected increase in flooding in the area, this option helps protect you from future risks associated with continued bridge replacements.”
  • Flooding impacts from climate change are a significant concern, but the recommendation does not address the issue logically. If a permanent bridge were installed, it would be built to FEMA standards and would be designed to withstand flooding anticipated by future storm surge projections. Thus, there is no reason to expect the need for continued bridge replacements over time. Additionally, the affected properties, and all the houses, are outside the floodplain and therefore are unlikely to be impacted by flooding, including under projected scenarios. Buying out homes will not prevent future expenses.
• Second, Public Works also writes: “The City sees value in purchasing properties in this area, recognizing the potential benefits for habitat and the environment, which can support community goals.”
  • We respectfully disagree. While we appreciate and support the City’s efforts to address environmental concerns, these aggressive goals have real human consequences. Overplanning can be just as harmful as under planning. In this case, the displacement of long-time residents is not only unjust but unnecessary. The ecological impact of allowing us to remain in our homes is minimal compared to that of current and future development in the City. We have been good stewards of our land, maintaining large portions of our property under conservation easements, removing invasive species, and planting appropriate vegetation in collaboration with City employees. 
  • Furthermore, the City could consider purchasing the property adjacent to the creek that is currently on the market if additional conservation land in our neighborhood is a goal.
  • Last but not least, as stated in the report, the temporary bridge is not in compliance with fish passage width requirements due to the emergency nature in which it was built. Leaving a sub-standard bridge in place until an unknown future date when it fails is arguably more harmful to fish than taking immediate action to replace it. Building a larger bridge would allow for ecological improvements along the riparian area, and therefore contribute to the City’s conservation goals. 
• Third, the proposal to buy out homeowners is fiscally irresponsible. Public Works’ own report shows that alternative options are less expensive. Furthermore, in our meeting with Public Works on October 11 we were told that the City has already been awarded a FEMA grant covering 90% of the bridge rebuild. In contrast, the funds to purchase properties would need to come from a competitive grant process or from City resources, making the buyout not only more costly but also less certain. Spending more money to displace people from their homes is unreasonable, not just to us, but to Bellingham taxpayers.
• And Fourth, if Public Works’ recommendation moves forward, four homes would be lost. Our 20 years in this neighborhood marks us as relative newcomers. Our neighbors have even longer histories and deeper connections to the neighborhood. Over the years, we have shared life’s most significant moments with each other, from being at the bedside of two who passed away to celebrating weddings, birthdays, and graduations. This is not just a collection of parcels; it is a community.

We oppose the Public Works Department’s recommendation to pursue a course of action that is more expensive than the alternatives, displaces families, and reduces the housing supply in the City. 

We strongly urge you to instruct Public Works to find a solution that replaces the bridge, upholds fiscal responsibility, respects the rights of homeowners, and preserves this historic, vibrant neighborhood for the next generation.

Please see the attached pages which list neighbors and community members who support us in this request.

Sincerely, Andy and Rebecca Bunn