The City of Port Townsend paid architects almost $500,000 to draw up a plan for Evans Vista that is too costly to build. The city purchased the 14.4 acre Evans Vista property in 2021 to address the city’s affordable housing crisis. The architect’s pictures, like the rendering above, are very nice. But the bottom line is that all that money produced a project that can’t be built.
Total costs would start at $111-126 million (2023 dollars) and go up from there. The economic analysis performed only after the drawings were done shows that the market value of the Evans Vista Project would be $55.1 million below the costs of development.
Despite being confronted with a pro forma showing the project was not economically feasible, the Port Townsend City Council on November 20, 2023, voted to approve the plan so that it could move forward. Since then, nothing much has happened on the ground. There is no contractor, no investor pouring tens of millions of dollars into building a costly, hip neighborhood by the pulp mill in the middle of large homeless camps.
As things stand, the Evans Project is a failure. Over $2.1 million has been spent thus far. The project was supposed to address the immediate and crushing shortage of affordable housing in our community. More than three years have passed and not a single unit of affordable housing has been added.
I asked the city when we could expect to see the first affordable housing available at Evans Vista. City Engineer Steve King provided this answer: “These projects by their very nature move slowly as we expected…” There are many excuses for the project moving slowly, everything from holding back until a sewer lift station is built to the more intractable problem of finding a private developer who will risk their money on a seriously losing proposition.
But this was not supposed to be a long, drawn-out morass. Nobody told city council up front this project would stall out. It was supposed to be a fix for the city’s crushing shortage of affordable housing… yesterday, today, tomorrow, not untold years in the future, if ever.
We’ve seen this before: the debacle of the Cherry Street Project, the “revisioning” of the golf course as a Central Park, and plans for a Taj Mahal aquatic center to replace the Mountain View pool. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on lots of drawings, scores of meetings and listening sessions, and thick books of reports, with little else to show for it.
An “Incredibly Expensive” Idea
On December 6, 2021, city council voted to purchase the 14.4 acre Evans Vista property, located east of the highway before the first traffic circle upon entering town. $1.3 million from the Washington Department of Commerce paid for the land, on the condition that at least 25% of housing units in any future development would be “affordable.”
The Evans Vista property is outlined in red.
These acres had long been the place of last resort for addicts who lived in appalling conditions among the trees. I covered that story in my article on what was then being called Port Townsend’s fentanyl forest. During the term of the late former Mayor Brent Shirley an effort to add about 200 housing units in that area had made some progress until the developer determined the project was not feasible due to the location.
As explained by City Engineer Steve King, the new plan was to create at least 100 affordable housing units. He said that number of residences could be served by the water and sewer infrastructure already in place. The “due diligence” conducted before purchase looked for signs of Indian use (none found at the cost of $36,491) and reviewed zoning codes. No economic feasibility analysis of any kind was conducted.
City council and staff quickly leaped from focusing on affordable housing to imagining an entirely new neighborhood with a mix of affordable and market-rate housing, complete with a central plaza and various amenities. Then Mayor Michelle Sandoval predicted it would be an “incredibly expensive” project.
Cherry Street Project demolition
Current Mayor David Faber, Deputy Mayor at the time, said, “I am nervous” about “again'” getting “the city significantly involved in a project that doesn’t necessarily have a clear end project yet — given the status of the Cherry Street Project and so forth.” He did not want another “long-term, dragged-out morass.”
The Cherry Street Project, as most readers know, was the city’s failed effort at creating affordable housing by purchasing in 2017 and barging from Victoria, B.C. a 60-year old 4-unit apartment building and moving it to city-owned land on a hillside above the golf course. The cost of the project was never determined up front and continued to explode. The building sat empty, a vandalized eyesore. Eventually, the city gave up and tore the building down in late 2023. The land sits empty and has not been sold. Taxpayers are still paying off the debt incurred to rehabilitate the building and grounds.
Though he did not want another “long-term, dragged-out morass,” Faber stated quite clearly regarding the embarrassment of the failed Cherry Street Project, “I wouldn’t change a single thing about what we did.” Sadly, the Evans Vista Project has played out along similar lines that led to the failure of the Cherry Street Project.
