Alan Gossett is trying to sell his blue Craftsman house, on a slope
overlooking Madison Valley, for $875,000. But he fears the value of his
home—and every other property on the block—is about to
plummet. From the corner of Gossett’s rear deck, he points to the
plywood edge of a construction project that, he says, is “going to be a
magnet for very sketchy people.”
The project is unusual, for sure. In January, the city’s Department
of Planning and Development (DPD) issued a permit for two buildings
near the intersection of 23rd Avenue and East John Street containing
six town houses between them. However, inside each town house are eight
tiny apartments (each with its own bathroom, apartment number, and door
that locks) that share a common kitchen. So in the lot where Gossett
expected 6 to 12 new neighbors, he is now bracing for 48.
The city code classifies this sort of arrangement as “congregate
housing,” but only if it houses nine or more people per unit—like
the group boarding houses near the University of Washington. But
because each “town house” has just eight units, the developer does not
have to go through public review or notify neighbors.
Inside, the rooms are extremely small—ranging from 110 to 160
square feet—but when the building is complete in mid-July, the
rents will be incredibly affordable: an average of $550 a month,
including utilities, cable, and high-speed internet service.
“All I’m trying to do is provide housing that is affordable to
people who need it,” says developer Dirk Mulhair, 37, a partner at
Calhoun Properties. Calhoun owns six completed projects and is building
another 30-unit building in the University District. Some of those
rooms (all including utilities) rent for as little as $400 a month.
Although he acknowledges that run-down boarding houses are common near
the university, he says his properties are different because they are
not old houses that have been converted into apartments. Mulhair
insists his tenants aren’t “sketchy,” either, but a mix of middle-class
workers and students who simply want to keep their housing costs down
and still live in the city.
Margaret Ryan, 55, a marketer for nonprofits, moved into one of
Mulhair’s properties a few blocks south of the construction site after
separating from her husband in February. With just $500 a month to
spend on rent, “I couldn’t afford a conventional apartment,” Ryan says.
“This is the only thing that offered privacy and utilities at that
price.” Mulhair “runs the place right,” she adds.
But neighbors behind the construction site, including one woman who
asked not to be named, fear that the influx of new tenants will use up
the neighborhood’s limited parking, and they expressed concerns that
this “town house” project could be the first in a wave of low-rent,
high-density construction.
“Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can
live there,” says Gossett. “I don’t think most people want to live next
to a boarding house with itinerant people living in it.” He believes
the city should ban the kind of housing that Mulhair builds.
DPD spokesman Bryan Stevens says the project complies with the
city’s rules for town houses, which don’t always require public notice.
“This project is unique in the sense that it’s renting rooms within a
town-house development,” says Stevens.
Nonetheless, the project has raised eyebrows at City Hall.
“This ends up being a little bit of a surprise,” says city council
member Sally Clark, chair of the council’s land-use committee. “It is
more people than we envisioned living in this land area. That may or
may not be okay.” Clark’s committee is currently revising the city’s
zoning rules for town houses, apartments, condos, and
multiplexes—and on June 11, her committee will consider
legislation that would change rules for congregate housing (an idea
Mulhair opposes).
In a city where truly affordable housing is scarce—and where
Mayor Greg Nickels recently proposed a $145 million levy to build more
affordable housing—it’s remarkable that Mulhair has found a way
to build affordable apartments without any incentives or assistance at
all. Unlike the luxury “four-pack” town houses that have been vilified
for gentrifying once-affordable neighborhoods, Mulhair’s projects
enable lower-income people to stay in the city.
Mulhair says: “People want big, beautiful houses with white picket
fences, but the reality is people like Margaret, who have a limited
amount of money to spend. Why should she be forced to live in Bothell
or South Seattle?” 
People can’t have it both ways. Either we embrace affordable housing close to downtown Seattle…or we embrace suburban flight, with the cultural and environmental ramifications thereof. I applaud Mulhair and Calhoun properties for providing private-sector solutions to public/governmental policies.
