Seattle Displacement Coalition

COMMENTARY: Thoughts on mayor, city council races

Guest — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:10:29 +0000

Guest (not verified) Tue, 08/04/2009 - 10:10am

I just got through reading a host of candidate ratings, questionnaires, blogs and endorsements from various group's around town. It's enough to make George Orwell (and me) laugh and cry.

You've got groups who make up "FUSE" a self proclaimed "progressive" coalition endorsing corporate candidates like Sally Bagshaw and Jesse Israel. Both candidates, especially Bagshaw are bankrolled by downtown, Paul Allen and real estate interests. Given who they've ignored, FUSE has only demonstrated with their listing just how out of touch they are with the Seattle political scene.

Then you've got the Cascade Bicycle Club (CBC) endorsing Greg Nickels, Israel and Bagshaw simply because they blindly support Paul Allen's agenda including the Mayor's Mercer Corridor Plan. Maybe one one-hundredth of the $200 million Mercer plan will go toward bike and pedestrian improvements, the rest to pour concrete for cars and make congestion worse in that area especially for bikes.

With those dollars we could add bike lanes to every city arterial with enough left to paint the lanes in gold leaf. Yet, mysteriously, to these folks, it's a litmus test.

Mainstream environmental groups like the Washington Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club are opposing candidates (or not endorsing them, i,e, such as David Bloom) simply because they don't tow the line for a pro-density-at-all-costs agenda.

The limousine enviro's support candidates like Michael O'Brien who oppose use of developer fees that would require developers to share in the costs of growth or replace housing they remove. O'Brien told the 43rd Dem's such fee requirements would impair developer's ability to build in Seattle. Of course, we've heard this position articulated by the Master Builders for years now suddenly (and depressingly) embraced by folks like O'Brien who paint the old nostrum in a green patina.

By the way, incumbent Nick Licata (who'se supported a green agenda for years), and Miller (who just helped save a large old grove of trees from the chainsaw) and candidate Bloom (no slouch on enviro issues himself), do support use of developer impact fees. Miller says it must be complimented with a permitting process that is more streamlined. Rusty Williams also supports impact fees as does Bobby Forch. Rosencranz and Royer (the younger) predictably oppose them while other candidates are not on record on the issue yet.

Publicola recently tossed out the word "marxist" to suggest how "progressive" O'Brien was on issues. Perhaps they meant Groucho not Karl. Other than his opposition to the tunnel option for viaduct relacement, I haven't heard anything from O'Brien that would suggest he's at all progressive. In this town, he's a corporate liberal and mainstream as they come. He'd fit right in with our current get-along- and go-along council.

And the same can be said of Mike McGinn in the mayor's race, and council candidates Bagshaw and Israel. I also see nothing in these folks to suggest they give one iota about the question of economic and racial justice and how that fits into the public policy debate. In fact, as far as I can tell, there's been very little discussion at all around this fundamental question.

What would the candidates do to overcome poverty, homelessness and lack of low cost housing in our city.

Candidates like Bloom and Licata do get real specific on how to address poverty and inequality when the issue comes up. They've called for (and made a career out of advocating for) more police accountability, repealing the Sidran laws, requiring one-for-one replacement, redirecting more the city budget from downtown to our neighborhoods, supporting tent city, and liveable wage jobs, the party line from candidates like Bagshaw, Israel, Rosencranz, Royer, et al....is "I support the housing levy." Well thank goodness for that but who doesn't in this town?

Of course Bloom, Miller and Licata do, too. Each went a step further calling for the vast bulk of levy funds to reach down to continue to serve the poorest of the poor rather than folks with $65,000 incomes at 80 percent of area median as are current mayor would have preferred. Royer, Bagshaw, Israel, Rosencranz and O'Brien also are more inclined to prefer giving away incentives (meaning our tax dollars) to promote still more market rate or near market development espousing "trickle down" nostrums that would make Ronald Reagan (and my old Econ 101 Prof) very proud indeed.

And we've seen mudslinging but now it's the so-called "greens" carrying the freight for big business. Candidates who support tree protections in our city and managed and responsible levels of growth, stream preservation, and housing replacement requirements are automatically typecast as NIMBY's.

