Visit my Facebook Page, and my website to learn more about my policy platform!

www.facebook.com/electjongrant

www.electjongrant.org

@1

Thank you, good luck, and don't respond to the trolls.

We need a program where homeless people can stay in vacant hotel rooms. Or your basement (assuming you have a basement.) There is plenty of vacant housing -- we just don't want to share.

We could end homelessness immediately. Everyone has a spare room.

Hmmm... tough call.

On the one hand, I believe Sally Clark is probably easier to beat. I don't think she polls as well as Burgess (God knows why). So from a practical expedient standpoint, I think Grant stands a better chance against Clark than against Burgess, if he has any real chance at all.

On the other hand, I personally find Burgess far more loathsome. I would vote for a rabid dog over Tim Burgess. While I disagree with some things Clark has done, I don't find her nearly as objectionable, and think she's generally done an okay job. It would take more convincing for me to vote for someone else instead of her. So I'd rather see Grant run against Burgess.

My $0.02 worth.

Why not run for the 2nd district, I guess Harrell's fundraising+ connections have scared away every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Burgess already has a credible opponent.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

Both already have credible opponents.

So many good ideas and one horrible one. Rent control: the reason why SF and NY are so affordable.

Rent control helps a small portion of renters (those already locked in) at the great expense of a much larger group of renters (those looking to sign a new lease.) I like the idea of limiting move in costs and support measures that require increased notifications of rent increases and limits to year-over-year rent increases. Promoting density is still the only realistic tool we have to reign in skyrocketing rents.

@8, the problem with "promoting density" is that new construction is so expensive that the units being built cannot be affordable. And the pent-up demand from rich people who want to move here means that every new apartment or condo will be snaffled up at a price far beyond what ordinary working people can afford. Look at the new construction we've got -- it's mostly $600,000 condos with high HOA fees to boot.

The only thing that could conceivably ease the housing crunch, alas, is a huge increase in the supply of crappy, run-down units, which is impossible.

The success of the urban renewal project has killed it, ironically. Every successful city is experiencing exactly this problem. No one has an answer for it.

"The success of the urban renewal project has killed it, ironically. Every successful city is experiencing exactly this problem. No one has an answer for it."

Thank god someone has the brains to say it. Thank you, Fnarf.

@8 and when purchased by out of town investors who finance their deals with borrowed money, even the crappy run down units get very expensive, sometimes more than doubling, almost instantly.

@9: Density is far more likely to help than rent control. In a city that is harshly rent controlled, landlords have no incentive to build new housing or to improve what they have because they will never recoup the investment. I was in Berkeley in the late 80s and have never seen such a crappy collection of slummy apartments (which often requested a "finder's fee" of around $2000 to move in as the owners could not make their money back on the rents they were permitted to charge).

On the other hand, every unit that goes on the market has to reduce rents in general (or at least slow the rise in rents). Every new building that goes up (apartments are what matter here, not so much condos) takes some of the pressure off the market. Older units may be renting for high rates now. But, if I can rent a nice new place for the same price, I am not going to pay top dollar for an old one. That will ultimately reduce average rents.

Building a new unit of housing does not mean that someone new moves to Seattle-demand is finite at some point. The rich people you blame for moving here will come (and have been coming) anyway - high rents will do nothing to stop them. It may be that we are nowhere near building enough housing, but that does not change fundamental laws of supply and demand.

As to "a huge increase in the supply of crappy, run-down units," it is probably true that policies that eliminate the cheapest units have contributed to the problem. WRT homelessness, the loss of single room occupancy hotels has likely made things harder for people at the very bottom.

@13 don't make the mistake so many people do on so many issues and view things as an exclusively black-and-white scenario....

You can advocate for density while also advocating for restrictions on, say, more than doubling someone's rent in one fell swoop. That example is based on an actual occurrence -- it just happened, and it's displacing a septuagenarian couple that has lived in the same apartment for over 15 years. That's all the detail I care to give, as I would prefer to respect the privacy of those its impacting.

