Совет Бейнбридж-Айленда требует сравнительного анализа перед инвестированием в проект на Уинслоу-уэй

Before COBI commits more public money, let the properties compete Published 1:30 am Friday, August 14, 2026 Bainbridge Island’s City Council has just completed its 2027-28 budget-prioritization exercise. Affordable housing is a priority. So are water, wastewater and sewer capacity. And so is fiscal discipline: “no new taxes unless absolutely necessary.” These priorities are not in conflict. But they all draw from the same limited pool of public dollars and public land. That is why, before the city makes further commitments to 625 Winslow Way, taxpayers deserve a side-by-side comparison of what else that land, that money and that infrastructure capacity could accomplish. Council has already called for a scorecard One council priority is “Housing Action Plan Scorecard Implementation.” Another is “Affordable Housing Development on City Owned Land.” The council does not need to be convinced that a scorecard approach has value. It has already said so. The question is why that discipline has not been applied to the city’s largest housing decision. The public materials I have reviewed do not demonstrate that the city conducted an exhaustive inventory of city-owned property within the Winslow Subarea and compared every potentially suitable parcel. Instead, the analysis appears to have started with 625—a vacant city-owned former police-station property—and considered a limited number of alternatives. That answers “How can we make 625 work?” It does not answer: “Is 625 the best city property for this public investment?” Other public properties deserve the same analysis 625 Winslow Way: approximately 90 affordable units, city financial participation and a long-term land commitment. Senior Community Center, 370 Brien Drive: a June 2024 concept shows 56 housing units integrated with a Senior Center. Suzuki: approximately 14 acres, with a prior city feasibility analysis of a 100-unit affordable-housing concept and its funding gap. These properties offer different combinations of housing, community services, infrastructure impacts and public costs. Scorecard should show tradeoffs For each property, disclose: land value, total city investment, total public investment, affordable units and AMI levels, public cost per affordable unit, community facilities, water/sewer/groundwater impacts, traffic, funding gap, long-term city obligation, opportunity cost, public use being given up, and compatibility with the Winslow Subarea Plan. This is especially important for 625 because it sits at one of the island’s most consequential transportation locations. Traffic impact should be compared—not simply checked off. Likewise, the city’s own Suzuki analysis demonstrates why the funding gap matters. Total project cost is not the same as the amount taxpayers ultimately must provide. Timing matters This analysis should occur before, not after, major commitments such as development contracts, financing and long-term leases. Once those commitments are made, the city’s ability to change course narrows sharply. This is an argument for better affordable-housing decision-making. The council has told us that housing, infrastructure and fiscal discipline all matter. It has also told us that a scorecard is the right tool. Apply it Before committing more public money or public land to 625, compare 625 with the Senior Center, Suzuki, and any other viable city-owned property. If 625 is the best investment, the numbers should demonstrate it. City-owned land belongs to the public. Let the properties compete—and let the evidence determine which investment delivers the greatest public benefit. Nora Masters is a former performance auditor for the City of Seattle and lives on Bainbridge Island.