These pseudo-greens also are attempting to cast the debate in subtle and not so subtle ways as an intergenerational thing - you're not hip if you call for limits on runaway growth in our city and ask developers to pay their share of the infrastructure costs. (Israel goes further accusing Licata of being obstructionist or a naysayer because right now he's the only councilmember who regularly stands up to the pro-developer crowd).

Or you are called myopic. That's what mayoral candidate McGinn called Knute Berger when, in a recent column, Berger said that a green agenda must include measures to preserve our historic character and older buildings. Painting the issue as an either/or debate, McGinn like his supporters at The Stranger and Publicola believe that density must be maxed out in Seattle in order to prevent sprawl.

Record levels of growth in Seattle certainly have not contained sprawl. The argument just provides more cover for developers.

When the Displacement Coalition joined forces with Southend neighborhoods to turn back state legislation that would have mandated 50 unit per acre mandates around rail stations (in areas at three to five units per acre now where literally several thousand low income families are people of color now live), McGinn chided the coalition and they were ill-informed about the value of "compact development".

This wasn't about compact development already being planned for that area with neighborhood support. It was about a bill mandating too much growth destroying low cost housing and displacing hundreds of longtime residents (and trees and open space).

There is such a thing as a poly-centerered approach to growth that more evenly clusters or distributes growth around the region and provides adequate funding for buses serving those areas. That's an alternative to sprawl or cramming all growth in Seattle. That's the green way to get people out of their cars. But its not even recognized by the pro-growth enviro wing. And these are the folks that call the neighborhood movement "doctrinaire"

In the mayor's race, I'm disappointed that Joe Mallahan supports replacing the viaduct with a tunnel unlike McGinn, the only mayoral candidate to oppose it. McGinn in this instance sides with grassroots groups and the general public.

Even though I co-chaired the No Tunnel Alliance, and agree with that position, Mallahan is closer to the neighborhoods and grassroots on all the other key issues affecting this city and especially around the debate over density and it's equity and justice implications.

Mallahan has said city residents should not absorb tunnel cost overruns and that it must keep freight moving. Ramps should be added to better serve Ballard and West Seattle residents.

He's also the only candidate to raise concerns about Paul Allen's plans in South Lake Union. He's said he would oppose draining away bus service dollars for street car expansion, and opposed Nickel's Mercer corridor plans. In meeting with citizen activists, he has said he'd re-open a door long ago slammed shut by Nickels (and that would stay shut if Drago won). Mallahan also said he would expand funding for the neighborhood matching program. He's clearly the only real choice in that contest.

Most importantly in the city council races, look for candidates in the races with a nuanced approach to density and growth, such as incumbent Nick Licata, and candidates David Miller and David Bloom, who don't just blindly support development like we've seen too much of in Seattle. (If Bobby Forch or Rusty Williams make it past the primary rather than Miller in that race, they too could carry this ball).

These are the true greens and true progressives in this race who believe in balancing growth with the need to preserve the qualities in our community that make this city liveable and affordable.

Seattle City Council

Seattle Displacement Coalition

COMMENTARY: West Seattle reaches 105 percent of 20-year growth target

Guest — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:12:54 +0000

Guest (not verified) Fri, 07/10/2009 - 1:12pm

There may be an economic downturn generally, but recently released city data contradicts the common assumption that Seattle's housing market has taken a hit.

Since Jan of 2008, more than 6,500 housing units have been added to Seattle's housing stock with 2,800 of that total finished in the first three months of 2009. In fact, the rate of new housing development actually is up slightly from previous years.

What's even more interesting, the new numbers also directly conflict with the commonly held belief that Seattle and our neighborhoods somehow are not bearing their fair share of the region's growth.

From 2004 to 2024, Seattle must add 47,000 housing units to its stock - a number set by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and based on what the planners and regional leaders say should be our share of anticipated regional growth. That's about one-third of all of King County's growth expected over this period.

View the city's most recent growth report here and see how your neighborhood is doing.

Setting these targets for Seattle and the rest of the region is mandated by the state's Growth Management Act with the aim of containing sprawl, getting us out of our cars, and curbing our carbon footprint. Cities must adjust their zoning and other policies accordingly to ensure these targets are met.