I really despise the false dichotomy between rent stabilization and density. I hope we can push past this kind of back and forth in Seattle soon and start discussing nuances and practicalities without devolving into ideological silliness.

Damn right he's got my vote. And volunteer hours. And the loose change I can spare. Jon's a great guy doing great work, and the council needs a voice like his. I think @4 is spot-on with their political calculation: Clark is likely more easily beaten, but I'd rather have Burgess gone. Either way, he's the better candidate.

"The city should also institute and fund a “principal reduction program” for homeowners who owe more on their mortgages then their homes are worth, he says."

Clueless. What part of the budget will get slashed to give equity to homeowners? And will homeowners have to give it back when property values continue to rise, or should they continue to refinance and use their home as a cash machine on the city's dime?

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno…

@13, heed @14. There are no one-size solutions. People always act as if there are, which is how you get people screaming against "apodments" because "I wouldn't live in one".

There IS, currently, an infinite demand, or close enough to one, that is driving prices through the roof for everyone. It's not coming from long-term residents; it's coming from new arrivals, most of whom want to live in happening in-town neighborhoods like Ballard, Cap Hill, SLU, etc. They can afford the new condos; ordinary people can't. Ordinary people are stuck in place, whether they rent or own; there's never a cheaper place that isn't farther away.

My house, for instance, which I was lucky enough to buy more than 15 years ago. Sure, it's gone way up in value, but if we sold it we'd have to get something much further out -- Shoreline or Burien or something. Because it's at the very modest end of the scale, there really isn't the option of saving money by downsizing.

The inventory of houses is shockingly low. In my neighborhood, or where I work, any house that comes on the market has a sold sign on it within a week.

Wow, the possibility of getting either Clark (who hasn't done anything, not.one.thing, but take up space and City salary) or Burgess (who's done some loathsome things and will do as many more as he can) out of Council! That would be as wonderful as you could get in Seattle.

I'm not wonky enough to even begin to dive into why rent control has failed so miserably in SF and NYC. But increasing density has only failed to keep this city affordable, just as rent control sea to have failed in the above mentioned cities.
Given the states ban on rent control, I would like to know how he plans to work around that.

@9: The reason even new even expensive new units help is because they help preserve "the supply of crappy, run-down units." Without new units coming on line to absorb demand, the pressure from newcomers falls on existing housing, leading to more building buyouts, renovations, and higher rents for everyone. And it will always be the poor that will be hit hardest in this dynamic.

Question:
If building new housing doesn't help to lower rents, is stopping new construction a viable way to lower rents?

@20: What units do you think are getting torn down to make room for the new ones? The crappy, run-down units. Yes, stock is increasing overall, but that stock is by and large much, much more expensive than what's being replaced. The poor are hit hard in both dynamics - new construction is too expensive, and old units are demanding higher rates as well. It's vicious all around.

@21. Then you have more customers chasing fewer units. Bidding wars to rent an apartments? That is the answer?

As a former Seattleite with affordable housing development experience and a current NYC real estate agent... Please, *please*, try rent control last. Try any other available tool first.

I'm a huge fan of community land trusts (probably what he means when he says the city should use its bonding authority to purchase land/improvements) and/or expanding the housing levy. Unfortunately, scaling up these methods to make a significant difference in the housing market are politically difficult because they require significant sums of money upfront (to acquire the land and/or build the housing). Is it any surprise the city goes to "incentive zoning" first? It costs the city nothing upfront-- under incentive zoning the cash outlay is borne by the private developer.