Ignoring Hard Numbers
In early 2018 it became apparent that much more money would be needed for the Cherry Street Project. The initial hopes of quickly adding affordable housing in the Fall of 2017 for a couple hundred grand had evaporated. This would be a much more involved, more time-consuming and more expensive project, i.e., “a long-term, dragged-out morass.”
City council voted to approve a bond that saddled taxpayers with debt and interest of about $1.4 million. Before the vote, council was informed of a pessimistic pro forma, an economic projection and analysis, showing the project defaulting within two years. City council, which then included Faber and current Deputy Mayor Amy Howard, voted to issue the bond anyway. As council had been forewarned, the project cratered. Taxpayers got burned and years of effort were wasted without adding a single unit of affordable housing.
Fast forward to 2021, when the city acquired the Evans Vista property. The city obtained $3.1 million from the state to help with acquisition and infrastructure costs. In August 2022 the county gave $500,000 of Federal COVID money to fund “the Evans Vista Master Plan.” A couple months later the city issued a “request for qualifications” from architects who could prepare a master plan and applications for land use permits for “an affordable and mixed-use housing development.”
Time was of the essence:
“The development of a mix of 100-150 workforce housing units is meant to deliver urgently-needed supply and to activate the Evans Vista neighborhood as part of the area’s emerging commercial and business environment.” (Emphasis added.)
On November 7, 2022, city council approved a $500,000 contract with Thomas Architecture Studios (TAS) of Olympia. City Councilor Ben Thomas abstained on grounds he lacked enough information to vote on such a large contract.
A year later, November 20, 2023, city council approved the “final master plan design.” The project had grown to 319 units with multi-story apartments — walk-ups and “podiums” with parking under the building. There would be 16 townhomes, 8,500 square feet of retail space, a 2,000 square-foot daycare center and 3,000 square feet of other structures, such as pavilions and meeting spaces. Only nine acres of the 14.4 acres would be developed due to the steep slopes and preservation of a wetland area. The entirely new neighborhood would come with plazas, a dog park, an auditorium and stage, a “madrona picnic grove” and multiple “art plinths.”
City Manager John Mauro said he was “very excited” about the TAS design.
An air of unreality reigned. City Planning Director Emma Bolin penned a fanciful Google review from May 2030:
A Google Review from the Future
Evans Vista Neighborhood in the Year 2030I moved to Evans Vista years ago and watched my new neighborhood blossom. It’s a homecoming. Many of my friends returned to Port Townsend due to the increased amount of affordable housing. The on-site daycare is a relief for working families. Affordable townhomes empowered struggling friends to become homeowners. This is a place where people succeed. The demand for the 321 available units led to a waiting list of current and former Port Townsendites, all yearning for a backyard where you can take tai chi lessons followed by garden-to-table kombucha workshops, and later a Chautauqua band finished out with late-night open-air movies….
Evans Vista personifies our local vibe. Diverse and affordable housing options cater to all. The abundance of open spaces, trails, community gardens, and gathering spaces promote individual and community health, fostering connections among residents. The mix of market-rate and affordable housing boast Port Townsend’s commitment to diversity and inclusivity….
Evans Vista is not merely a neighborhood; it’s a testament to what Port Townsend life should be. It’s a portal to the future where sustainable and inclusive havens thrive.
– Evans Vista Resident, May 1, 2030
The reality check that followed the nice pictures brought spirits down fast. You could see the faces of city councilors drop (especially Mayor Faber, who may have been seeing that Cherry Street Project repeat he dreaded). According to economic analysts with ECONorthwest, there was no likely scenario in which the master plan could work. “A combination of factors need to change for the entire site to be feasible.”
Slide from ECONorthwest presentation
Those factors would be a deep cut in construction costs, much higher rents throughout the city so that higher rents could be charged at Evans Vista, and a return to pre-pandemic interest rates and market conditions like those in 2013. Failing a dramatic change in all those factors, the project does not “pencil out.” It is unfeasible even without any “affordable” units and with all units rented at highest market rates.
City council did not tell the architect to come back with a design that stood a chance of being built sometime soon. Instead, the council gave its unanimous approval to a plan that can’t be built.
