Comments

1
This is just a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Keeping this one building in nonprofit hands will ensure affordable rents for a few dozen residents for a few more years, but will do nothing to ease the citywide housing shortage, stop the plummeting vacancy rates, or slow the rent hikes.

The data shows, so long as we can get vacancy rates at or above 5%, rents will stop climbing. If we continue to restrict housing growth, rents will keep going up, middle class folks will keep getting pushed out of the city (except for the select few lucky enough to score a rent-controlled unit in a non-profit or city owned building), and we'll end up like San Francisco.
2
Now this is a fucking travesty. Licata and Sawant are exactly right. Either the mayor chooses to stand with the people of Seattle in their fight to retain what little affordable housing is left, or the mayor chooses to openly declare war on the city's residents by handing over that housing to developers.
You're not in Olympia anymore, Mayor. You can't hide like you used to. You have to take sides now. Choose wisely.
3

Before the election Sawant at one point was talking about regional transit -- saying we need more of it so poor people can live in less expensive areas and commute in to high paying jobs (something, as you all know, I've said ad infinitum).

However, once elected, she's shown a different color, and is now mouthing the whole expensive urban density. Like Mike McGinn, did people invite a Cuckoo to their nest?
4
@3
Good question. Did you get an invitation?
5
"Oh, we can't tell the nonprofit what to do with their building...'"

Like hell they can't! In the next election let's not forget that Mayor Ed Murray and those seven Councilmembers--every one of them except Sawant and Licata--who for YEARS have acted like brazen whores to developers and others bell bent on making our city as unaffordable for average working people as San Francisco and NYC.

It is an OUTRAGE that this conversion to market rate units will occur on land formerly owned by the City of Seattle. It is bullshit like this that dooms our city to becoming the playground of the rich instead of being a welcoming and affordable place for everyone. SHAME SHAME SHAME.
6

#4

No, the nuthouse is full thanks to you.

7
Plenty of affordable housing in seatac and tukwilla, both an easy train ride from downtown Seattle.
8
Why are the public funds lost? If the new owner has to maintain the affordability levels for another 13 years, what exactly is being lost here? It sure looks like the original intention of the City funding is being honored regardless of who buys it. Can the City actually require increased affordability without sinking even more money into this project? Something isn't adding up here.
10
@5 I would blame your outrage on a reading comprehension but as usual its Ansels fault with the implied link between what *used to be* city land that was sold and came with the Affordability level requirement. This was a regular business transaction, not a city giveaway.

Also, developers only exist under the rules that the council make. When real estate suffers from artificial scarcity because the council refuses to zone more of the city multi family or +5 stories, than the existing multifamily units become scarce and more valuable.

All current housing issues come back to the seattle zoning map, that hasn't changed in decades.

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/…

All the talk of rent control, minimum wage, and protests like these are just wagging the dog.
11
@3 JBITDMFOTP
12
@6 the one and only reason that suburban housing is cheaper, is that we're not building enough housing near the employment centers! If a shortage hadn't been artificially created by the zoning, it wouldn't be more expensive!
13
There's no real "enemy" here. We're dealing with a sustained population boom, low vacancy rates, outdated zoning plans, and no real municipal plan for getting us over this hump.

It's easy to cast developers as the insidious force in this equation, because they are making money off of the situation while others are experiencing real harm (in terms of lower wage earners being priced out of housing closer to the city core), but that line of thinking ignores the rest of the issue. We need to increase the housing supply if we ever want to get out of the inflated seller's market we're currently experiencing.
14
#13

We're dealing with a sustained population boom,

Uh, not everyone thinks so...

ST Population Projections...Low in LRP Studies

http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/07/16…
15
@14 Haha, you just linked to an article and thread where your opinion is the only one saying that there isn't a population boom. The author promptly tells you that you're full of it.
Amazing.
16
@15: If you want a real look into Bailo's insanity click on his wesite link right next to his name.
17
#15 --

Me...and SoundTransit...the source for the numbers in the article.

18
I have the same question as @8. The taxpayer investment required 51% of the building to be affordable housing. That mandate stands even if the building is sold. So the city is still getting the return on investment that it agreed to no matter what.

The only difference is that CADA chose to offer more than the required number of units below market cost. This wasn't required or even a part of the city's original deal. We (the city, the voters, etc.) have no right to tell them, or their buyer, how to price those units.

The unfortunate part is that yes, this is resulting in fewer affordable housing units, but not by any bait and switch like some are suggesting. We're still getting exactly what we invested in. And if we want more, we should invest in more. That's the right way to get this done, not by trying to bully nonprofits or create rent controls that exacerbate the problem (see SF and NYC).

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.