Mulhair has the right idea for seattle. I encourage the change he’s making and hope people who oppose it come around.
Mulhair has the right idea for seattle. I encourage the change he’s making and hope people who oppose it come around.
This is a classic case of nimby-ism. Either this city and its citizens embrace affordable housing, or we pursue the alternative – i.e., suburban flight, with the attendant cultural and environmental problems it creates. I would like to know what interests Sally Clarke is bowing to in opposing affordable housing. I would like to see her answer for that in this election year. Frankly, I applaud Mulhair and his company for being a private sector solution to a public sector policy.
Apologies – didn’t think my first comment was posted.
“This ends up being a little bit of a surprise,” says city council member Sally Clark, chair of the council’s land-use committee. “It is more people than we envisioned living in this land area. That may or may not be okay.”
Does this mean Sally is waiting to see how many calls she gets from anti-growth people before she decides whether she will support this or whether she will propose law changes to prevent it in the future?
Maybe all of us who support it should be calling and e-mailing Sally and the rest of the Seattle City Council land use committee, PLUNC, showing our support for this creative way to bring much needed affordable housing to Seattle. That way she will have the political cover to get behind this.
“Unlike the luxury ‘four-pack’ town houses that have been vilified for gentrifying once-affordable neighborhoods, Mulhair’s projects enable lower-income people to stay in the city.”
Ummmmm, where have you been seeing these “luxury” town houses Dom? The ones I see in SE Seattle are anything but. Built on the cheap, town houses instead of condos so there’s no condo association to assure upkeep, with rooms about the size of Mr. Mulhair’s projects.
Opposition to all density increases is mindless nimbyism, but automatically embracing every dense project, no matter what the details — well, that’s an “ism” too, and just as knee-jerk.
If we’re going to make density work in this city, we have to do it well, and unfortunately the nimbys have plenty of bad examples to point to.
Let’s not give them any more ammunition, OK?
This is not about mindless nimbyism. This is about transparency of building projects and allowing community members to have a say about the growth of the community. This is about creating 48 apartments in space meant for six townhouses.
This is not about altruism. Mr. Mulhair and Calhoun Property Managment makes a lot of money every month off of their $550/month per 7×10 foot apartments. There are 48 units in the development that is the subject of this article. He has build at least one other similar development. Do the math.
Mr. Mulhair himself is not a practitioner of densification. He actually lives in the sprawling suburbs in his own house on a rather large lot.
Finally, in regard to the middle class, upstanding people who will embrace these 7×10 foot units…7×10, prefurnished single-bed units with no room for personal furnishings other than what has been provided. Really? I don’t know any middle-class working person (or student) who aspires to that quality of living. Most students I know move out of that type of living at the first possible opportunity.
Kudos to Mr. Mulhair (and his LLC’s profits) for exploiting a loophool in the building/zoning code and regs, brutal for those of us in the neighborhood.
JonbyD – who said this was about altruism? Why does Mr. Mulhair’s motive matter to you? I would assume he is trying to make a profit and I hope he does (and to your comment about “do the math” – I assume you recognize that there is a difference between revenue and profit). Who cares where Mr. Mulhair lives? How is that relevant? Furthermore, affordable housing of this sort fills the gap for working class individuals, not middle class wage earners. Where else in Seattle do you expect someone who nets, say $1,500 per month to live? Why do you assume such a person is an undesirable. The fact of the matter is that very few – if any – developers are filling this market need.
I like the density, the lower rents, the innovative approach, and the location of these projects. I don’t like how this utilizes a loophole to increase said density without any sort of neighbor review or feedback. That review is there to mitigate the externalities like parking, litter, visual blight, etc. By threading the needle, the developer shows that he doesn’t care about neighborhood concerns and is basically an asshole. I also agree with JonbyD @8, the people who are gonna take these apartments are students (They’re basically dorm rooms), people in recovery, and others who have no possessions. People who have nothing to lose are often bad neighbors.
