Now that Mayor Ed Murray’s blue ribbon panel has volunteered many grueling hours to create an affordable housing plan for the city, it’s time for some citizen contribution.
On Thursday, officials from the mayor’s office will be leading a meeting at 12th Avenue Arts to discuss the recommendations of the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Committee and gather feedback on the proposals. The meeting comes at the request of the Capitol Hill Community Council, which is hosting the event starting at 6:30 PM.
AGENDA:
Welcome & Introductions
HALA Background & Info
HALA Summary
Q & A
Small Groups/Feedback Gathering
ClosingWe will be joined by Emily Alvarado and Leslie Price of the Mayor’s office, as well as Nicole from DESC (we are still working on more folks!)
In order to meet his call to create 20,000 affordable units over the next decade, Murray convened his affordability panel earlier this year.
Murray and the HALA committee unveiled their 60+ recommendation plan in July, which included requirements to build affordable units in new developments and a fee on commercial development to fund more affordable housing. One provision that would’ve allowed for more backyard cottages and accessory dwelling units in single family home zones drew a considerable amount of criticism (and hyperbole), causing Murray to drop it from the plan.
Shortly after the plan was released, Council member Mike O’Brien created the Select Committee on Housing Affordability to begin implementing the HALA recommendations. The committee, composed of the entire City Council, is now drafting a work plan to begin tackling the linkage fee and inclusionary zoning measures.
According to the mayor’s action plan timeline, creating more accessory dwelling units was supposed to be one of the first fruits of the HALA effort. The other is to sell the City’s surplus property for affordable housing, something that’s already underway.
Earlier this week, the City reached a deal with a developer to sell a parcel of land for an affordable housing building. Stream Real Estate intends to build a 140-unit apartment building at the 6th and Yesler property. Units will be affordable for 50 years to those making 80 percent of area median income.
After making it through last week’s primary, City Council Position 8 candidate Jon Grant will continue to push for his alternative housing plan. Grant’s plan calls for an expanded linkage fee program that includes residential development in order to fund construction of 9,000 units of affordable housing for households at 0-30% of area median income — 4,000 more units than recommended by the HALA committee. Grant would also dedicate 5,000 of those units towards homeless housing.
People want affordability, but they shudder at the thought apodments. They want affordability, but don’t allow anyone to build cottage apartments in the back yards. They want affordability, but kvetch and moan when one store commercial property gets developed as 6 floors over one story of commercial development.
They want affordability but blanched when rezoning comes up and the thought of 15-25 story buildings arise around our light rail stations.
Congratulations Seattle, we’re in our way to having New York and San Francisco levels of inability for average wage earners to own their own home.
The ‘character’ argument of single family neighborhoods being ‘destroyed’ baffles me. The owners of those SFH properties would have a windfall as their property values could be divided and provide income to them. The angst over aPodments really baffles me, because here is affordable housing being provided by the private sector.
Now some of our citizenry want rent control? Do you honestly think that this will solve our housing shortage? All it will do is make Seattle a time capsule of 2015, because the only development you’ll see is government funded housing or luxury units.
We all need to make changes in our lifestyles, the American Dream of white picket fence is unattainable for 70% of us, so why is nearly 70% of our city zoned for it?
I believe peoples only beef with aPodements is they want the developer to be treated the same as any other developer and not have the ability to circumvent land use notifications etc.
I’m pro aPodment and a level playing field for developers.
I agree 100% with all your other points.
Prost Seattle
You are being logical and sensible. What are you doing on the internet?
Agree. NIMBY-ism and rent control is what is popular on the internet.
I believe that “mother-in-law” apartments are allowed in single-family areas, but with certain restrictions. I’m not sure what the difference is between these and so-called “cottage apartments.”
Is there some sort of distinction made between detached and non-detached MIL apartments? “Cottage apartments” are what I generally think of as fitting into the former category.
@ Prost Seattle and others. Let me guess, you don’t own a SFH? You haven’t invested a lot of your income and time improving a property like many people who have been, will be or are affected by these decisions. Many people who are affected have invested in the neighborhood with their time and money to create a home they enjoy. It’s easy to whine about these people when you aren’t affected, don’t have your little sanctuary you worked hard for completely altered due to no action on your part. Do you really believe these SFH owners are the reason we have a housing shortage or is it just an easy target for the lazy? The big developers who are allowed to do as they wish with a rubber stamp from the city created this problem. Yet people like you feel it’s appropriate to attack the SFH owner who is only trying to protect what they spent years or decades working towards are the target of this vitriol. Vulcan (and others) could have easily developed more low income housing on property they own to alleviate the problem they created- the city could of demanded it!
