In the Hall

Last week, city council land-use committee chair Sally Clark
refereed a well-attended “workshop” at the Langston Hughes Performing
Arts Center on the contentious transit-oriented communities bill under discussion in Olympia. The legislation, which has been heavily
amended to placate density opponents, would upzone the areas around
most light-rail stations, mandate affordable housing in new
developments, and require cities to come up with plans to reduce
driving.

Although Clark started off the discussion by insisting “this will
not be a contact sport,” the room was divided into two very distinct,
and passionate, factions: Home-owners who oppose new apartment
buildings in their single-family neighborhoods and environmentalists
who believe that the bill both ensures affordable housing and protects
the environment.

You’ll notice that I didn’t mention any faction worried about the
displacement of low-income people. That’s because the vast majority
of low-income advocates—including Rachael Myers from the
Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, who was on the
panel—support the legislation. And with good reason: The bill
mandates one-for-one replacement of demolished affordable
housing, at rents affordable to the people displaced, and requires
that any new developments include affordable housing—25 percent
affordable to people making 80 percent or less of median ($52,100 for a
couple), 10 percent to those making under 60 percent ($39,060 for a
couple).

Those two things—new affordable housing and one-for-one
replacement—are exactly what antidisplacement activists like John
Fox, the lone opponent of the legislation on last week’s panel, have
been insisting on for years. (Fox would prefer that the affordability
levels be lower, but politics is compromise—something most
activists are well aware of.)

Given how much the bill would do to provide and protect affordable
housing, it’s hard to reach any other conclusion than that Fox, like
his NIMBY allies in the neighborhood movement (many of whom could be
seen cheering loudly every time he spoke at last week’s meeting), cares
more about “saving” suburban-style single-family neighborhoods than
making sure poor people can live in the city. That, or he’s just
delusional.

Here’s the reality: Myers, a former Real Change advocacy
director, supports the bill specifically because it mandates more
affordable housing than any existing city law. At last week’s
meeting, Myers pointed out that the legislation preserves and creates
far more affordable housing than the market would on its own. “If you
own an apartment building [on the light-rail line], there’s going to be
quite an incentive to sell that or convert it into condos and displace
people,” Myers said.

Fox, of course, disagreed. Not only did he insist the bill would
force people out of their homes, he even claimed that denser
developments increase driving—a claim for which there is not a
scrap of evidence. Fox also blasted a provision in the bill that
eliminates minimum parking requirements at developments around
light-rail stations—a bizarre objection, from an
affordable-housing perspective, since every parking space adds tens of
thousands of dollars to the cost of an apartment or condo.

At this point, it’s hard to see what Fox’s housing-related
objections to the legislation actually are. Sitting onstage last week,
arms crossed defensively, he sounded more like a homeowning
NIMBY (which, in fairness, he is not) than an affordable-housing
advocate. And judging by the applause from the many neighborhood
activists crowded in the auditorium, they considered him a kindred
spirit.