.jpg)
(Image: Dominic Arenas via Flickr)
Members of the mayoral task force charged with finding concrete solutions to Seattle’s affordable housing crisis are seeking a two-week extension to wrap up their final recommendations.
It’s the second delay the Housing Affordability and Livibiliity Committee has asked for ahead of releasing a plan that one committee member says will include a recommendation for allowing bigger buildings across the city.
(Image: CHS)
Capitol Hill developer and committee member Maria Barrientos told CHS there were still a few ideological differences to work out to meet Mayor Ed Murray’s call for 20,000 income restricted units in the next decade.
Still, Barrientos said the committee has developed 10 to 12 key proposals as well as an additional 60+ recommendations. In the spirit of expanding affordability across the city, Barrientos said the group is proposing the city allow for higher buildings in all residential zones, including LR2 and LR3 — areas on Capitol Hill that have generated some of the most conflict over development as three-story apartment buildings are built alongside single-family homes.
“The biggest challenge is going to be the NIMBY attitudes in the neighborhoods,” Barrientos said. “People are going to have to get over that.”
Fees on developers that would pay for new affordable housing didn’t make the final recommendations, according to Barrientos. However, so-called “linkage fees” may be coming soon anyway. The city recently released a plan at the behest of City Council that calls for developers to pay a linkage fee on new developments, as high as $28 per gross square foot, into an affordable housing fund. Over ten years, the city estimates the fee could generate around $1.16 billion to create 14,500 new affordable units.
The committee did explore ways to set affordability requirements in new developments, Barrientos said, but did not dig down to the neighborhood level.
Murray’s 28-member, multi-disciplinary committee first convened in November to start drafting its proposals. These were the marching orders City Council laid out at the time:
- Determine current and estimated needs for affordable rental and homeownership housing according to household size and income, as follows: up to 30% AMI, greater than 30% of AMI to 60% AMI, greater than 60% of AMI to 80% AMI, and, if data is available, greater than 80% of AMI.
- Study current and estimated housing development, both income/rent-restricted and market-rate.
- Study current and estimated funding for affordable housing in Seattle and estimated net-new affordable housing.
- Recommend new programs or policies targeted to market-rate housing development and projected impact on housing affordability.
- Recommend new funding, programs, or policies for affordable housing production and preservation.
- Recommend plans for preserving existing affordable housing, subsidized by any source or naturally occurring.
- Recommend plans to increase access to permanent housing for people who are currently homeless.
Following the committee’s recommendations, the plan will also have to go through City Council. After months of painstaking negotiations, Barrientos said turning the committee’s plan over to the political process won’t be easy.
“The big fear is what happens politically to it, that it doesn’t get watered down or changed,” she said.
The recommendation to upzone and allow higher buildings will make some people here very happy. Not me. It will set the stage for many neighborhood battles in years to come. I think it is very doubtful that increasing height limits makes for greater affordability, because the vast majority of such new buildings will be market-rate.
I’m one of those that it will make happy. Building higher along arterials keeps quieter areas of Capitol Hill quiet. If we keep building stubby buildings everywhere we’ll run out of land more quickly which will create sprawl and encroachment. We have to build for the future and right now we’re building for the 90’s
Several CHH buildings are taller, and designated affordable. I say allow builders to go 20 – 30 floors and require that 6 of them be designated affordable. This will solve many problems, keep sprawl in control – otherwise the NIMBYs will continue to get upset when mega 6 floor apartments are built next to their homes.
This picture is the perfect example. Why did we allow town homes to be built on 13th and John – an arterial just blocks away from the upcoming light rail station.
I don’t disagree with density, but there is ridiculous density that goes just too far. Case in point is the OTHER photo, in front of a small single-family house on Republican at Federal. This one house will be ripped down and replaced with 34 (yes, 34– maybe more, I can’t read the sign and I forget) units on one teeny half-lot. 12 would be a lot of units on this tiny space, but 34? Come on, this is ABSURD! And of course it goes without saying, no parking. This type of density in such a tiny lot is beyond belief.
