In a rejection rare for the body, the Seattle City Council’s land use committee Wednesday failed to pass legislation to launch a new Connected Communities pilot program in the city dedicated to creating 35 “community-led” affordable housing developments over the next five years.
Committee chair and bill sponsor Tammy Morales can still bring the proposal to the full council but it will carry the rare — and likely doomed — “do not pass” recommendation from her committee after Wednesday 1-3 vote.
The Seattle council’s procedures in recent years rarely resulted in the outright rejection of legislation at the scale of the proposed pilot — especially when carried forward by the chair. But the new council has been more likely to vote against bills under the leadership of council president Sara Nelson.
TODAY’S TOP STORIES
The proposed Connected Communities pilot would run through 2029 or create 35 housing developments — whichever comes first — by pairing “community-based organizations with limited development experience” with nonprofit and for-profit developers “for development of low- and moderate-income housing with neighborhood serving equitable development uses.”
Critics say the plan would add to the city’s already burdensome development regulations and question the capacity of nonprofits to participate in the development. Some worry it could also help spread the development of affordable housing projects into areas of the city not ready to support large-scale multifamily development.
The program would include more flexibility in zoning (PDF) depending on location factors including nearby transit and the zoning of the surrounding area.
While bills rejected by committees aren’t necessarily dead, they do face a major uphill battle. With Wednesday’s vote against the bill, the Morales proposal could join Kshama Sawant’s rent control bill last summer in the purgatory of Seattle council-rejected legislation.
“I’m really disappointed,” Morales said following Wednesday’s vote. “Seattle can’t waste any more time failing to provide affordable housing. We were elected to take action. This is not a controversial bill. Cutting red tape to let organizations like Habitat for Humanity build more homes is not controversial.”
I'm really disappointed. Seattle can't waste any more time failing to provide affordable housing. We were elected to take action. This is not a controversial bill. Cutting red tape to let organizations like Habitat for Humanity build more homes is not controversial. https://t.co/sF06qKhyuH pic.twitter.com/FZqXhz0IJu
— Councilmember Tammy J. Morales (@CMTammyMorales) April 17, 2024
Thank you Sara!
Everyone knows government is the most efficient and fastest way to create housing!
Because the market already builds enough affordable housing!
Hope y’all like homeless people cause they’re not getting homes with this council.
That’s it. We are in the era of gridlock.
The new council hasn’t done jack.
Which is actually good because it means they’re not doing damage.
Yay. Finally obstacles to Morales. Check out her history with Black Brilliance Project.
Morales should have to pay back the $3 million dollars she gave away to her backers through an illegal contract.
I agree. Unfortunately the county is indulging in more of this with 3 million dollars in grants that is supposed to be some sort of reparations for the war on drugs.
I am very skeptical of any bill put forward by leftist Morales, who is now a “lone wolf” on the Council, fortunately.
Ya think it might have something to do with this: “community-based organizations with limited development experience”?
It’s not surprising at all with this council… Members Woo and Rivera more or less said that housing takes several years to develop, so we have time to figure this out! That’s some serious pretzel logic.
It’s so hard to watch council meetings these days because it’s so little actual discussion of the issues, and just a bunch of new folks bumbling through procedures and a lack of understanding of how any of this works!
As opposed to 2019, when we had a bunch of new folks bumbling through procedures and a lack of understanding of how any of this works. But it was easier because you shared their political perspective, right?
The difference is that many of those new folks had previous political experiences and an understanding of procedures and city functions. What we have now is a bunch of councilers that know what they don’t like (people experiencing some combination of poverty, homelessness, and/or complex health issues) but no actual plans to address it. As Morales said, were four months in and haven’t passed any sort of significant legislation, despite all of the new members running on the idea of a city in crisis.
The 2019 council wasn’t perfect by any means in my book, but at least they actually tried to accomplish something. Tanya Woo seems like she’s just wanting to not say anything too controversial until her citywide election…
Working in union management does not constitute political experience. Who besides Sawant had held elected office before 2019?
Sawant was elected in 2013 bud…
I said political experiences, not held elected office. The new members in 2019 were Morales, Pederson, Strauss, and Lewis… All of whom had previous political experiences as aides or in some capacity both in and out of the city. Not to mention there were three incumbents, so at least 5 members with 4+ years experience on the board too.
And the old folks like Sawant and Morales were beacons of hope for humanity?