It’s never been easy for a SFH owner to improve their property. The city places all of these porous surface requirements and don’t even think about cutting down a tree (even if another is to be planted). But when a developer who doesn’t live on the Hill, the CD or even Seattle wants to do the same, the city has no problem with it. Zoning applications are difficult for the SFH owner but not the non-resident developer. Maybe, just maybe take some time to learn the big money politics which surround this city and address the issue appropriately, take the city blinders off, they have you signing their song- blame the little person. It’s these same people who don’t live here who are putting up these cheaply made structures with no yard, very little green space that don’t fit in with the character of the neighborhood and look terrible a few years later. Many of the old houses torn down were made with old growth wood that can last for centuries if maintained properly. Look at the medium income of those affected by the city decisions, it’s typically those who have the fewest resources to fight back.
The city of Seattle actually considers development proposals by development companies which includes property the development company doesn’t even own! There are people who have lived in their homes for 30 + years who are facing this obscene behavior. One person affected by one of these development proposals was ripped out of his home as a child, imprisoned at a Japanese internment camp yet came back to the neighborhood and worked to buy back his family home that was stolen from him. This is just one story, of one person you are complaining about. It’s not just about building up to suit the newcomers who are having problems because the money politics, with city approval, allowed this issue to be created which matters. Not everyone can just plop a cottage in their back yard, there are zoning issues around easements and consideration these SFH owners actually do have for their neighbors. Remember, before this latest population boom, the city wouldn’t allow it in many cases anyway. Some could have moved when it was affordable and infilled but due to the obstacles put forward by the city at the time, they chose to say, improve their property and now may not be able to afford to move. Or, maybe they don’t want to take their family away from the friendships they have had for years or decades. There is a lot more to these decisions than your uneducated, simplistic observations. Take the time to get involved before these foolish proposals are rubber stamped by the city. Do you really think these SFH owners you attack want to leave work early, find a sitter for any kids, cancel any social events after reading these proposals to attend a planning meeting to try and protect their investments? Not just once or twice but over and over again, spanning years! I guess it’s just easier writing a comment on an internet blog, sure is easier for me.
I’ve lived on Capitol Hill since 1987. I’m very invested in the neighborhood, and ALL of it’s residents. And lest you feel I’m someone who isn’t able to afford the SFH lifestyle, my husband and I have a household income of $200k, I want to make certain our neighborhood is welcoming to not only ourselves, but to all income levels.
So no, you guessed completely wrong.
At what price to others, and by what Right?
“And lest you feel I’m someone who isn’t able to afford the SFH lifestyle…” So you aren’t a SFH owner? So my assumption was correct. Again, easy when you don’t have any skin in the game. And, if you actually read what I said, the people who are making/made the area unaffordable or unwelcoming to all don’t live here, unlike your comment. You act like the SFH owner should give up their backyard or not be upset when all their privacy is removed due to infilling. There also are plenty of renters who are being displaced from affordable apts on the Hill and CD. Instead of blaming SFH owners, take a look at who is on Murray’s HALA committee, many of those who ARE actually benefiting by making the Hill and CD ‘unwelcoming’ can be found there.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, BK. It is unfortunate that some Capitol Hill people rant against SFH areas with the inaccurate claim that all those homeowners are “rich.” Yes, there are some wealthy enclaves in our neighborhood, but most of the single family homes are owned by those of modest means, so let’s stop the war against those who have worked hard and planned carefully enough to buy a home.
People who bought into those single family homes because thats what they wanted and paid for. New people move to CH and say you can’t have it any more. By what right?
No one is trying to take SFH’s away from those who own them. People are saying to those who own SFH’s in one of the most dense areas of the city, don’t cry when a 6 floor building goes up next door.
Wanna bet? Just look at the future rezoning proposals. Up go the 6 story Apts and you taxed out of your home. Look at the Central District, blacks taxed out of their homes until it’s 12%, and it’s just started. Take your dream back home with you.
People make sacrifices in order to purchase a single family home because they want to live in and around single family homes. If they wanted to live in a six story building next to other six story apartment buildings, they would make that decision. People cannot always live where they want to. In fact, as I write this, there is a real estate ad on this Capitol Hill blog for a “Stunning Capitol Hill Tutor” for $2.1 million. I want to live in that house, but I cannot afford it. There are a lot of places in this city that could be developed for housing. Most of Rainier Avenue could be 6-10 story apartment buildings. The same thing could happen on Aurora or any other ugly low-rise retail wasteland in this city. Oh, I guess those areas are not hip enough for people. Maybe we should focus on better transit from places that are affordable.