The new city housing numbers show that since January of 2005, more than 28,000 housing units have been added to Seattle's stock either built (16,504 units) or permitted and at various stages of construction (11,721 units). Of course what this means is that since January 2005 - a little more than four years - Seattle already has reached 60 percent of it's 20-year regional target of 47,000 units.

By comparison, data provided by the PSRC indicates that nearly all other urban areas around the region like Everett, Bremerton, Tacoma, and most of the other smaller cities have fallen far short of their assigned targets.

And here's some residential growth figures for Seattle neighborhoods you might also find interesting. From January 2005 to March 2009, Ballard has reached 205 percent of its 20-year growth targets. West Seattle has reached 105 percent of its target.

Fremont has reached 124 percent and Capitol Hill 130 percent of its growth target.

And what about those so-called "TOD" (Transit Oriented Development) areas where routinely we are told that neighborhood groups are an impediment to the added housing densities we need to support light rail In a little more than four years, Roosevelt has reached 66 percent of its 20-year target.

North Rainier (Mt. Baker Station) has reached 105 percent of it's target and Columbia City has reached 75 percent of its target. Around the Othello station, they've reached 77 percent of their required target.

Northgate and the U-District are slightly ahead of their required pace, reaching 30 percent and 33 percent of their 20 year targets respectively. North Beacon Hill is right on pace reaching 20 percent of its target in a little more than four years. Only the Rainier Beach station area falls short reaching only 2 percent of its target.

The State's Office of Financial Management recently released new population projections which show King County growing at a faster rate than previously forecast - one-third more growth in fact by 2022 than the prediction made back in 2002 which became the basis under Growth Management for the current 2024 targets. It means that when new 25-year targets are set at the end of 2010 (for the period 2006-2031 it turns out), Seattle and it's neighborhoods will be called on again to absorb still more growth.

Even so, this new city data indicates that we easily are adding housing units at a rate that would allow us to exceed these upwardly revised targets. Most importantly, it also means the new targets can be reached in most neighborhoods without dramatic changes to the underlying zoning including around nearly all light rail stations.

Note also that we have current residential capacity under existing zoning to accommodate more than 150,000 additional housing units - more than three times the current growth target of 47,000 units and much more than we'll need even if those targets are raised by one-third.

These are a lot of numbers to be tossing around but they tell an important story.

Some in the mainstream environmental community have resorted to leveling charges of NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) against neighborhood activists who take a stand against zoning changes or individual developments planned for their communities that wipe out trees, urban streams, or existing low income housing. They have been accused of contributing to sprawl or worse, called "anti-environmental" simply for standing up to preserve a quality of life in their communities.

Our city and our neighborhoods are getting a bum rap. We're carrying much more than our share of the region's growth - leading the way in fact in the battle to contain sprawl especially when compared to the poor performance of other urban areas around the region.

The burden of proof rests with the other side - the pro-density at all costs crowd. Give us any reason - other than to enrich developers - why it's necessary to approve still more tax breaks, zoning incentives, and across the board upzones that only will further erode the scale, livability, and affordability of this city?

Seattle Displacement Coalition

COMMENTARY: Ballard reaches 205 percent of 20-year growth target

Guest — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:08:43 +0000

Guest (not verified) Fri, 07/10/2009 - 1:08pm

There may be an economic downturn generally, but recently released city data contradicts the common assumption that Seattle's housing market has taken a hit.

What's even more interesting, the new numbers also directly conflict with the commonly held belief that Seattle and our neighborhoods somehow are not bearing their fair share of the region's growth.

View the city's most recent growth report here and see how your neighborhood is doing.

Fremont has reached 124 percent and Capitol Hill 130 percent of its growth target.

These are a lot of numbers to be tossing around but they tell an important story.

Seattle Displacement Coalition

COMMENTARY: Housing levy should help the poorest

Guest — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:07:28 +0000

Guest (not verified) Thu, 05/28/2009 - 12:07pm

In 1985, the City of Seattle announced plans to spend more than $5 million of the city's general-fund dollars on creation of a new home for the elephants at the Woodland Park Zoo. Such a home, it was said, was long overdue. It just wasn't humane to cram those pachyderms into a cramped concrete enclosure, and they needed room to roam.

