The Perfect Case Study

The City used this lot to sell Middle Housing.
Now they are using it to block it.

This corner lot wasn't just a random piece of land. Bothell City Staff used this exact property as their primary example of how Middle Housing should work.

I Believed Them.
I Partnered With Them.

I didn't just buy a lot. I became an advocate. When the City's own communication was lacking, I built bothellwamiddlehousing.wordpress.com to educate neighbors. I printed business cards. I helped organize walking tours to explain the benefits of gentle density.

I designed exactly what they asked for: A main home plus a modest 1,200 sq ft starter home.

Proposed Site Plan The Proposal: A 4BR Family Home + A Detached Starter Home. Fits the neighborhood perfectly.

Then, I tried to build it.

The "Goldilocks" Trap

The Deputy Director created a paradox where gentle density is impossible. By classifying the zone as "Multifamily" (Too Dense), he stripped away State protections. This triggers massive commercial road mandates (Frontage Improvements) that physically destroy any chance of a modest starter home.

He outlawed the "Just Right" solution. The only math that works is tearing it all down to build a massive apartment block.

1. The "Permissive" Inversion

State Law (HB 1110) guarantees Middle Housing "unless higher densities apply." This clause was written as a floor—ensuring the law sets a minimum baseline, while allowing cities to authorize even more.

2. Turning a Floor into a Ceiling

Deputy Director Christian Geitz inverted the intent of the law. He argued that because our zone theoretically allows higher density (big apartments), the entire section of the code protecting Middle Housing is "not applicable."

3. The Result: Banned Everywhere

He turned a "permissive" law into a restrictive ban. By claiming that "higher densities apply" in all R-M zones, and because R-L zones are low-density by definition, he has effectively made Middle Housing illegal in every residential zone in Bothell.

Map of Bothell
NO MIDDLE
HOUSING
The Deputy Director's interpretation effectively bans Middle Housing in R-L and R-M zones.

The White-Out

We tried to fix this. We had a contract that promised "Up to 3 review cycles." We requested our 2nd cycle to correct the error and satisfy their requests.

They denied the meeting. Then, they did something incredible. They didn't fix the code. They scrubbed the promise from the official form immediately after we tried to use it.

New Form AFTER: "Not a plan review cycle"
Old Receipt BEFORE: "Includes up to 3 review cycles"

Slide to see how they erased the text we relied on.

The Village Speaks

It’s not just me. On Jan 13th, the Council Chambers were filled with neighbors wearing t-shirts with a simple message: Bring Back Starter Homes.

They didn't come to block housing. They came to demand it.

Bring Back Starter Homes T-Shirts I printed these shirts myself, and neighbors stood with me to wear them. This isn't a developer lobby; it's a community movement.

"When modest neighborhood scale infill is treated as a problem, and the only viable path is the biggest possible build... that's not a neutral policy, it's outcome-driven enforcement."

— Geoff ▶ Watch

"Single family housing isn't a luxury... it's a necessity. My neurodivergent children need a detached home—without shared walls."

— Kristina ▶ Watch

"Large developers can afford procedural paywalls. Homeowners cannot. The system quietly decides who gets to build based on who can afford the delays."

— Terra ▶ Watch

"We aren't asking for a skyscraper. We are asking you to let a neighbor build a home... a place for a grandmother."

— Jensina ▶ Watch

The City Manager publicly claimed "We follow state law."

But when the Dept of Commerce later issued a determination proving he was wrong, he didn't correct course. He sent a subordinate to demand over $4,000 to read it.

— City Manager Kyle Stannert ▶ Watch

Executive Lawlessness

For 4 months, my position hasn't changed. The Law hasn't changed. The WA Department of Commerce confirmed: State Law mandates these 2 ADUs.

I did the City's job for them. I got the answers. Yet even after receiving this determination, the City Manager refused to yield. Instead, he sent Melinda Tanner to tell us that if we want the City to acknowledge the State's authority, we must pay over $4,000 in fees ($3,817 base + 5% Tech Fee).

They are holding State Law behind a paywall.


The Solution: Take the Win

Option A: State Law Mandate
(City Gets Nothing)

We force the "By Right" interpretation (2 Main + 2 ADU) via State Law.

  • We keep our land.
  • City gets NO bike lane land.
  • We waste time and money fighting.

The Receipts

Transparency matters. Download the raw emails and determinations referenced in this timeline.