Bloomington Common Council Deliberation Session on Housing Needs – Part 1 (September 11, 2025)

On September 11, 2025, the Bloomington Common Council held the first of two deliberation sessions focused on housing needs. The session aimed to collect personal experiences regarding finding and maintaining housing, rather than debating specific policies. Approximately seven small groups, each co-facilitated by a council member and city staff, discussed participants’ housing experiences. The meeting included an introduction, breakout groups, group report-outs, and a call for input via online forms. A note: the raw transcript dates the meeting as September 10, 2025, but the provided metadata indicates September 11, 2025; this summary uses the latter date as instructed.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No formal public comment period was held. After the breakout reports, a few individuals offered additional remarks:
  • A speaker urged the city, county, and Indiana University to collaborate on a long-term housing plan (5–10 years).
  • A longtime resident questioned how the housing crisis developed and asked for more inclusion of older residents who have witnessed past changes.
  • A younger resident expressed urgency, noting that many high school and college classmates have left Bloomington due to lack of affordable housing, and that they themselves may not be able to stay long-term.

Discussion Items

• Opening and Logistics: Council President set expectations, emphasizing non-judgmental listening and shared vocabulary. Participants were asked to complete demographic cards (renter/owner, length of residency) and place a pin on a map to gauge diversity of attendees.
• Breakout Group Reports: Seven groups reported back on themes from their facilitated conversations. Key recurring themes included:

Group 3 (facilitated by Jamie and Hopi)

• Most felt housing met their needs; renters considered rent high but fair relative to others. Preferences varied by life stage (e.g., yard size). Short-term rentals: some investors present, no negative experiences reported. ADUs: little firsthand experience, viewed as too expensive but interesting.

Group 6 (facilitated by Councilmember Zulik and others)

• Mix of realtors, builders, homeowners, renters, and county residents. Needs met for some, not for others. Key desires: affordability, walkability, proximity to loved ones, homeownership. Enjoyed neighborhoods near campus but affordable buying options limited. Missing middle housing (around $300,000) sought by older downsizers and first-time buyers. Density discussed.

Group 4 (facilitated by David Brandes, zoning planner)

• Majority homeowners, some renters. Some felt trapped in their neighborhood due to crime, desire for larger house, better sidewalks, transit, amenities. Strong desire to live within city. Lack of stepping stones to homeownership. Open to ADUs.

Group 7 (facilitated by Councilmember Flaherty and Gabriel)

• 16 participants: 14 homeowners, 2 renters; one apartment, one condo. Majority said housing met needs, but some did not. Issues of right-sizing (too much or too little house). Appreciation for traffic calming and multi-use paths. Concerns about connectivity beyond neighborhood, safety, food deserts. Affordability barrier to moving. Strong desire for mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods with diverse housing. Missing middle not present in Bloomington. ADUs: about half would consider building, half would consider renting; mixed views on ownership requirement. Short-term rentals: mixed perspectives on impacts.

Group 2 (facilitated by Councilmember?)

• Blend of renters and homeowners. Affordability central: home prices outpacing income, property taxes doubling since COVID. Concerns about investor-owned rentals changing neighborhood character. Discussed encampments and safety. Solutions: starter homes, condos, duplexes, family-friendly rentals, density in specific places but not tall buildings. Policy tools: land trusts, land banks, rental caps, limits on investor ownership, parking permits, accessible loans, rent control (illegal), form-based zoning, streamlining planning, stronger cooperation with IU and Ellettsville. Short-term rentals: some called for permits and data, others concerned about property rights.

Group 5 (facilitated by Councilmember?)

• Mix of renters and owners. Owners in smaller houses felt needs met; those in larger houses wanted to downsize but were stuck by low interest rates. Valued walkability, diversity, mix of rentals and ownership, parks/trails, grocery stores. Renters forced further out by prices. ADUs: half interested if lot size permits, half not; all supportive of idea. Short-term rentals: unanimously viewed as skewing the market and problematic. Interest in requiring owner occupancy to prevent short-term use.

Group 1 (facilitated by Councilmember?)

• Mix of renters and homeowners, many downtown or walking distance. Discussed definition of “meeting needs.” Some own houses because priced out of condos; prefer condos but few available. Desire for more small businesses, third spaces. Housing policy should not focus only on core neighborhoods. Good landlord critical. Renters face annual rent increases. Key themes: diversity, options, creativity.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or decisions were made. The session was purely informational and experiential.
• Next steps: Part 2 is scheduled for November 12, 2025. It will include a summary of feedback from this session and other related community discussions, and will likely present specific policy proposals for deliberation.
• Participants were encouraged to complete a reflection survey (available via QR code) and to submit any additional thoughts via an online form. All survey data will become part of the public record, with names disassociated from comments.
• Facilitators are asked to submit their notes (electronic or transcribed) to the council president.