BI has an accountability issue, not a housing vision problem

Published 1:30 am Friday, July 10, 2026

For two decades, I have audited local governments by asking practical questions: Did the program work? Did it deliver what was promised? Was public money and public risk managed responsibly? Those questions matter now because Bainbridge Island’s June 30 housing decision shows what happens when policy momentum outruns public accountability. Councilmembers say they support affordable housing and environmental protection, but at the final vote, they abandoned both.

The council expanded development capacity while removing the mandatory inclusionary zoning requirement that tied added density to affordable and workforce housing. In audit terms, this is a clear finding: the city increased the public investment — added floor-area ratio, density, and market value for developers — without securing a matching, enforceable public benefit or funding mechanism. Zoning capacity is public value granted to private development, and it warrants the same scrutiny as a grant, contract, or capital outlay. Well-researched studies show that market-rate upzoning does not lower housing prices and does not increase affordability in highly desirable locations with strong real estate markets, such as Bainbridge Island.

Council disregarded the Planning Commission’s recommendation and increased market value for landowners and developers without requiring any affordable housing in return. The public has a reasonable expectation of return on that value — in this case, the affordable housing councilmembers have advocated for over the past 18 months. Four councilmembers prioritized upzoning and developer interests over the affordable housing outcomes they say they support.

Where’s the evidence base?

The concern is not simply that the decision favored development. Council retained the provision expanding private development opportunity and removed the provision requiring developers to contribute to the community’s own housing goals, while disregarding the Planning Commission’s work entirely. This undermines the effort of everyone involved in that process, including the taxpayers who funded it. The result removes environmental and affordability safeguards and sets the stage for significant urbanization of Winslow, with limited regard for affordability or infrastructure.

If affordable housing requires subsidy below certain income levels, the city has two options: require an affordable-housing offset when granting additional market-rate value, or identify the public funding source that will replace it. Removing that leverage without either step is not a resolution to the housing question.

Project 625: a risk-management failure

Project 625 warrants particular scrutiny. A 99-year lease, reported procurement concerns under state law, and a project type the city has no operational history managing are significant risk indicators, not minor procedural details. These are the conditions that typically precede audit findings, cost overruns, and public regret, and they warrant an independent risk and procurement review before the city commits further.

Project 625 was also the city’s first attempt to upzone Winslow without a complete process, using affordable housing as justification. The timeline was driven by the developer’s funding strategy rather than by community need, design quality, public input, or a favorable development agreement.

Infrastructure capacity is a constraint, not context

Groundwater, roads, ferry capacity, utilities, schools, and public safety define the practical limits within which housing policy must operate. Before approving new density, the city should demonstrate whether existing infrastructure can support it, what upgrades will cost, and who will pay. The council is proceeding without completed studies, without a Land Capacity Analysis, and without meaningful public input.

What should happen next?

Bainbridge should continue building affordable housing, and its record shows it can. Before finalizing the changes, the council should take five steps to protect both housing goals and public trust:

• Restore FAR and density to the Planning Commission’s recommended levels pending further review.
• Reinstate mandatory inclusionary zoning as the enforceable link between added development capacity and affordable units.
• Commission an independent risk and procurement review of Project 625 before further commitment.
• Quantify infrastructure capacity against proposed density, publicly, before adoption.
• If necessary, request an extension from the Department of Commerce so the Comprehensive Plan reflects a strategy the city can execute.

Good governance is not measured by how quickly a council can vote or by decisions made without complete information. It is measured by whether the public receives what it was promised, at a cost and risk it agreed to. Bainbridge Island does not need to choose between housing ambition and accountability. Council should seek a brief extension of the Comprehensive Plan timeline, quantify infrastructure capacity against proposed density, engage the public and allow the Planning Commission to review the effects of removing affordable housing protections and increasing density. Our community deserves planning decisions made on complete information, not deadline pressure.

Nora Masters is a former performance auditor for the City of Seattle and lives on Bainbridge Island.