Comments

1
"This time, there's no electoral threat from the left coming this fall" -- There could be if many people and organizations push hard on the 40 odd candidates for City Council.
2
Typical Herz.
3
ask them to pass an income tax on high earners while you're at it. lobbying this state senate to overturn a ban on rent control is a fool's errand.
4
Money runs the world, and the City of Seattle as well. If you ain't got the $ then move to White Center or Orting.
5
#4: Have fun in your boring lifeless city once the poors are gone, since most of the truly creative class, what we used to call artists and musicians, don't make enough to live here. When it comes to culture, the free market is just about as good as creating it, as it is affordable housing, i.e. not at all.
6
I'm really happy to learn that both "sides" agree that massive intervention by the City is necessary to increase affordable housing. I would add that we need to look at a major overhaul in land zoning (nearly 3/4 of Seattle is still zoned for single family residential) in order to absorb our rapidly growing population. One reason why new construction is so expensive is because there is a very limited supply of land appropriately zoned for dense development. Rent control is pleasant-sounding, but realistically a non-starter.
7
@6 Nailed it. There is need for low income housing, but first we need to provide middle income housing. The only reason we can't provide middle income housing is because demand is really high, and supply is very low. Whether the market is free or not has nothing to do with it. It is still a market, and these rules still apply.

Here are some simply ideas that would change the cost of housing dramatically:

1) Do away with any restrictions related to parking. This alone saves about 20 grand per unit.
2) Liberalize the ADU and DADU laws (allow for off site ownership, etc.). This is probably the biggest and best way to get cheap housing. Building a new apartment building (especially a big one) is not cheap. It only makes sense to build it when rents are high (otherwise the owner will just sit on it, even if it is a parking lot). But converting a house to an duplex, or triplex is not that expensive. Neither is building a second dwelling. You still retain the value of the existing house (unlike a new apartment, where you destroy it) but add a cottage on it as well.

More, much more here: http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/l…

Really, just apply those principles, and we are half way there. The rich might push out the poor (eventually) but that isn't happening (even though the laws encourage it). Right now, the law prevents people from building apartments for the poor (apodments, basement apartments, etc.). It isn't the rich that are pushing out the poor, it is the middle class that is fighting for the scraps that they let owners build. The laws are backwards. You can build a six story building with one apartment per floor (super luxury) and you need no review and very little parking. But build a bunch of apartments and each one to be bigger than a motel room and it has to have a kitchen, bathroom, stove, jacuzzi (OK, I lied about that one). Oh, and the builder has to go through an expensive review (you know, because lots of people might upset the neighbors). It is no wonder that apartments are so expensive. The owner wouldn't build it if rents were cheap.
8
If the City wanted Low Income housing, they'd do it. But they don't. The City tries to force developers to have a percentage of LI apartments in their buildings. Or, they won't get the Permits/Variances they need. Looks like Blackmail to me.They (the city) owns lots of land. Build some apartments. Hire a Developer to build them. Then give to a LI Housing group to Run/Manage the places. The City and LI Advocates, etc. should NOT be telling land owners and developers what to do with their own property.

If LI people have a right to LI housing(according to their advocates). Then Mid I and High I people have that same right. If they want to live in a nice building. In a huge apartment. And they can afford it. Don't begrudge them for all of the time and effort and education it took for them to be able to afford such a place.

Building apartments creates jobs. If it's a Mid-high income building. They're(tenants) gonna spend their money in their new neighborhood. And lots of it. Which would local business owners prefer? High income customers who spend a lot. or Low income customers?

New Buildings bring in new incomes to the local neighborhood economies. If some people get priced out. Others are being Priced In. And priced in brings more in, than priced out.

The City should put it's Money where it's mouth is. Instead of engaging in Permit Approval Blackmail.

9
Linkage Fees cause land prices to go down, not developer costs up.
10
@9 -- It's both (land prices go down and linkage fees go up). Either way it pushes rent higher. Let's say a guy owns a parking lot. He makes good money. But a builder comes along and says he can build a six story building for fairly cheap. Then he can sell the thing to a landlord. He does the math and agrees. Next week, the guy says sorry, the cost of construction just went up (something about linkage fees). The owner does the math again and figures out It isn't worth it now, unless rent prices go higher. He is better off keeping his parking lot. Maybe later. Other guys don't build either (same reason). Eventually, the developer comes by and says "Guess what, you are in luck, rent prices are sky high. We can build that building after all"

So -- you are right, property values go down. The parking lot is worth a little less, now. So what? You don't pay the fee until you build, so it discourages building and this ultimately is paid by the renter. Every renter. Meanwhile, I own my house, so I don't pay a dime.

Linkage fees, reviews, parking requirements, minimum unit sizes all add to the cost of development. It is all paid for by folks who don't own (renters and those wanting to buy). That is the problem with most of these ideas. They end up penalizing some renters, while benefiting others. If we want to help low income renters we should:

1) Charge everyone for new projects (including me).
2) Liberalize the housing regulations.

It is mind blowing to me that there are individuals willing to provide lots of people with inexpensive housing, but the city prevents this. Not all cities are like this, by the way. Vancouver BC has a much more liberal set of ADU and DADU laws (http://daily.sightline.org/2013/03/15/ad…).
11
Ross, the fee is borne by the landowner because it is phased in. The developer, anticipating the fee, bids less on the land. Land owners lose; affordable housing supply wins.

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.