That is exactly my point. Because we’re building town homes on 13th and John, a mega apartment building is being built on 11th and Aloha. Its the affect of sprawl when we can’t up zone along arterials. These developments should be reversed and the apartments should tower! TOWER I SAY!!! :)
Timmy, I actually like your suggestion to build higher (as long as the location is an arterial), and to mandate that 6 floors be affordable housing. But I think the latter suggestion is probably not legally/politically viable…it’s doubtful that developers could be forced to provide affordable units in their new buildings.
Glad we agree :) Responsible growth is key.
I know my desire isn’t legally/politically viable but wouldn’t it be great if we (including developers) considered everyone. At least develops outfit units with affordable finishes (not everyone needs granite/stainless/hardwoods) so the price could be less in some units. A guy can dream….
Well, according to this Ms. Barrientos person, we’re supposed to identify ourselves as NIMBYs and “get over it.” Condescending and rough-shod-riding developer – I’ll identify her as a money-grubbing developer – I don’t think there are many of any other kind. If they say so, they’re f’king lying.
Who is this Maria Barrientos? I think the BIGGEST issue this area has is allowing developers a seat on the task force for managing development…….KICK HER OFF THE TASK FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
The housing affordability committee is going to be a windfall for developers. It will likely get them out of having to pay an affordable housing development fee. The well-intended, but misguided density advocates don’t understand the economics of housing so they are forming a coalition with developers to build larger, generic buildings with no strings attached. Hasn’t anyone noticed that each new building has higher rents than the last? Hasn’t anyone noticed that microhousing units have the the highest cost per square foot? The higher cost per square foot unit prices have a ripple effect through rents for older units in the neighborhood. The redevelopment gold rush on Capitol Hill is a major contributor to the housing affordability crisis. Upzoning will only hassen the trend by raising land values. Older more affordable units on the Hill will be torn down and replaced with more generic, more expensive housing. Density advocates and developers will then demand further upzoning and the vicious cycle will continue to feed on itself until everything on Capitol Hill that makes it special is replaced with generic housing blocks owned by global equity firms. Then maybe rents will go down because nobody wants to live here anymore. Capitol Hill is already one of the densest neighborhoods on the west coast. Let’s demand a higher bar for redevelopment rather than open the floodgates further. Upzone downtown and SODO instead.
The person who believes that increased supply is causing an increase in prices probably shouldn’t be accusing others of not understanding the economics of housing.
My point it is that the housing affordability issue is much more complex than the supply/demand graph they show on the first day of economics 101. I have a degree in economics. You?
This task force has representatives from just about every possible group with a stake in this discussion, developers included. So why don’t they deserve a seat at the table when others do? Furthermore, based on the diversity of interests represented on the committee, we should infer that if they come to a group decision that upzoning is good for affordability, perhaps we should listen, instead of rejecting the notion out of hand…
Because they own the table. It reminds me of the Republican Party. The billionaires convince the working class folk that they have common interests and gain their support for policies that make the billionaires richer at the expense of the working class.
Exactly. Yes, some effort was apparently made to appoint a balanced committee, but I have to wonder exactly how many are pro-developer and how many are control-the-developer boom. I suspect that the former predominate, as evidenced by the preliminary recommendations referenced in this article.
I think the uncomfortable truth is Seattle is going to be expensive and there’s no going back. SF has rent control, inclusionary zoning and linkage fees. NYC has rent control, inclusionary zoning and linkage fees. Anyone consider those two cities affordable? How much has rent (or housing prices) gone down in the past few decades with these controls. Oh wait, they have skyrocketed.
At best, both of these systems (rent control, linkage fees) creates some affordable units for a few lottery winners/people of lower incomes. Great for those people, but unfortunately this doesn’t solve the problem for the majority. Neither answer has made housing more “affordable” – it’s just made it subsidized and available by lottery/income.
People at the median income should start thinking about Tacoma/Everett or other suburbs with lower cost and relatively good access to Seattle or accept they won’t be living in a very large space.
I take it you are very prosperous and comfortable and aren’t vulnerable to the rising costs.Seattle needs diversity, and a lot of this is lost by driving low and middle class families to the suburbs. We also need people to do the labor and service jobs, and even with a $15 minimum wage, the daily commute from Tacoma or Everett would not be very attractive.
