Can BI housing needs be reconciled with GMA?

Published 1:30 am Friday, February 27, 2026

Recently, in the Review, Allen Phillips touched on the reasons for forming the City of Bainbridge Island and addressed the uneasy relationship of our local priorities with those of the Growth Management Act (GMA). I agreed with him until I reached the last paragraph, predicting dire consequences if we comply with GMA requirements.

The jumping-off place for my opinions here will be an anecdote from Mr. Phillips’ experience with Walt Woodward: “He stressed in his quiet way that although it was important to do things right, it was even more important to do the right things.” Doing things right, I would say, involves knowledge, technical expertise, and communication skills; doing the right things calls for devotion to the community’s betterment, good judgment, and a moral compass.

As Mr. Phillips says, the central purpose driving the decision to form the City of Bainbridge Island and the creation of the first Comprehensive Plan was “to control growth.” The island’s population had grown fast in the 1970s and 1980s, and much of that development impacted forested areas and open space that had once been cleared for farming.

Between 1970 and 2010, our population rose from 8,494 to 23,025 — an average of 1,500 people per decade. Since then, the net increase in the island’s population has leveled off. (The population has not been static in recent decades, but the number of people leaving has come closer to the number of recent arrivals.) Most communities on both sides of Puget Sound have grown at a faster rate.

In accordance with the GMA mandates, population “targets” are set at the county level for municipalities and unincorporated areas. Bainbridge Island’s population growth has consistently fallen below our allocated number. The 2044 target is 29,571, which is only 991 above the 2035 target.

Bainbridge Island has not been penalized for falling short of our population targets, but I don’t know what may happen in the future. Opposition to any growth in population seems stronger than ever, while the desire for more affordable housing is also urgent. The city’s success in meeting housing needs at different levels will be monitored.

In 2016, our Comprehensive Plan established goals, policies, and priority actions that called for diversifying the city’s housing stock, accommodating an economically diverse population, and providing for elderly citizens and others at risk of displacement. Preparing for the required update of our Comprehensive Plan, the city commissioned a Housing Needs Assessment and a Housing Action Plan. All of this was done in response to the GMA. This was “done right.” Was it not “the right thing” to do?

That question has polarized much of our community over the last two years and more. We are now, perhaps, at risk of being paralyzed by disagreements over how to proceed with plans for the Winslow area and with updates to the essential elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

What has caused the broad and deep loss of trust in the City of Bainbridge Island? First, I would say that in the city’s work with consultants, laying groundwork for the complicated planning process, several things were not “done right.” Time and trust were lost in what many came to believe was not “the right thing” to do.

There were things the city had to do. To meet the most troublesome requirements of the GMA, it was necessary to plan for more housing in Winslow, because the need for affordable homes can be met best with multi-family building types. For almost all such housing, Winslow is the only place with the necessary infrastructure and development regulations.

Winslow today lacks capacity for the housing that’s needed. In some places, the allowed density (i. e., the number of homes that could be built) on a lot has to be increased; that requires upzoning and other changes in development regulations.

The words “density” and “upzoning” are used against the city’s “pro-growthers.” Posts on social media have been mean-spirited and tedious. Adamant opponents of the cumbersome planning process have jumped to wild conclusions, imagining implausible consequences of unlikely events. Enough damage has been done; it’s time for a turnaround.

Jon Quitslund previously served on the Bainbridge Island City Council and Planning Commission.