A great option to help raise the significant sums of money required for a significant expansion of community land trusts (or the housing levy) would be a very progressively structured pied-a-terre tax on ultra-luxury, non-primary residences in the city. It discourages ultra-luxury development, which in turn lowers the price of land (which is always priced to the highest level that any improvement can support), and so allows the development of housing aimed at more moderate levels of income. (A mid-market rental building can't afford ultra-luxury condo land prices.) This idea was recently floated in NYC: http://fiscalpolicy.org/fpi-proposes-tax… The ONLY victims of the implementation of such a tax, aside from ultra-wealthy non-residents that don't live or vote here, would be those speculators and developers that owned land at the sort of cost basis that can only reasonably turn a profit through the successful construction and sale of ultra-luxury development (and/or squatting on the land until the market catches up). Boo hoo! Give them an upzone as a consolation. If you get all the numbers right, you should see should see a robust increase in the development of new units that are more mass-market than ultra-luxury market. In effect, instead of trickle-down ultra luxury development, you get massive production of a-bit-above-median product (new units will always carry a slight premium). It's density uber alles where the new housing has a headstart on impacting the middle and lower ends of the market.

I could go on about land taxes (punish vacant land!), parking lot taxes, etc...

#22: No, a relatively small amount of existing housing is torn down for new housing development. Citywide the ratio of new to demolished housing is 8 to 1, and for high density housing that ratio is more like 50:1 or 100:1. That's because a lot of new high density housing is built on parking lots or spent commercial buildings. You can see this for yourself if you look around Capitol Hill, Ballard, or downtown.

Data here: citytank.org/2014/03/17/new-housing-is-n…

@24 Great post. I like the idea of a pied-a-terre tax although I'm confused about how it would be implemented/enforced and I am skeptical that these play any significant role in Seattle.

The community land trust is also intriguing although personally I wouldn't even consider buying a house in a neighborhood covered by an HOA.

I think the real answer is housing subsidies, paid for by taxes on high-value properties. Higher incomes for the middle class would also help.

Apodments are rooming houses called by a new name and much higher-priced. They shouldn't figure into anyone's discussion of housing affordability.

I'm for Jonathan challenging Clark. Burgess will chew him up and spit him out (Burgess would chew anyone up and spit them out, not just Grant). Once in a while, Burgess actually does something halfway decent. Clark doesn't do anything, ever.

@28: why shouldn't apodments figure in? They're basically the modern equivalent of single room occupancy. Downtown Seattle lost thousands of SRO units between 1980 and 2000 (can't remember the #, but Real Change had an article on this in 2000 or 2001 and it was astounding). I've lived in SROs and was perfectly happy. Would I want to live in one now? No. But if that's all I could afford, damn straight I'd want that option.

The cheapest, best solution would be to legalize cheap housing, as spelled out in these series of articles: http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/l…
There is a lot here and I think some of it (changing the occupancy limits on houses) would do very little. But a lot of it would make a huge difference. The contrast with Vancouver BC is striking. Jump to #9 and #10 if you want to skip ahead and focus on that. They are able to greatly increase housing without knocking down existing houses. The reason they are able to do that is because the laws are a lot more liberal.

It makes sense that our current approach has done little to stem the tide of rent increases. Consider what typically happens. There are a very limited supply of properties available, because big apartments are only allowed in a handful of areas. These areas, oddly enough, tend to be reasonable dense (compared to the city average). Capitol Hill is a great example. So some developer finds a property on Capitol Hill, and it contains a big house. The house itself can comfortably house a dozen people, but they tear it down. This means that someone is simply throwing away a million dollars before they dig the new foundation. Then, it the builder wants to put up a new house, or a luxury apartment (with very few residents) their job is easy. But if they want to add lots of apartments, then they have to go through the legal hassle of a review (in some cases, they can't do it). By the way, this is where Apodments came in -- it was a way for a builder to build an apartment as if it was a luxury apartment (very few units) and thus save themselves a huge amount of money in planning costs (or simply house more people than they could legally do otherwise) -- the city has ended that little loophole. So, basically, doing all of that (finding property on the few areas where construction is allowed, throwing away the million dollar house, dealing with the expensive planning process and then actually building new construction) is so expensive that it only makes sense if rents are really high. They are, so people keep building (which is a good thing, rents would be even higher if they didn't).