For housing advocates, this was bitterly ironic. Sure, it was a fine idea to renovate Dumbo's home, but the Reagan administration had just wiped out federal assistance programs for housing for low-income and working families across the country.

To top it off, there was a downtown-office boom under way, and city officials had just announced the loss of more than 1,500 low-income units to demolition and abandonment in downtown alone.

Hundreds of other units across the city also were giving way to new construction, while waiting lists for our city's limited stock of affordable rentals were exploding. The city's few homeless shelters were inundated with newly homeless people, including, for the first time, dozens of families with children.

Advocates had already called on city officials to address this housing shortage, but precious little had been done. Then came the funding for the elephant house.

THE FIRST LEVY

David Bloom, of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, wrote a scathing critique of the city's priorities in the daily papers: How was it that our city's leaders could find the dollars for an elephant house but not for the growing number of low-income working families in our community?

That editorial and subsequent hubbub set in motion our city's first family-housing levy, approved by the voters in 1987. That levy raised more than $50 million for low-income housing over seven years. And for the first time, the city tapped a portion of its general fund for housing and supportive services.

Since then, about $200 million in total has been generated from three housing levies brought before the voters every seven years. The last one approved in 2002 raised more than $86 million. About 60 percent of these funds have been used to provide housing for families with incomes less than 50 percent of median. More than 35 percent of all funds have been used to serve the poorest of the poor in our city - those from 0 to 30 percent of area median.

IT'S TIME AGAIN

Now that the 2002 levy is in its last year, voters will be asked this time to commit $145 million over an additional seven year period to renew that levy. Even at this higher amount, given inflation, it won't produce as many units as the 2002 levy. The new levy will add in property taxes annually between $50 and $60 on an averaged priced home of around $300,000-$400,000. In all, the three past levies created more than 5,000 units of housing. It's difficult to imagine how much worse our housing crisis would be without the levy.

But our mayor and some on the city council seem intent on tampering with this successful formula. Our mayor and at least a few council members want to shift as much as $45 million of these upcoming housing-levy dollars away from the poor and very poor to incentivize production of units affordable to those at 80 percent of median - euphemistically called "workforce" or "mixed-income" housing.

A couple with one child would need to pay more than $1,400 a month for a two-bedroom unit priced at 80 percent of median. To afford that (assuming they pay 30 percent of their income on rent), that household must earn more than $55,000 a year. According to Washington Employment Security, 75 percent of all county wage earners earn less than $55,000 a year.

The Census Bureau's 2007 American Community Survey shows there are 40,600 households in Seattle with incomes at or below 40 percent of median but only 11,100 units affordable to that group.

By contrast, for the 20,000 households in Seattle earning between 60 to 80 percent of median, there are almost 60,000 units at rents they can afford. Even pricey new rental construction may include units affordable at 80 percent of median, or they will within a few years as the building ages.

But here's an even bigger rub. Our mayor's rush to incentivize more housing for those at 80 percent of median and above has only accelerated the loss of housing serving those at or below 40 percent - from demolition, conversion or speculation. From 2005 through 2007, Seattle broke records for new housing construction, but we also experienced an unprecedented loss of more than 5,000 units of existing low-income and very low-income housing - far more than we could ever replace with our limited public-housing funds.

CITY COUNCIL (Committee action on June 11)

Seattle has recently approved up-zones and still more tax giveaways to developers to promote units at 80 percent of median and above. Just this week, the council voted to eliminate language in the downtown bonus program guaranteeing some of the millions raised from this program for those at 30 percent and 50 percent of median (meaning the city is free to give it all away including $14 million already accumulated, to developers producing units priced at 80 percent of median).

With respect to the limited public dollars we have - especially our housing-levy dollars - the emphasis must remain on serving those at the bottom: below 30 percent of median. None of the new levy's $104 million dedicated for rental housing should be used for households above 60 percent of median (where again the mayor would allow $45 million serving those between 60 and 80 percent of median).