I don’t really feel sorry for anyone who complains about low-rent neighbors bringing their property values down, because that’s the ultimate in classism (I only want to live around people as rich as me!).
@ JonbyD: “I don’t know any middle-class working person (or student) who aspires to that quality of living. Most students I know move out of that type of living at the first possible opportunity.”
To the affordable suburbs.
that’s essentially the space i’ve got at my parents’ house right now — smallish studio, bathroom, shared kitchen — but i’m paying them way more than $550. where do i sign up?
Rainersooner, who said anything about “undesirable”? Do you think that people making <$1500/month undesirable? Do you assume that people that make more than $1500/month think that people making <$1500/month are undesirable? What does this sya about your prejudices? I, by the way, do make ~$1500/month.
I do not begrudge Mr. Mulhair’s right to make a profit. I am not calling for an end to this type of construction. I am calling for full transparency in the process of zoning, planning and constructing facilities like this. These facilities do have economic and environmental impact. They create demands on an old and dated city infrastructure. All members of the community should have a right to hear about, and to have a say on this type of high-impact construction. They also should have a right to know about plans ahead of time so that they can make decisions about how to handle their own property. This is about transparency and honesty.
The facility in question not proposed, planned, or constructed honestly. Every neighbor surrounding this property believed that six town-homes were being built, even as the facility was framed in. Nobody knew anything different until Calhoun properties put up a sign and fliers announcing the true purpose and architectural design.
I have, and you have, a right to know the truth about things that happen in your neighborhood, especially if they potential to impact the quality and value of your life.
The problem with this article is that it grossly misrepresents the legitimate concerns that the neighbors of this development project have. As the person interviewed for this article, and subsequently vilified as the NIMBY neighbor, I would like to stress as strenuously as possible that I, and my fellow neighbors to which I’ve spoken, are neither “anti-densification” nor “anti-low income”.
When I moved into my neighborhood 12 years ago, there were 11 households on my block. By mid-summer, there will be 34, with at least 15 or more additional households likely within the next few years. This represents a current densification of more than 300%! I knew this was a likely outcome, yet I bought my home because I valued living in this Capitol Hill neighborhood and, as part of that, I supported the goal of densification.
As neighbors of this development, our primary concern is this. That a wealthy and powerful developer has managed through clever scheming and manipulation of the zoning and building permit process to construct a massive development that is wildly out of scale for the neighborhood in which it is being placed. Further, that this development, once populated, will create substantial negative impacts for the neighborhood in terms of resources, open space, parking and security. Finally, that all of this has been done utilizing a clever technical “trick” to circumvent legitimate neighbor input.
Although space prevents me from going into greater detail about all the concerns the neighbors of this project have, I would like to add that the effort by Dominic Holden to frame this issue in terms of “Class-ist” elitism and as an example of “NIMBY-ism” is both unfair and incorrect. Throughout the article, he improperly attributes statements to me that I did not make. At the same time, he both ignores significant points that I stressed multiple times during our interview or distorted other comments. In the unlikely event that this slanting of the interview was accidental, it would seemingly speak to his journalistic inexperience. If it were intentional, it would speak to his journalistic integrity and that of the editorial board of The Stranger. Either way, the readers of The Stranger should be careful to take the statements and perspectives presented in this article with a very big grain of salt!
Alan Gossett
No JonbyD – you assume low wage earners are undesirable, which is why you don’t want them in your neighborhood. Read your own statements.
Alan G – I actually feel for you…my guess is that this reporter twisted the statements from both sides to tell the story he wanted to tell. Transparency is indeed an important principle to uphold. To be fair though, it looks to me as if the developer complied with existing laws – it’s probably no more fair to accuse them of scheming and manipulation than it is to accuse you of classism.
Well said Alan.