Now contrast that with what could happen in a typical Seattle neighborhood. This makes up most of the city, by the way (I think around 60% of the land is zoned single family). Someone simply converts their house into a duplex. Or they add a new small house out back. These acts are dirt cheap compared to what I described in the last paragraph. Construction like this can cost a few thousands dollars (in the case of a conversion) or a hundred thousand (in the case of a new bungalow). Building like this makes sense even if rent is extremely low. Adding an apartment to an existing house might be as simple as adding a stove, a new door and a couple walls. That is cheap, but it is basically illegal in his city. Oh, you can do it, but the rules are so ridiculously restrictive that very few do. They happen a lot more in Vancouver BC because Vancouver has much more liberal ADU and DADU rules. (ADU and DADU are technical terms for mother in law apartments, backyard bungalows, etc.).

The best, cheapest, easiest thing we can do in this city to make places more affordable is to liberalize the ADU and DADU rules.

@27 -- That makes sense to a certain degree. We really have two problems: 1) Poor people can't afford to live in the city. 2) There just aren't enough places to live.

At first glance, it seems like the problem is mostly caused by rich people gobbling up all the property. After all, there are a lot of wealthy people who have moved here. But let's consider the hottest markets in Seattle. It really isn't luxury apartments. Very few people are buying up apartment buildings, knocking down walls, and then converting them to giant luxury apartments. Quite the opposite. Apodments provide a great example of this. Apodments were designed to take advantage of a loophole in our city's zoning policies. Much of our zoning is designed to limit the number of people that can live in a neighborhood. For example, I can buy a house, tear it down, replace it with a much bigger house and it is all perfectly legal. But I can't convert it to a duplex (unless I live in a handful of areas that allow that). The same thing applies to big buildings. If I build a big building (six stories) and I'm the only one living in it, the paperwork is much easier. If I build luxury apartments, so that there is one unit per floor, the paperwork is much easier. But if I put a dozen units on each floor, I have to go through review (or in many cases, I simply can't do it). So the law actually encourages the building of housing aimed at wealthy individuals. But despite all that, people are building Apodments. They built them because builders found a loophole that allows Apodments to be treated like luxury apartments. The loophole created units that might not be ideal, but at least there were a lot of them. In other words, the demand is coming from the bottom up, and the laws are aimed at providing for the wealthiest (whether it was their intent or not), and they met at Apodments. I'm sure a lot of builders would have rather built lots of studio apartments, but those would have been a lot more hassle (a lot more legal paperwork) or illegal (too many people in the building).

So, given the overwhelming demand for low to middle income housing, I don't think your solution would be adequate. In other words, there is too much demand for middle to lower income housing to expect subsidies to make that much of a difference. You could instill huge taxes, of course, but aside from the political cost, there are legal limitations on how high you can raise taxes.

But that doesn't mean that your idea is a bad one. It is simply inadequate in this market. We need to loosen the regulations so that we can provide middle class housing at the same time we deal with low income renters who can't afford housing. There are situations, for example, where the vast majority of people in the city can afford housing, but 10 percent or so, can't. This is where subsidies can provide the greatest good. But in our current market, subsidies would do little good, because the overall demand (from the middle class) is simply too great for the supply.

Hopefully that was clear, but if not, I will make a food supply analogy. Let's say that Congress passes a law greatly restricting the amount of food that can be grown. Suddenly it costs ten bucks for a loaf of white bread. The middle class has a tough time affording it, but they manage. They simply spend less on everything else. But the poor get hammered. They simply can't afford bread. So they go hungry sometimes, or get bread from their friends. Now, Congress reverses itself, and bread drops dramatically in price. Food is a lot more affordable for the middle class. Life is better for the poor, but still not great. Even at these prices, times are tough. So the answer is to tax wealthy people and provide enough of a subsidy for the poor people to eat. What is true of food is true of housing.