Comments

1
At last Thursday's debate Harrell asked "how could anyone support McGinn's SLU proposal and look a housing advocate in the face?" Looks to me that Harrell didn't actually ask the housing advocates at all, and at least one of the main ones supported McGinn's plan.
2
Other folks have been trying to tell Council this for months:

http://citytank.org/2013/03/04/more-on-w…

"Further fees beyond those proposed or creating mandatory inclusionary housing are likely to jeopardize the financial viability of any tower project, which effectively means most developments will only build to the current “bread-loaf” base capacity. No affordable housing will be the outcome."
3
Council's proposal may be much worse than the Mayor's from an affordable housing standpoint, but it did allow Harrell and Burgess to grab some headlines so I guess it's a win for them. They are both rich and perhaps a bit out of touch or lack compassion.
4
'One, the council attempted to set the fee at a level that would encourage “affordable” units on-site rather than pay into the city’s affordable housing account."

So the truth comes out. Sharon only wants affordable housing that is done by her organization. Selfish, just plain selfish.
5
Sharon makes some legitimate points, but she doesn't work in the fact that the Council replaced (in another area) nearly all of the development capacity lost with lower heights to preserve public views on the Mercer blocks.

The statement that five projects in SLU are going ahead with plans to build at current zoning says more about the short-sightedness of those developers than it says about the legislation pursued by the Council.
6
@4, "the truth comes out" -- affordable housing advocate would like affordable housing to go through the city's (read: the council's, etc) established methods. How "selfish", eh?
7
Ugh, @5 really? As someone who walks everywhere in Central Seattle, the public views argument seems so completely stupid to me. It's totally overblown. Clearly it's a factor in this debate, but man what a paper tiger.
8
What a simplistic analysis; the writer - along with McGinn - will accept more development in order to get more affordable housing. The Council, on the other hand, has mandated a higher percentage of affordable housing in (somewhat) constrained development.
9
grkle - I'm not saying the public views argument was a good reason to reduce the heights on Mercer, I'm saying that Sharon doesn't figure into her analysis that the Council increased heights more than the Mayor proposed in another area and thus re-balanced the square footage with development potential.
10
But, block 59 is off the table. The council took it off the table due to the appearance of collusion. You can't compare one proposal with block 59, no longer an option, to a proposal without.

The council is free to propose non-Vulcan related uses for Block 59 with regard to affordable housing.
11
How affordable is the mayor's housing, anyway, hyuk hyuk. If I knew more about grammar, I could give you the technical name for the sloppy ambiguity in this headline. I bet someone on the staranger staff knows it. Ask around.
12
The Seattle City Council’s decision on South Lake Union’s redevelopment is a positive step to ensure that this dynamic neighborhood welcomes residents across the full range of income levels, including those working in SLU for low or moderate wages. The Housing Development Consortium of Seattle - King County (HDC) appreciates this action. We will work with City leadership and stakeholders on a citywide plan that uses the SLU outcome as a starting point towards a policy that helps Seattle remain home to its current residents and welcomes future residents across the economic spectrum.

HDC has not taken any position on building heights in SLU or on the early offer of the Block 59 property for affordable housing production outside of incentive zoning requirements. We support neighborhoods in making equitable accommodation to the density needs of a growing city which include an increased supply of affordable housing of all types. We also support community-minded businesses in contributing to the social good and encourage the owners of Block 59 to work with our members and others to determine if there is a financially viable opportunity at that particular site.

Harry Hoffman, Executive Director, Housing Development Consortium of Seattle - King County
13
The Seattle City Council’s decisionon South Lake Union’s redevelopment is a positive step in the right direction to ensure that this dynamic neighborhood welcomes residents across the full range of income levels, including those working in SLU for low or moderate wages. The Housing Development Consortium of Seattle - King County (HDC) appreciates this action. We are prepared to work with City leadership and all stakeholders on a citywide plan that uses. the SLU outcome as a starting point towards a policy that helps Seattle remain home to all of its current residents and that welcomes future residents across the economic spectrum.

HDC has not taken a formal position on building heights in SLU or on the early offer of the Block 59 property for affordable housing production outside of incentive zoning requirements. We support neighborhoods in making equitable accommodation to the density needs of a growing city which include an increased supply of affordable housing. We also support community-minded businesses in contributing to the social good and would encourage the owners of Block 59 to work with our members and others to determine if there is a financially viable opportunity at that particular site
14
Please check Ms. Lee's facts. The purpose of incentive zoning is to provide affordable places to live for low-to-moderate income workers - slightly higher incomes than the nonprofit community is able to serve. The shocking "affordable" income levels she cites are for families of four and apply to home-ownership affordability, not rents.

What about the workers who make $37,000 to $45,000 per year (60% to 80% of Area Median Income for an individual)? They make too much to qualify for apartments like those Ms. Lee's organization provides, and cannot afford market rents in South Lake Union and nearby neighborhoods. They have to live far away and commute to jobs in the highly congested SLU traffic... is this what you want for Seattle?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.