As another resident of the block in question, my concern is entirely related to transparency of process and manipulation of the zoning laws.
I moved into the city because I wanted density which I believe creates rich and vibrant neighborhoods. That said, there is planned reasoned density on the one hand and the exploitation of loop-holes to create developer profit on the other – this is clearly the latter.
JohnbyD – great point on infrastructure.
I recall seeing the city doing the sewer hook-up on this project. Maybe a few weeks after I was told by the builder that they were building six townhomes. I just love the leap from six townhomes – to six townhomes each with eight “units” each.
So now the sewer infrastructure will be supporting an additional 42 units? Can’t wait for that back-up.
I live in Boise and cracked up that $500 a month for 150 square feet is considered “affordable”. You’ve got to be kidding me? That’s barely bigger than the cubicle I work in for the State of Idaho.It’s smaller than my dorm room at Colorado State University 30 years ago. My 1380 square foot house payment is only $950, and it is in a desirable part of town where property isn’t depreciating with the economic downturn. While I believe there is a need for this kind of housing I dare say it is still way overpriced. And the issue of space for vehicles is a good one. These kinds of new buildings should have under ground parking.
I wish this gentleman well but it does look like an opportunity to exploit a loophole in zoning.
If these people are treated better than the tenants of U-District slumlords Kieth Gilbert and Hugh Sisley then I’m sure, in turn, the tenants will be of higher quality too. In the City we need places like this. Noone aspires to live in places like this, sure, but when it’s what you can afford, it’s what you can afford.
To all concerned about parking, you should consider the possibility that a fair amount of these people might not own cars. That’s one of the plusses of urban living, it can be car optional, which is a very good thing if you earn so little that this is an option for you.
If you want a green infrastructure, you have to put places like this near jobs, schools, and public transit lines.
This is better for the environment and better for people of less means. If you have a problem with the potential of undesirables, move to Bellevue. Otherwise, deal with it and accept that everything in life has both advantages and disadvantages and we all just have to figure out how to deal with it.
Not sure why you feel you need to support your argument with hyperbole John… The article says they are a small ass 110 to 160 sq ft. not 70
By the way, if the city bought buildings that were currently renting at or under market value how much could they save us in construction costs? I’m one of the lucky ones in town, paying $590 for a 1 bedroom in the heart of Ballard. I know if I moved out my landlord would jack it up a-lot, but even after he did so it would be less than half what you would pay a month for any of the new luxury apts. here. Why do I write this? Because I remember the old building in Cascade (now known as South Lake Union) where rent was $500 for a 1 bedroom, which got torn down and replaced by “low income” apartments that went for more than what was there before, which is something that should not happen to me, my neighbors, or anyone else in a similar situation. So the city spent how much to do this? We should protect the low rent places that currently exist, respect higher density that currently exists, be more selective of what we tear down, and our city leaders should ask the surrounding cities to take on a little more of the burden, especially within walking distance of transit centers.
Good observations Spudboater!
Despite Mr. Mulhair’s statement that “All I’m trying to do is provide housing that is affordable to people who need it,” it’s obvious that what he’s really trying to do is capitalize on a slick way to bilk a lot of desperate, low-income people out of a lot of rent for very little living space in return.
With just a little quick math it’s easy to see that this guy has figured out how to crank his so-called “affordable” housing into a money mill! Just the two complexes that he has coming online this Summer alone at $500 per room translates into nearly $40,000 in rent per month!!! Add his other complexes to the mix, and he is likely raking in $60,000-70,000 or more per month! Hmmmm, I wonder how much of that he’s contributing back to area charities to help address homelessness issues???