The remaining portions of the levy for homeowner assistance, to help renters paying rent, and for acquisition of existing housing also should be limited to ensure that only a tiny fraction if any goes for housing above 60 percent of median. Further, of the nine million dedicated for homeowner assistance, most of that should go to land trust and coops or if a unit is purchased with these funds the unit may not be resold to higher income groups - the longterm affordability of the units must be retained.

The city council is scheduled to finalize the new housing levy and begin taking votes in Committee on June 11. Let the council know what you think. Let's not risk losing a very important thing for our city.

Changing the levy to provide housing at rents thousands of dollars above what the average family can afford in order to serve households with much higher incomes is not a formula for winning voter approval in a deep recession.

John V. Fox and Carolee Colter can be reached at needitor@nwlink.com.

Seattle City Council

Seattle Displacement Coalition

Housing levy proposal diverts millions to unaffordable units

Guest — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:24:24 +0000

Guest (not verified) Mon, 05/11/2009 - 10:24am

(Editor's note: This letter was sent to Seattle City Council members with a copy to this newspaper.)

Dear Council members:

We are writing as an ad hoc coalition of housing and homeless advocates to strongly urge you to support the renewal of our long-running and essential housing levy and it's placement on the 2009 ballot. In these tough economic times, the need in our community has risen precipitously with even longer waiting lists for subsidized units and a greatly overtaxed homeless shelter system.

We are prepared to work with you to bring the best proposal forward to the voters - one that maintains our ability to meet the increased need especially among the poorest of the poor and most vulnerable in our community and one that can secure the broadest support from voters. Toward those ends, upon close review of the mayor's recommendations, we believe the council should make the following changes in his proposal:

1. The total amount of the levy should be raised to $167 million. This is the dollar amount the mayor's levy advisory group urged the council to support and what they said was needed to maintain progress towards meeting the goals of the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. We strongly agree. It also is an amount we are confident voters will support especially when they see that the vast bulk of funds reach down and serve those who need it the most.

2. The levy ordinance, as in past levies, must contain either a chart or explicit language dedicating levy amounts to each respective low income group. This time, a minimum of 60 percent of the rental portion of the levy must serve households with incomes at or below 30 percent of area median.

Further, a minimum of 90 percent of the rental portion must be dedicated to those with incomes at or below 50 percent of area median. The majority of the remainder of the rental portion (10 percent of all rental funds) should serve households with incomes between 50 percent and 60 percent of area median.

The mayor's proposal allows as much as 45 percent of the rental portion - more than $45 million - to go to households with incomes as high as 80 percent of area median.

The 2002 levy did not allow use of any rental funds and only a small portion of "NHOP" funding for households from 60 to 80 percent of median. In total only .7 percent of combined rental and NHOP dollars served these households.

By contrast, more than 70 percent of rental and NHOP funds combined served households at or below 30 percent of area median and more than 90 percent was dedicated for housing serving those at or below 50 percent of area median. Recent polling shows voters are less concerned about the size of the levy than they are concerned about who gets the funding. They want the poorest of the poor and homeless households to receive the support and that's what this levy must reflect.

To allow potentially use of 45 percent of rental funding for those with incomes thousands of dollars above average worker salaries would jeopardize voter approval of this levy.

3. We strongly support the mayor's inclusion of a portion in this new levy dedicated for creation of an "Acquisition Fund."

4. We also urge you to include in the levy ordinance for the first time language explicitly guaranteeing that at least 30 percent of the homeowner portion of the levy be dedicated for community land trusts and cooperative developments including use of this set-aside for creation of multi-family land trusts and cooperatives.

In closing we wish to reiterate our strong support for the 2009 housing levy and are looking forward to working with you, the mayor, and the community to securing broad approval. By making the changes above that we recommend, this is the best way to secure that support and in a way that ensures our continued progress towards meeting the needs of the 10-year plan and the most vulnerable in our community.