To date, $2,149,942 has been spent on the project (right-hand column in table below) with millions more in the budget (left hand column).
Table of budget and expenses for Evans Vista project, from the city’s 2025 final budget
Three Strikes
Since the city acquired the Evans Vista property, dozens of people who had once found affordable (free) housing under the trees have been evicted. It cost about $100,000 to clear out their camps and cart away their refuse, with city staff providing the labor. A large chain link fence and “no trespassing” signs threatening criminal prosecution surround much of the land.
The people who used to live there moved not very far away. Some were accepted into the Mill Road homeless camp, officially named the Caswell-Brown Village after two homeless individuals who died from substance abuse. Many others have pitched tents in the woods and meadows north of the DSHS building on a city right-of-way and private property behind the Les Schwab store. I have been told by people who do outreach to the homeless that about 50 people could be living in that area.
Homeless encampment on north side of Evans Vista
Homeless camp on north side of Evans Vista, behind Les Schwab
Mill Road (Caswell-Brown) homeless camp
Blue marking at bottom left indicates approximate area of Mill Road camp; blue line at bottom right shows boundary of area occupied by homeless camps near DSHS building; Evans Vista property delineated by dashed red line.
The large Mill Road camp lies on the south side of the Evans Vista property. Every day some of its residents cross the Evans Vista property to get into town. I have been told of, but not seen for myself, another sizable encampment very near Evans Vista along a power line right-of-way.
Several years ago I wrote about the frequent law enforcement call-outs to the Mill Road camp due to drug dealing, substance abuse, thefts and assaults. Law enforcement sources speaking off the record inform me that the camp is being better managed now, with fewer calls to law enforcement. Drug use inside the dwelling units, however, continues and there have been several overdoses and other complications from substance abuse.
The camps at the other end of the Evans Vista property, near the DSHS building, and in the surrounding woods have seen a sharp rise in methamphetamine abuse. Those camps have become increasingly violent — so violent, according to law enforcement sources, that people have fled and set up camps along nearby power lines.
Moreover, immediately to the east of Evans Vista and the homeless camps is the odiferous paper mill.
Evans Vista is not exactly prime real estate, yet the analysts used rental rates at the fairly new West Harbor Apartments as a lodestar. Rents at Evans Vista would have to be higher than what is charged at a fairly up-scale complex in a desirable location.
Even an all-market rate project with NO subsidized “affordable” units would be unfeasible, according to ECONorthwest’s analysts, unless the city’s rental rates across the board go higher. How ironic, that in order to provide a limited amount of affordable housing at Evans Vista, housing would have to become less affordable for everyone else.
Higher rents alone would not make the project feasible. Interest rates would also have to drop very significantly. But rates have declined less than the predictions ECONorthwest presented to council in 2023. Thus far in 2025, the Federal Reserve has not cut interest rates. According to the minutes of the most recent Fed meeting, any cuts are on hold indefinitely while inflation persists.
Slide from ECONorthwest presentation
Two of the three factors necessary for any chance of the TAS design being feasible are not attainable. As ECONorthwest also discussed, assuming the TAS design remains the basic plan, there is little that can be done meaningfully to reduce construction costs. That makes three strikes against the Evans Vista Project.
How Could This Happen… Again?
In a few years time, Port Townsend has seen four big-vision, costly public works efforts flop: The Cherry Street Project. The golf course “revisioning” as P.T.’s Central Park. The mega-bucks Taj Mahal aquatic center. And now Evans Vista.
These projects share several attributes. First and foremost is that none of them are core municipal services, such as providing infrastructure and law enforcement — the fundamental reasons why municipal corporations are formed. Millions of dollars have been wasted that could have gone towards fixing the city’s streets and deteriorating sewer and water systems went to consultants or staff hired principally to drive home the golf course and pool projects.
The amount wasted is not insignificant. Recently, the century-old pipeline that brings water to Port Townsend suffered two major breaks. As the Leader reported, the 2025 repair budget for this critical infrastructure — P.T. can’t exist without it — was only $63,672. A single January water line break cost $150,000 to repair.