Also, although I discussed the parking issues at great length with Mr. Holden during our interview, he declined to mention in his article that because Mr. Mulhair has technically only built 6 “townhouses”, he is only required to provide 6-7 parking spaces for his 46-unit Boarding House! To top it off, his management company’s policy is that these limited number of spaces will only be available on a monthly rental basis for $80 per month! So much for affordable alternatives!!! Of course, why would any tenant pay $80 per month for parking when they can simply pull around the block and park for free on the street? This will make parking virtually impossible to find for those of us who depend upon it for our own homes…
Finally, a note to Rainiersooner… Thanks for your empathy, I really do appreciate it! But I’d like to point out the accusations are NOT equally fair. According to the established permitting process; Boarding House developments of 9 rooms or greater provide, as a standard part of the process, the opportunity for neighbor input. Mr. Mulhair cleverly circumvented this requirement by dividing his 46-room project into six neat little projects of 8 room or less. All under the same roof! Although technically legal, he has exploited an unintended loophole to circumvent the legitimate process. This is pretty much the definition of scheming and manipulative… On the other hand, the comments I made to Mr. Holden in our interview, was severely adapted to shape his personal agenda, or that of the editorial board of The Stranger.
Alan Gossett
I guess I have a hard time seeing this as exploiting a loophole. If the rule says you have to have less than nine units in a rental to avoid going through such and such process, then putting in 8 is playing by the rules.
If the intent of this legislation is to ensure that whenever a multi-apartment house is built, the neighbors get to have a say, then why not set the legislation at 2? Or 3?
If the construction company worked hard to hide their deeds, then that’s a little messed up, but all in all, it seems like a win for poor people who want to live in the city. Especially considering they get their Internet and everything else included.
There seems to be a tendancy to look only at the revenue side of the equation when discussing the merits or downside of these multi-unit townhouses. To be fair you need to consider the cost of land, design and construction as well as the cost of money, utilities and maintenance.
Also, we need to walk in others shoes before critizing those who can ill afford expensive housing. But for the Grace of God you might be in similar circumstances.
As to parking, if you can barely afford low rents there is little chance that you can afford a car and all its attendent expenses.
Give Mr Mulhair kudos for providing a much needed solution to a vexing problem. Would you prefer a tent city?
Agreed, but for the Grace of God go I. I don’t think anyone opposed to this is criticizing those who can ill afford “expensive” housing.
What people are concerned with is transparency in permitting and development that affects them and their investments and their life. Representations were made that six townhomes would be built that is what should happen, if it was represented that 48 studio apartments would be built fine, then folks would be able to respond and plan and make their own decisions accordingly with equal access to all relevant information.
“let your yes mean yes and your no mean no” Matthew 5:37.
This is the first I’ve heard of this project, but it sounds like a great idea. They’re building housing without subsidy that’s affordable to nearly everyone.
It’s funny that some people seem offended by the idea of housing that small. I wouldn’t live there either, but might have when I was 20. It might be preferable to the roommate thing. As for the price, it’s not cheap to build stuff.
As for the people calling for parking, I’d leave that up to the developer to guess how much demand there will be. Most residents probably won’t have cars. With structured parking you’re talking about 350 square feet per space including circulation…with apartments that small the parking would double the price of each unit.
We should be addressing affordability through lots of “little” ways like this. Mother-in-laws, cottages, townhouses, garage houses, and yes, tiny apartments for those who want them. That said, we should also keep our subsidy…levy coming up.
To all you folk who are looking for affordable housing. You know the best way? Make more money. It’s not our fault you sat in class day dreaming about fingering the girl next to you and where to score a fat one. Now, you’re out you realize you should have studied a little harder so you want me to pay your rent.
Well, FU and move down the Rainier Valley.
Alan G,
I think it comes down to this. You’re right in feeling that neighborhood input is unfairly being sidestepped through technicality. The quality of neighborhood in this city is one of the best things going for it, and that quality should be preserved by any new development.
But, if Holden properly quoted you as saying, ‘Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there’ and that it would be a ‘magnet for sketchy people’, then from me (a non-sketchy month-to-month grad student living on the hill) to you: boo-fucking-hoo. I feel for the 48 people who’ll get to live next to your cranky, nimby-ass.