Signed,
(any affiliations are listed for identification purposes only unless otherwise stated)

David Bloom
Sharon Lee
John V. Fox, Seattle Displacement Coalition (also endorses letter)
Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness
Sally Kinney
Alice Woldt
Gary Clark
Ishbel Dickens
Sarajane Siegfriedt, King county Democrats Legislative Action Co-chair
Bette Reed
Sinan Demirel
Carla Bueno
Erin Rants
Laurie Mayer
Lisa Beaulaurier
Will Parry, Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans (also endorses letter)
Maureen Bo

Seattle City Council

Mayor Greg Nickels

Seattle Displacement Coalition

City/County Initiatives

Robinson Papers

Mayor's incentives just a disguise for developer giveaway

Guest — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:56:13 +0000

Guest (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:56am

The housing shortfall has grown for people below 40 percent of county-wide median and the King County 2008 Housing Benchmarks Report shows similar growing gap for Seattle's very low income households.

• By contrast there is a surplus county-wide of rental units serving those at 80 percent of median of 100,000 plus units at that rent level.

• In Seattle, 81 percent of all rentals are affordable to those at 80 percent of median - for a surplus of over 30,000 city-wide at that rent level.

• But for the 40,000 households in Seattle earning at or below 40 percent of median, there are only about 10,000 units affordable to them at that rent level - for a shortfall of more than 30,000 units.

• The crisis grows for those at the bottom and that's where our priority should remain.

We are hearing from several sources that our mayor may seek to shift our upcoming Housing Levy dollars away from the poor and very poor in order to 'incentivize' production of "mixed income" and units for those at 80 percent of median. He calls these "workforce" units even though at those rent levels, they would be hundreds of dollars above what most working families could afford.

The county's report and recent data from the 2007 American Community Survey (US. Census updates) shoots down the mayor's claim that we have a lot of housing for the poor in Seattle and very rich but "not enough in between." We don't have enough for the poor and the problem is growing. And if the mayor cares about workers "in between," then he needs to reach further down and serve those at 60 percent of median or even a bit less.

Access the county's 2008 Housing Benchmark's Report may be accessed here.
Click on "public dollars spent on low income housing" and go to page three where you'll see that 81.6 percent of 150,000 Seattle rental units (or 122,400 units) are affordable to those at 80 percent of median.

According to the 2007 American Community Survey there are about 26,000 households in Seattle earning between 50 and 80 percent of median leaving a considerable surplus of units affordable to this income group. Click here for Amercian Community Survey Data.

By contrast, the 2008 county's benchmarks data shows that only 7.4 percent of Seattle rental units are affordable to households with incomes at or below 40 percent of median (or about 11,100 units). However there are over 40,600 households with incomes at or below 40 percent of median (Source 2008 American Community Survey ACS Data) leaving a shortfall of about 30,000 rentals for this income group.

The 2007 ACS data also shows there are 36,033 hh's earning $20,000 a year or less in Seattle - at or below 35 percent of median (assuming 2007 ACS median of $57,000). Fully 82 percent or 29529 of those households are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Only 2 percent of Seattle households whose incomes are between 50 and 80 percent of median, pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

Also, drawing from ACS Data and the 2006 and 2008 Housing Benchmarks Report, we put together some comparison tables which highlight the growing need in Seattle and county-wide for those at the bottom and the corresponding surplus of units affordable at 80 percent of median. Click here to view data tables.

For data on average worker wages (closer to 52 percent of median) and what they can afford in rent compared to rents offered at 80 percent of median, click here.

And for a full list of all workers earning less that 80 percent of median - the vast majority -click here.

Our conclusions and thoughts on all this: Stop incentivizing, which means giving away our tax dollars, to developers who build units at 80 percent of median that we would get anyway without the subsidies and expand our commitment to serve those at the bottom. Our mayor and housing department continue to push for more tax breaks, upzones, and use of our tax dollars for developers who set-aside a handful of units affordable to those at 80 percent of median or even above that figure.

However, most of the area's workforce earns an income between 50 and 60 percent of median according to data taken directly from Washington State Employment Securities.

Our recent survey of new buildings and buildings built within the last eight years indicates that most new rental developments include units priced at or near 80 percent of median or as they age will soon offer units at that income level. So why give these developers subsidies to do what they already are doing?

The mayor's aim is to 'incentivize' still more market or near market rate development in communities around Seattle particularly around transit stops and in especially in Southeast Seattle - doing so without regard to the impact of that growth on the existing truly affordable character of those communities. When our mayor calls units at 80 percent of median (or even higher) "workforce housing," it's simply a euphemism used to disguise the mayor's pro-developer pro-density agenda.

