A Bellingham, Washington, council member wants to let residents park factory-built tiny homes in their backyards across the city, a move that could slash the cost of adding a dwelling by more than half.
Council member Jace Cotton brought a draft interim ordinance before the Bellingham City Council on Monday, July 27, proposing that movable dwelling units, tiny homes on wheels, mobile homes, and similar factory-built structures, be allowed in every residential zone in the city. Right now, those units are legal in Bellingham but confined to manufactured home communities. Cotton's proposal would open backyards citywide.
The council heard Cotton's presentation, raised questions about code regulations, fire safety, and placement rules, and adjourned without a final vote. Members asked the city's Planning and Community Development Department to review Bellingham's residential code before the topic comes back for another round. No date for that return has been set.
Cotton's pitch rests on a simple cost comparison. A high-quality movable dwelling unit can run as little as $115,000, with an additional $10,000 to $25,000 for site preparation. A traditional, foundation-built accessory dwelling unit, the kind cities typically encourage, now costs upwards of $300,000 to $500,000, The Sun reported.
That gap matters. For a young buyer priced out of the conventional market, the difference between $140,000 all-in and half a million dollars is the difference between owning something and owning nothing.
Cotton told The Bellingham Herald ahead of the meeting:
"My motivation is affordability. A lot of folks my age are not seeing homeownership as a something that is available to them."
He added:
"I think we need to be creative and this is somewhat outside the box. This is clearly a great housing solution for many folks."
Cotton addressed one of the council's likely concerns head-on: oversight. He noted that Washington state already requires inspections of all movable dwelling units through the Department of Labor and Industries. The units are not unregulated sheds. They go through a state-level review process before anyone moves in.
The draft ordinance itself adds local guardrails. Movable dwelling units placed on residential lots would need at least ten feet of separation from any other structure. They would also be held to the same fire-access standards that apply to every other residential building in the city.
Still, council members wanted more detail. The Planning and Community Development Department will comb through existing residential code to identify conflicts, gaps, or additional requirements before the council takes the matter up again.
Bellingham's current rules illustrate a pattern familiar to cities across the country. Movable dwelling units are not illegal, they are just corralled into manufactured home communities, which limits supply and keeps them out of ordinary neighborhoods where demand is highest. The practical effect is that a homeowner with a half-acre lot and a willing family member cannot park a $115,000 unit in the backyard without running afoul of zoning law.
Cotton's ordinance would change that by opening all residential zones to the units. The proposal treats movable dwellings as a form of infill housing, a way to add density without bulldozing anything or waiting years for a developer to break ground.
For conservatives who have long argued that local zoning codes are one of the biggest obstacles to affordable housing, the Bellingham debate is worth watching. Restrictive land-use rules drive up costs, limit supply, and hand bureaucrats veto power over what a property owner can do with private land. Loosening those rules is not a government handout. It is the opposite, getting government out of the way so the market can deliver a cheaper product.
The council's decision to pause rather than vote is not unusual for an interim ordinance. Members want the planning department's analysis, and they want answers on fire codes and lot standards. Fair enough.
But the underlying math is hard to argue with. When a code-compliant, state-inspected dwelling costs a quarter of the conventional alternative, the burden of proof falls on the people who want to keep banning it, not on the council member trying to let residents build one.
Bellingham has not made a final call. The timeline remains open. Whether the council acts quickly or buries the proposal in review cycles will say a great deal about whether the city's leaders are serious about affordability or just comfortable talking about it.
Housing gets cheaper when government stops telling property owners what they cannot build. Bellingham's council now gets to decide which side of that lesson it wants to be on.