Suzuki debate raises questions | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Published 10:50 am Monday, March 28, 2016

To the editor:

The debate over the Suzuki property is over competing legitimate values — environment, quality of urban life, taxes, and affordable housing. Each value produces a different result — a continuing forest, a modified forest escape for urban dwellers, a more equitable tax base, or an intense but economically diverse housing development.

In the past, my wife and I owned a small house on another very expensive island and rented it out year-round, very inexpensively first to a local deputy sheriff and his small family, then the local post mistress, and finally a second-grade teacher. It was a good move for us, consistent with our values.

The argument for affordable housing on the Suzuki property promises that it will enable the local police, firemen, teachers, city workers, ferry workers, white collar workers, blue collar workers, service workers, and owners and employees of local business to reside on the island they support.

My questions are, given existing affordable housing developments on Bainbridge, how many of these developments now actually support island people with housing? And how many are convenient affordable suburban developments for commuters from the unaffordable Seattle housing market?

How much intensification of Bainbridge housing and land despoliation should we commit to solve King County’s unresolved housing problems?

THOMAS LONNER

Bainbridge Island