In contrast, the city staffer brought on board with federal COVID dollars, whose primary job was strategizing and realizing the golf course revisioning and the aquatic center planning and design, was getting paid $130,000 annually, plus benefits. City Manager Mauro has said the city spent $500,000 on the “Healthier Together” pool design process. The architectural firm that drew up the grandiose and unaffordable $43-53 million pool design was paid about $200,000. The contract with TAS for Evans Vista was almost half a million dollars.
Ironically, the unfeasible Evans Vista Master Plan was one of the reasons the Washington City Manager’s Association gave Port Townsend City Manager John Mauro its 2024 award for Management Excellence. Off topic, but along similar lines, his work on the city’s financial sustainability was another reason for the award — yet the city is now in its third year straight of operating in the red and continues drawing down dwindling reserves.
And remember that, like the Cherry Street Project, the Evans Vista Project was intended to address and help alleviate the city’s dire, emergency-level affordable housing crisis. So many years like so many tax dollars have been lost, and the problem has only gotten worse.
Recently a plumber came to our home to fix a faucet. Poor us, we couldn’t get hot water the exact second we wanted it. He told us that he lives in “a shack in the woods” without indoor plumbing. He uses an outhouse. He says has not been able to find any other accommodation that he can afford.
In deciding to go big and build an entirely new neighborhood, in one of the least desirable areas of the city, then handing that vision off to an architectural firm without giving them a budget as to what could feasibly be built, the city set itself on the same path as with its other recent out-sized housing and amenities projects.
Infrastructure already existed to add 100 residences. But instead of building incrementally, picking the low-hanging fruit, the city and TAS put up a Christmas tree then asked “stakeholders” what presents they wanted around the tree. The project metastasized until affordable housing became a “condition” of funding that had to be met, instead of the primary objective.
A city that desperately needs affordable housing immediately paid a lot of money for a plan that is not only unfeasible on a large scale, but absurd in its details. Where needed housing units could have been added, TAS instead dedicated buildable land to an amphitheater.
Other buildable land would showcase “art plinths.” Port Townsend knows all about “art plinths.”
A Wise Pivot
Not all has been wasted. The civil engineering work performed for the TAS design would be useful to any developer. And we now know what we can’t possibly afford.
On November 4, 2024, city council authorized the city manager to execute a contract for about $160,000 to see if there might be a way to entice a developer and investors to bite off smaller pieces of the project. Further, the developer would not be tied to the unfeasible design from TAS. City Engineer King and Planning Director Bolin deserve credit for this pivot.
I suggest the redirection be more audacious and boldly innovative. We can’t keep following the same path to failure over and over again. We have an emergency, so let’s act accordingly. This will be the topic of my next article on the Evans Vista Project.
Jim Scarantino was the editor and founder of Port Townsend Free Press. He is happy in his new role as just a contributor writing on topics of concern to him. He spent the first 25 years of his professional life as a trial attorney, with a specialty in litigating complex construction disputes, involving everything from massive electrical power generation plants in Puerto Rico to ethanol production and interstate highway projects in New Mexico. For his second career, he launched an online investigative news website that broke several national stories. He is also the author of three crime novels. He resides in Jefferson County. See our "About" page for more information.
Thank you, Jim.
As I watch the world I grew up in and grew old in teeter around the drain, your voice of reason and facts revives me and brings (perhaps silly, but essential hope) back for awhile.
Thank you!
Thank you!
This is why there is no affordable housing because we hire people who just can’t get themselves to design something that isn’t career enhancing. This is like fussing over the color of the lifejacket while the ship is taking water. Way too fancy. Too many big windows and expensive to build overhangs, and angles. Make it plain and humble. These look like the kind of places that people with money would live in. Build them for people without money, they might then become affordable. They don’t have to be ugly but they sure don’t need to be expensively beautiful and no public art or other expensive amenities. Remember 1950s starter homes for young marrieds? Common sense. I will repeat myself again. Build a multi story apartment building or two.
Well written and researched and I agree with this reporting. Maybe Elon is right and we should all move to Mars. Or we could all just be more involved with govt and our community instead of trying to destroy it and shame the few trying to make something happen with funding available. Maybe ask Elon to buy out our town and run it with his ai. He has plenty to support us all here and wastes it on space toys. Get Trump to sell one of his hotels, maybe the one in Russia or Saudi and invest here. TAX THE RICH.