And not to belabor the point, but is it really the best idea to complain that a developer is trying to make some money off of a development (the horror!), while at the same time you’re trying to unload your place for $875k?
Alan G,
I think it comes down to this. You’re right in feeling that neighborhood input is unfairly being sidestepped through technicality. The quality of neighborhood in this city is one of the best things going for it, and that quality should be preserved by any new development.
But, if Holden properly quoted you as saying, ‘Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there’ and that it would be a ‘magnet for sketchy people’, then from me (a non-sketchy month-to-month grad student living on the hill) to you: boo-fucking-hoo. I feel for the 48 people who’ll get to live next to your cranky, nimby-ass.
And not to belabor the point, but is it really the best idea to complain that a developer is trying to make some money off of a development (the horror!), while at the same time you’re trying to unload your place for $875k?
Stupid White Man – Obviously your rich fat mommy and daddy paid for your college – not all of us are that lucky. Maybe your bosses will notice you’re a dick and fire you and then we’ll be seeing you in the Rainier Valley too-hope you like Crips!
And, Duh-(as others have already mentioned)People who can only afford $500 a month CAN’T AFFORD CARS!
“Maybe your bosses will notice you’re a dick and fire you and then we’ll be seeing you in the Rainier Valley too-hope you like Crips!”
I am the boss and I paid for college by working and loans. So p*ss off down the Rainier Valley, it sounds like you’ll fit right in.
“People who can only afford $500 a month CAN’T AFFORD CARS!”
Then how come they all have $2000 rims on their wheels?
As a member of landed gentry that lives near this development, I applaud it.
Finally, cheap housing for my household staff. I was so tired of having to summon them from Federal Way to empty the chamber pot.
Beyond misrepresenting my position, the greatest disservice Mr. Holden did to this matter is that he took what is a genuine concern that I and my neighbors have for the scheming and manipulative way this developer got permission to build a 46-unit complex on a lot zoned for 6 units, and turned it into a class conflict between the neighbors and the potential residents of this development.
Although such a perspective certainly fires up the base of the Stranger readership, as I’ve previously stated, it simply isn’t true! By far the largest concern of those living near this development has been the lack of forthrightness and transparency in this process.
Fair is fair, and how Mr. Mulhair obtained the required permits is fundamentally unfair, and it is this unfairness that we have issue with. If it is true that the ends do not justify the means, then the relative worthiness of this project is irrelevant. Our concern with this development is not about the worthiness of affordable housing. In fact, one of the false comments attributed to me by Mr. Holden is that I oppose all Boarding House development in Seattle. This is not true! I think that Boarding Houses can serve as an important component in generating affordable housing, but I feel strongly that their development must be in an honest and forthright manner that follows the spirit of the agreed upon process!
For those who are unclear about my position, and that of the majority of my neighbors, and wish to more clearly understand it, please refer to my earlier posting, (#15). For those who, incorrectly, insist on reading into that clear statement, criticism of those with less means, then feel free to self-righteously pontificate your little hearts out.
I’m disappointed that the Stranger has chosen to minimize and misrepresent the legitimate concerns of myself and my neighbors in this matter. In any case, I feel that, for those with open minds, I have stated my true position as clearly as possible given the limits of these postings. For the rest, no further amount of banter is going to serve any useful purpose. For myself, I’m going to close this browser window after posting this message and trust that the majority of readers of this blog will hear the plea for transparency and basic fairness in my statements…
Best wishes to all who work for justice…
Alan Gossett
Alan G, just because the laws work in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean they are unfair. The laws were written based on units, not numbers of residents, if you don’t like it, run for office or draft an initiantive.
Stupid White Man, this sort of housing is almost ideal for students working their way to where you are now.
Alan G – thank you for your posts.
You’re spot on.