But here is an even bigger rub - How much more housing serving those at or below 40 percent will be lost to increased demolition, conversion, and speculation due to the mayor's 'incentivizing' of units at 80 percent of median? We may get a handful of units for those at that income level but at the direct expense of hundreds of units we need for the most needy in our community.

From 2005 through 2007 (and halfway through 2008), we broke records for new housing construction. Our mayor pushed for and obtained upzones from a compliant city council and more incentives to the tune of millions in deferred taxes were given away to developers During that period (from 2004-2007), we reached 50 percent of our 20 year growth targets.

But we also saw an unprecedented loss of existing low income and very low income units - far more than we could ever replace with our limited public housing dollars - over 5000 units lost to demolition, conversion, increased rents, and speculative activity directly traceable to the development boom.

While the city's liberal elites were extolling the virtues of the "Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness," they ignored these housing losses and homelessness grew at an exponential rate.

To repeat: the mayor's incentive schemes are simply giveaways to stimulate still more of this kind of growth disguised as "workforce housing." We need workforce housing in addition to more low and very low income but most workers earn in Seattle and the county at or below 60 percent of median.

Before any more upzones and tax giveaways to developers, we must first put into place mechanisms that prevent loss of existing low income units or developers must foot the bill for replacing 100 percent of the units they remove. And with respect to use of the limited public dollars we have - especially our housing levy dollars - the emphasis must continue to remain on serving those at the bottom - below 40 percent of median with most of that serving those below 30 percent of median.

For more information, contact John V. Fox for the Coalition 206-632-0668.

Mayor Greg Nickels

incentive zoning

Seattle Displacement Coalition

King County Housing

Seattle Department of Housing

City/County Initiatives

State Government

Robinson Papers

Incentive zoning plan going to council

Guest — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:00:00 +0000

Guest (not verified) Mon, 09/15/2008 - 12:00am

The Seattle City Council is expected to receive legislation from Mayor Greg Nickels this week that could assign developers the responsibility of providing affordable housing if they chose to build higher than existing zoning allows.

The policy is known as incentive zoning, and it was first implemented in Downtown Seattle in 2006. That year, much of the area was rezoned, allowing for greater building height. In exchange, if developers decided to take advantage of the new zoning increases then they would have to set aside 11 percent of the increased density for affordable housing.

Rent of these units must be reasonably priced for those who earn up to 80 percent of the area's median income. In downtown Seattle, that is typically about $43,000 a year. Units would be required to remain at this same level of affordability for 50 years.

Alternatively, if developers choose not to include the affordable housing in their own structure, they can pay the city approximately $18.94 per square foot for off-site affordable housing.

The mayor's expected legislation would extend incentive zoning throughout the city for most other Seattle neighborhoods, including West Seattle.

Seattle City Council member Sally Clark emphasized that the ordinance itself would not rezone any property, but that it allows opportunities for neighborhoods to gain more affordable housing.

John Fox, coordinator of the Seattle Displacement Coalition, sees the ordinance as a threat to neighborhood character. He said that he would prefer the city focus its efforts on maintaining existing affordable housing and green spaces rather than creating new units.

"Our communities already have construction cranes on almost every block," Fox said. "There's less open space, views are obstructed, and we lose truly affordable housing with off-site building."

He added that the affordable housing units created though incentive zoning are still more expensive than the typical worker can afford.

When asked if she is concerned that the new legislation could result in more upzoning and affect the nature of different communities, Clark explained that neighborhoods are already changing.

"There is already lots of new development in West Seattle and Ballard," Clark said. "This would provide more public benefit for these changes.'

According to Clark, incentive zoning Downtown has resulted in four new off-site affordable housing projects and one upzoned building that will include affordable housing within the structure. She said that many community members prefer to see affordable housing units developed on-site, creating economic diversity in neighborhoods.

The ordinance is scheduled for further review by the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee on Sept. 24 and Oct, 8. If approved by the committee, the city council could take action on the ordinance by the end of 2008.

Rose Egge can be reached at 932-0300 or rosee@robinsonnews.com.

Seattle Displacement Coalition

City/County Initiatives

Robinson Papers