Well written piece, Jim. Have you read the book “Strong Towns”? The author did a Port-hosted webinar with local officials in 2021. In it he lays out the the mistake we continue to make and which you allude to in your article with this great analogy:
“But instead of building incrementally, picking the low-hanging fruit, the city and TAS put up a Christmas tree then asked “stakeholders” what presents they wanted around the tree.”
Municipalities really struggle to pull off big projects, but electeds and staff really struggle to restrain themselves from swinging for the fences with no one on base.
Here’s a link to that talk, for anyone interested: https://media.avcaptureall.cloud/meeting/fcbcfcd9-880b-4e06-b1a7-e8c41aa7a5f4
Cui Bono? Excellent piece. Now, please tell us who, in specific, is profiting from these seemingly intentional boondoggles. Who are the realtors, bankers, architects, commercial artists, land speculators, politicians, civil servants, landscapers, engineers, land developers and investors who make up the economic chain. Expose and break the chain with accountability. Otherwise, the boondoggles will go on and continue to profit a few while exploiting the many.
Roger that!
This town sure seems to love its consultants and planners. Any family members involved?
Getting practical: How about a trailer park.
That would seem likely a pretty practical start, considering local government’s track record with more adventurous projects.
I don’t understand why our county and city administration don’t consider trying to entice private equity by offering more attractive and cooperative zoning/building requirements.
If these proposed projects are even remotely viable, private investment would surely surface. Their absence is telling.
It seems like once there is any kind of effort being made to establish “housing”, it stops people from fighting for it. It shuts people up, and they are distracted for a little. I’d be curious about what the City considers “affordable”. All that money spent to get plans drawn up, and then finding out it’s too expensive, and it won’t work? It wouldn’t be the first time, that’s happened, nor the last.
Thanks Jim for the research on Evan’s Vista — waste… and abuse. The community does speak up, writes, testifies but Faber’s council seems to have an agenda and we are not included. The community has a comprehensive plan with an overarching vision to honor the legacy of this seaport village; repeated throughout the document — small town atmosphere and natural surroundings. Yet the electeds persist with plans based on viewing Port Townsend as an asset to be exploited.
The Evans Vista project drawings depict a sort of la la land — more like a SeaTac suburb — a village at the edge of the village of Port Townsend!!
What a clever pitch from Emma Bolin — a look backward from 2030. How does that square with the projected growth rate of about 60 people a year? And how scary that the electeds and staff ignore the Comp Plan and dally with the idea of this urban fairyland cloaked as affordable — “a testament to what Port Townsend life should be. It’s a portal to the future where sustainable and inclusive havens thrive.” Emma, “sustainable and inclusive” has to do with access to clean water, working sewers and local food web.
Situational awareness would help right now. Cooperative planning with council, the school district, Olycap and other agencies to look at data: current and projected population; need for low and moderate income multi unit housing; and the feasibility of Mt. View tennis court land with access from Gaines St. Something along the lines of centrally located, multi-unit apartments with parking under the building. A 2,000 square-foot daycare center, recyclery and meeting spaces. An unopened right-of-way for a community garden, a dog park, an auditorium and stage, picnic, play ground, parks, infrastructure and bus lines already exist.
This Victorian seaport town — the golden egg — is being exploited and financialized for a 21st century urbanized future. The agenda per the ambitious manager is “exciting”; his planner writes of thriving, inclusive, and sustainable; the mayor extolls rezoning irreplaceable parks and open space for dense, market priced housing and council is searching frantically for money to fill its budget gaps including to-die-for staff salaries — pitches that ring bells in council’s belfry!
(note: cutting the manager’s $240,000 salary by $50,000 would equal 15,000 hours from parking meters)
In the same vein as the person who suggested a trailer park, how about tiny homes.
On another matter but still reflecting the spectacular decision making skills shown by city officials; I should mention the fifty unit hotel on Water St. that has eleven on site parking places with only another twelve on the city street next to it. It is presently in the permitting process. The plans and other documents are on the City web. I think the decision deadline is in another month — tune in later.