Tingleyfeelin – it is not about the laws working, it is about pushing them to the limits via operating in the grey by failing to disclose the truth. The developer here is no different than someone trading on inside information.
I suspect if this matter were litigated Mulhair would lose.
yes, the stranger often twists things to make us mad. but look at us. how pathetic it is to be low income, how evil the wealthy are, how sad that anyone would waste their time commenting on this. none of us deserve a place to live. look what we have done to this world. is the only solution for us all to get blown up? i thought this place was better than San Francisco. the worst thing is the calm, quiet way we debate, as though this was normal, standard, functional. why do we read, write, argue, work? can’t we admit this was all a mistake and just…start over? is anyone alive out there? please? someone? anyone? hello?
What is this? A war on the poor? Yeah. We’re all scum. I bet those elitist hypocritical bastards vote democrat, but are too afraid to get too close to the “dregs.” Typical Seattle yuppies.
” We’re all scum.”
Not my fault you CHOSE to be poor. What did you study at Evergreen anyway, sociologism?
Shame on Sally Clark and her comments, are you kidding me? (I just went on a personal crusade after reading this) PReaching affordable housing in SEATTLE (which is what we are really talking about) and then talking out of the other side of your mouth is a crying shame. I also love the guy trying to sell his $875K house in the article, apparrently if you are willing to pay $500-$550/month in rent you are a rotten person, good to know, thanks for the heads up, I was going to hire a kid from the UW as an intern this summer. Scratch that candidate off the list.
What Mr Mulhair is doing is providing something the freakin City Leaders havent been able to get off their collective asses and structure themselves, get to work you blowhards! A percentage of units in a $100M + building isnt solving the problem here, thats a developer reach around for high end projects.
Why can’t the city council use their effort to figure out better solutions to affordable housing instead of revising their codes just because some property owners are acting like a bunch of idiotic suburbanites fearful of the poor people who will soon be their neighbors. That’s all this fuss is, owners of overpriced properties fearful that poor means lowlife. Don’t fight this and then claim you care about low income housing, diversity, and lowering the carbon footprint of the city.
Speaking of the carbon footprint as it applies to this situation, are there covered bike storage areas in these properties? There should be. Mayby that’s what the city council should be working on with properties like this.
I support affordable housing, but that doesn’t mean I support any project that a developer slaps an affordable housing label (any more than I support every initiative touted as “green” or every corporate tax break that will “create jobs”).
Whether you support or oppose this project, it’s fair to question whether doing an end-run around zoning laws and building overly-dense transient housing units in a single family neighborhood is going to help the larger cause.
Let me ask this: you readers who are so quick to brand as NIMBYs those who question or disagree with this project: would you support siting a McDonald’s in the middle of Fremont? Would you support a prison-release transitional housing next to an elementary school? There are very good reasons for zoning. It’s completely appropriate for people to work toward preserving the character of their neighborhoods, whether it’s Broadway or Broadmoor. And that means imposing limits and boundaries and controls.
Let’s work toward a more economically diverse neighborhoods, but let’s do it in a thoughtful, balanced way. Let’s not rush to embrace anything dressed up as “affordable housing.” Perhaps this developer has a great solution that will help create more diverse communities. Perhaps he’s just another slum-lord looking to get rich and leaving the neighbors to pick up the costs: overcrowding, crime, drugs, litter, vandalism. But this project clearly merits very close scrutiny. And let’s put in place some protections so that if the worst does happen, the neighborhood can do something about it.
Rob, if the city was already making an effort to set up legitimate low income housing options we wouldn’t be having this problem. Also I resent your use of the phrase “transient housing units.” That is just disrespectful and prejudicial. This city has been showing a disregard for those of lesser means for a long, long time and a-lot of us are fed up with it. I don’t think the Halfway house near an elementary school argument is relevant, I believe there are laws against this. The McDonalds in Fremont argument might be relevant, the people of Fremont might even be more opposed to that then people in this CD neighborhood are.
