NOBODY KNOWS exactly how many people are paying unreasonable rents in Seattle’s market. (Renters are officially getting gouged if they’re paying over 30 percent of their annual income on rent.) But City Council Member Judy Nicastro isn’t waiting for the next census report before she comes to their rescue.
City officials estimate that two-thirds of Seattle’s low-income population ($32,900 or less for a family of four) are not being served by subsidized housing. For example, 10,177 households are on Seattle Housing Authority’s waiting lists.
And while the city boasts a net gain of new apartments, it turns out the units are going for nearly twice what the federal government thinks poor people can afford. To make matters worse, landlords are opting out of Section 8 contracts that keep rents low. Eight buildings with 387 apartments were recently lost to market rates, and another 2,900 are in jeopardy, according to the city’s Office of Housing.
“The rapid increase in the price of rental housing that Seattle has seen over the past decade threatens the very heart of our community,” Nicastro says in her renters’ summit manifesto. She’s whipped up a few strategies “designed to serve renters of low to moderate income levels by encouraging the preservation of existing housing and the production of new housing… and encouraging affordable rentals.”
Nicastro’s report suggests five ways to make Seattle’s rental housing stock affordable for the poor. Two of them, though, don’t seem to deal with the problem directly. One of the ideas suggests offering rebates on rent and discounts on utilities. (Hello? What about the people who can’t find an affordable place to live in the first place? Where’s their rebate?) The second recommendation, to give tenants and nonprofits the Right of First Refusal, sounds great. Activists believe it would actually give poor people power in the marketplace, a radical idea. Unfortunately, the power is in the hands of a pending state court decision. And even if the court gives politicians the ability to bestow this right, Nicastro doesn’t know where the money to help low-income tenants buy buildings at market rate would come from. (Hey, there’s $21.5 million lying around for a damn aquarium.)
Fortunately, two other proposals–one that entices landlords and developers to serve lower-income renters and another that gets creative with density–sound like level-headed ways to create affordable housing.
In the enticement category, Nicastro recommends cutting parking space requirements (currently up to 1.5 per unit) in neighborhoods with good access to public transportation. This would lower building costs by thousands of dollars. In exchange, Nicastro wants developers to reserve up to 40 percent of their apartments for people making 60 percent of the median income ($39,480 for a family of four).
It’s hardly surprising that landlords and developers won’t commit to this bleeding-heart deal. Jim Potter, chairman of the board at development firm Kauri Investments Ltd., isn’t so sure Nicastro’s program makes “economic sense.” Forty percent “sounds a little high to me,” he says.
Meanwhile, super-lefty low-income housing advocates think the parking plan is a red herring. They claim 60 percent of the median isn’t low enough–and the suck-up-to-developers factor is too high.
As for increasing density, Nicastro suggests relaxing city codes so builders can put up more apartments in less space. “Encouraging innovative housing forms could increase the supply of rental housing and provide low-cost alternatives for tenants,” she writes.
Finally, Nicastro wants to repeal the state ban on local rent control–a long shot, but the critical part of her program.
“The elements [of the plan] are right,” says Chuck Weinstock, executive director of the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program. “Give her credit–it’s specific. We’ve got something that could actually produce units.”
Nicastro’s nine-page manifesto pinpoints the heart of Seattle’s rental housing crisis: “Existing affordable units have been lost,” and “increasing rents have especially hurt low-income households.” The analysis is on target, because our economic boom isn’t trickling down to bottom-wage earners. In fact, it’s creating a sellers’ market, and the poor can’t compete.
But less than a week after the manifesto made the rounds, Nicastro started backing down from her heroic mission to serve all the people who make up that 52 percent statistic (Seattle’s renting population) she’s so fond of citing. Nicastro now says she’s not trying to save poor people. The proposals “are not addressing low income, because so many agencies are,” she says. This is obvious politics. Nicastro is afraid of being perceived as a radical. Come on Judy, don’t cave in now. Remember, 33,200 low-income households are paying more than 30 percent of their annual income on rent.
Nicastro defeated the landlord association once. She shouldn’t let the fact that she’s been elected stop her from doing it again. *