What happens when the hired help don’t to a good job? You remove them from their position. I seriously believe it is time to reassess the merits of our city manager. Someone who is truly interested in our small town and not seeking rob us blind.
How about duplicating the building built in 2021-24 at the far end of the QFC mall, built with the help of the County and local folk.
https://clarkconstruct.com/portfolio/7th-haven/
Pretty ugly when it was being built, looks good now. 43 units.
It’s a very sad story but thanks for sharing with us. As I read, I thought about yet another mess not mentioned in this article — Fort Worden. Why can’t those empty buildings be used to house people. My family had a lovely reunion there this spring. The building we were in needs a little paint here and there but the guest bedrooms were lovely, with first rate linens and all. Why leave it empty.
Homeless children are forced to do their homework in a small tent with poor light, where you cannot stand up, and it’s way too cold to be able to think very well. It’s indecent!
Mr. Scarantino, can you please look into the mess at Fort Worden and see if it could be used as affordable housing. I’m 90. I volunteer to paint and clean.
Quick math. I stand to be corrected and invite discussion. 7th Heaven cost $15,400,000 divided by 43 units 6 studio apartments, 18 one-bedrooms, 15 two-bedrooms and 4 three-bedroom units is just over $358,000 per unit. Stated number of people served is 130 people or $118,461 per person.
Comparisons for a mobile home court at Evans Vista with base 3 bedroom units at around $100,000 for a 3 bedroom 1200 sf unit and doubling that for infrastructure such as land, sewer, water and roads, (gravel or asphalt makes a big difference as does final number of units) is $200,000 divided by 3 occupants at minimum is $66,000 per person served. These are rough numbers but show quite a bit of savings compared to some other options. If anyone has the time, what is the cost per sewer hook up, electrical, water per unit?
These numbers don’t consider smaller single person units. These are very rough numbers. Just a starting point. The goal for everyone should be to serve the most for the least with the best. I can’t think of anything run through “public process” in PT that has done that. We all can list millions of vanished dollars in consultant fees and thrown away projects by those who will control whatever happens at Evans Vista which has a problematic location next to the mill. Builders build homes relative to land values and quality in the real world.
What percentage of public and private funds are used and available is also a factor.
Perhaps the answer is to buy out the city and go private funding all the way. We all can bitch. Can we act?
It may well be that competent investors will be wary of the location close to the mill and the smell of jobs it creates wafting into homes. Reality can be tough unless you are protected with a “public service” job.
The fee for this rough preliminary study is $000,000,000.00 Kick back fees are $0
Government is the problem, not the solution. Only way to get affordable housing is for the government to get rid of the regulations that made housing expensive.
Outstanding and well written. What bothers me is that, in WWII Bremerton built scores of “Temporary Duplexes” and they are still standing today and being rented out by a huge corporation in Calif. We probably could have put up 50-100 ADU’s with plumbing for the 2 million dollars.
That smell is the elephant in the room. The paper mill, with the added scent of incompetent corruption and perhaps a hint of taxpayer money being burned.
A large and expensive project was planned very close to the source of what was sure to become an odiferous litigious issue for those living there. Never spoken of or considered as far as I know. This is consistent with so much your Sandoval/Timmons-Faber/Maruo form of authority has manifested.
If I had been on a multi year bender and came to my senses with both the Cherry Street and Stanky Ridge properties to deal with I would do the following.
I remember some kind folk had offered around a million dollars for the Cherry Street land and agreed to do mixed affordable and standard housing there. Turned down by elected visionaries. I would take that money and prep the Stanky Ridge land for single and double mobile homes. Aesthetically, density and landscaping to be determined. Last I knew Mobile homes are titled as not tied to the land. Although they are usually permanent. They can be moved or sold separate from the land if desired. A mobile home court properly designed and landscaped is not a trailer park.
I would then either sell or rent the ready to use plots to individuals to provide their own housing of their choice and cost with some guidelines to protect the value of the overall project.
Home ownership. Dignity. Pride in community. Starter homes, retirement homes, co owned group homes for our younger folk to get started.