Is it such a bad thing that Tacoma and Everett might grow and prosper too? And have more amenities and cultural attractions and arts and restaurants and…. Maybe it does a disservice to cities like Everett and Tacoma when we keep cramming 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag?
Did I say anything bad about Tacoma? Many people find it desirable, especially those fed up with gentrification in Seattle. But I’ve lived on Capitol Hill/First Hill for nearly 30 years, and won’t be forced out without a fight. And income diversity gives cities character. Do you want to go down the path of Frisco?
NYC has its own metropolitan income tax. Instead of waiting for a state income tax, a city income tax could be useful here. If those at the higher brackets choose to move to avoid it, so be it, it frees up space here and they can go bring money to Tacoma and Everett. If they choose to stay, more funds for better policing, transportation, etc.
I think taxpayers should pay for me regardless of where I choose to live and my choices in life. My choosing not to study hard and various other choices that have resulted in less income than others does not mean that there should be any consequences.
On top of paying for my housing wherever I see fit, I should also get vouchers to eat at any restaurant I want as well as vouchers to shop at any clothing store I want.
People that work longer hours than I do in more difficult jobs should not be rewarded. Rather, their tax dollars should pay for me and all of my friends.
Capitol Hill should be more like Detroit, a thriving bohemian community rather than what it is today. I yearn for the Seattle of the ’70s with a tanking economy and affordable vacant buildings.
Why is everybody so selfish, Tax the Rich, imprison the aristocrats in labor camps, reelect Sawant.
Great satire!!
“NIMBY attitudes” is the catch all any time a developer doesn’t get exactly what they feel entitled to get.
Inefficiency at its finest and looking for solutions from individuals denser than a bag of rocks, partial reason why this whole city is going to hell in a canvas tote bag.
P.S.
Don’t allow Amazon to keep procuring any more property throughout the city, they’re damn near like a cancer. Their only options should be to build upward or fuck off. With the amount of space they have obtained, they have more than enough that could house atleast 10k more people potentially.
>:C
Last I checked, Amazon is paying for that space. So we should tell a property owner who they can/can’t sell their land to? Amazon doesn’t need permission to buy more land. If they follow code, and have the money, and keep employing more people–they don’t need anybody’s permission.
Amazon can’t reside in higher buildings in SLU because of height restrictions related to view. And they aren’t buying or building anything, it’s Decelopers tbt buy the land, build the projects, and lease them out to Amazon.
I’m really looking forward to all the conversations, debates, and hair pulling this is going to cause everyone. Lack of density…big problem. Lack of affordable housing…huge problem. The relationship between developers and our city management…biggest problem. One day people are going to be shocked that there is actually a large body of water in Seattle called Lake Union because it’s engulfed by buildings. Do we have city planners in Seattle? Don’t respond, it’s a rhetorical question.
Totally off topic. But can we get some bigger parks and green space in this city! Some of our parks are smaller than my 600 sq ft. apartment.
I find the whole NIMBY term laughable. The entire human race are NIMBYs. Once a human has something nice, of course they don’t want to lose it. Especially if it’s something they’ve worked hard to get. It’s not rocket science. And the people that don’t yet have that nice thing are kidding themselves if they think they’d act differently once they’ve gotten it.
My point is, it’s really easy for young and / or disadvantaged people, living in apartments to call for density everywhere because it has absolutely zero negative affect on them. They don’t have that nice house yet and, heck, if they don’t like that new building next door, they can just pick up and move at the end of their lease.
And, to those wondering, no I don’t own a house, so I’m not just looking out for myself. At the end of the day, we need density in this city, but it needs to be built in a logical, controlled manner.
I noticed the go to sort of name calling by a developer too. If someone is on the side of a decent neighborhood and design, there is nothing wrong with that. Most home owners want to live in a nice place. Going up has not made rents cheaper and in fact has destroyed some of the low rise affordable units. I am not against density if it is well planned and balanced with other needs.
“People are going to have to get over that.”
Or as Marie Antoinette said : Let them eat cake!