A disincentive?

Lakefront property near downtown?

Yeah, sure ... and I'm a gerbil.

$15/sqft isn't much of a deterrent. Hell, that's only $15k per 1,000sqft apartment.

Also, the "affordable housing" solutions shouldn't be 90 sqft closets. That'd be insulting. I haven't looked into it yet, but are there regulations on how large or small the affordable housing choices need to be?

Licata believes that the law of supply and demand disappears on South Lake Union. He is wrong. If you restrict the supply of apartments (and apartments) it affects the cost of all apartments. If we build a few more really expensive apartments then the not quite as expensive apartments get a bit cheaper. Apartments that are a bit less expensive than those get a bit cheaper, etc.

Of course, if overall restrictions are pushing up the cost of all housing, then we won't see any real reduction, but the cost won't go up as much as it would otherwise. That is the point. This restriction (like all restrictions) is paid by all renters. Allow people to build everywhere, with no parking requirement (or any other requirement) and you would see renting costs go way down. I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying that is what would happen.

Licata wants to tax these folks because he thinks he can, not because it is right. It plays on the whole "development is bad, because I like the way Seattle used to be" idea. Using affordable housing fees just makes these people feel better. Stick it to the nasty developers and build some affordable housing at the same time -- everyone wins.

Not only is it cynical and wrong, but it is unfair. If we want to pay for more affordable housing, then everyone should pay. Not just renters (which is who will pay these fees) but everyone, including home owners.