I would certainly be sure all knew of the “odor”. If that became an issue for one or all they could move their owned home or sell it in its location. All parties need to know why this area was less expensive (if it can be) so no litigation occurs. I believe a bullet was dodged with the failure of Stanky Ridge. I mean Evans Vista. I mean Stanky Ridge.
Tiny homes are a good idea for someone else. Perhaps they could also be considered. I do know a 10×12 foot house addition was bid at $120,000 recently.
Here is just one link so you can see what options there are available. Just the tip of the iceberg.
https://www.cascadefactoryhomes.com/?msclkid=5bcc4d0fe0311fb2c9112aca2ab3d4a5
Permitting could be fast due to known engineering. I could go on and on like I usually do but I won’t. I will say I have done 5 mobile home projects on acreage over the last 20 years. All have doubled in value and rental income. And still comparatively “affordable” after minimal renovations. Best investments ever.
But I wasn’t focused wasting other peoples money and building ego enhancing projects.
The waste is epic. The City is incompetent. There’s no way we can build enough housing for everyone who needs it. We are going to go broke at this rate and then we are all falling into homelessness.
Thank you Jim for writing this. So important to have this information for a record and hopefully to help folks ask the council to please stop spending money like this.
What a waste.
Tis everywhere, while the majority wonders how we can keep living here with the high cost of property taxes, housing, sales taxes and on and on. So frustrating.
Glad we have the Free Press. Thank you editors and Jim for bringing us this. Look forward to your next article Jim.
My comment that a trailer park would work was not facetious. For the cost of these ridiculous studies, the city could have constructed numerous pads with utilities for manufactured homes or RVs. Once this was done, residents could purchase units to place on them or small scale capitalists could place units for rent. In that sense it would be self financing. There are plenty of examples of high quality clean trailer parks in PT. Look at Towne Point, Four Corners Olympic, and Evergreen Coho. These are clean affordable places for families. I would add that this land separated from the highway and other residential areas is ideally suited for this use.
I did not take it in jest. Spot on. Please keep keep sharing your thoughts. I am heading in the same direction with my next article.
Anon-
I think we are on the same page with some slight differences. A quality affordable mobile home park is different than a travel trailer park. Semantics matter. Mixing the two in the physical sense or just descriptively can get things off track. Strictly my opinion based on my experiences. And what I would invest in.
Mobile homes are ideally “pit set” so the level of doors and windows are the same as a stick built home. Decks can be added. Required tie downs are hidden. Skirting and backfill are required. This can be undone but a sense of permanence and a similar look of a stick built home is achieved.
When it comes to finance or investors overall quality helps the sense of risk. Not needing to go over the top, but a “nice neighborhood” can be achieved. A few used travel trailers in the mix changes everything. A place for those should also be a goal.
Your idea of investors renting out to tenants who can’t afford down payments is good. Rent to own could be an option with the right investors. There’s more money and good hearts in PT than many know. Those opposed would love to tag it as a problematic “trailer park”. Ignorance needs to be avoided. Keeping the “city” and some individuals at bay is important. The city has produced lemons. Lemonade is possible.
Words do matter.
Very well in-depth writing. Wow, what a fiasco; now I know where the $$ went without results. SAD!!
Great rundown. I so appreciate having this information as I navigate being an active citizen of Port Townsend. Thank you!
I for one didn’t find this article very helpful or informative at all. It reads like a bunch of whining and lack of appreciation for the challenge in front of this community regarding house…calling tents “free housing”? The fact is, this community needs affordable rental housing and density housing is expensive. I’m not supportive of the project as defined but think about what is happening here. This article generates an atmosphere that will be a barrier to housing solutions at scale. Not root out waste.
Get involved and help create the solutions. Stop whining.
Habitat for Humanity (your organization, I believe) is demonstrating competence in planning and execution with its large Port Hadlock project. In contrast, the city’s Evans Vista Project has wasted half a million dollars and not produced a stick of housing. The next article will propose solutions and a way forward, as stated in the final paragraph (which you may have missed). What creates resistance to grandiose public projects is not reporting on the facts about the projects, it is the failure of the projects themselves. Repeating those mistakes over and over creates cynicism. Are you suggesting that the public be kept in the dark about how their money is being wasted?