Yes, the project could be better, but it is within the laws as they are. But this could be a good thing. 1 resident of a similar development from the same people is happy with how it is run. I doubt that person is the lowlife everyone is fearful of. These units will likely be rented by students, service industry workers (who are often students, remember this the next time you order your $4 latte) and people starting over for one reason or another. These people need to live near their jobs, their schools, and likely near public transit. Give them a break for fucks sake.
Now, the world don’t move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he’s a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody’s got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don’t matter that you got not alot
So what,
They’ll have theirs, and you’ll have yours, and I’ll have mine.
And together we’ll be fine….
Because it takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.
550$ for a shoe box? That is a gouge beyond reasonable profit even for a Craftsman built house. Maybe you should also include meals for that @ 8 dollars a square foot. LOL I can rent a used trailer for half that. When are people going to stop breeding and over consuming.
All housing in Seattle, and every other major city, is a gouge. I challenge anyone to find housing in the city near any good public transit route for less without going in on a house with your friends. It’s there-if you know the right people.
Places like these are a good place for a-lot of people to start.
NIMBYism at its best.
He’s charging $550 per mo in rent. Typically, people shouldn’t pay more than 30% of their gross monthly income on housing (rent/mortgage, utilities, taxes, etc). If they do, they start falling quickly behind. If rent is $550, utilities are probably $80-100 putting total at $650 per mo in housing. $650 is the equivalent of $900 in gross, pretax income. If it’s 30%, that equates to $3,000 per month in gross, pretax salary, or $36,000 per year. Ya aint sketchy if you’re making $35-40k per year salary. “Sketchy” people sell drugs, steal and get by at the expense of others while contributing nothing to society. His tenants are the working poor… too busy and contributing too much to society to be sketchy.
This type of analysis should be presented to City Council and the Planning Dept. Perhaps by a nonprofit or an advocacy group in Seattle. This type of housing is called workforce housing. It’s commonly built by for-profit and nonprofit developers to provide quality, affordable housing to waitresses, clerks, janitors, etc that make more than poverty-level wages yet work their asses off to serve the snobby rich. It allows them to live close enough to work so they can rely on city services and not pay an arm and a leg (in time and money) for transportation to and from their low paying jobs.
The City fathers should have done their homework to realize this developer was building housing for 4 times the number of residents they approved. A few simple questions would have revealed the number of tenants in the project. Shame on Seattle’s local government and shame on the snobs that frown on such projects.
@28 “To all you folk who are looking for affordable housing. You know the best way? Make more money. It’s not our fault you sat in class day dreaming about fingering the girl next to you and where to score a fat one. Now, you’re out you realize you should have studied a little harder so you want me to pay your rent.”
hey braniac, in case you forgot to actually read what this article was about (affordable housing being created in seattle without the use of government subsidies or tax breaks), the whole idea of this is that none of your tax dollars would be going directly to pay for any of this. instead of making contrived stereotypical comments that a rich white man would make (does anyone really believe you are actually successful?), you might actually think before you comment. can’t wait to see what you grab out of the inflammatory grab bag next. at least get a little more creative next time will ya? i’m not really getting that much out of this relationship anymore. it’s not me, it’s you.
“Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there,” says Gossett. “I don’t think most people want to live next to a boarding house with itinerant people living in it.” He believes the city should ban the kind of housing that Mulhair builds.
To all you folk who are looking for affordable housing. You know the best way? Make more money. It’s not our fault you sat in class day dreaming about fingering the girl next to you and where to score a fat one. Now, you’re out you realize you should have studied a little harder so you want me to pay your rent.
Well, FU and move down the Rainier Valley.
Stupid White Man
Both of these viewpoints are just plain ignorant. I AM working, but due to layoffs in my fields (biotech and civil service) I am only working part-time and can’t even afford $550 a month for rent. I spend at least 3 hours a day looking for work (yes, I talk to people in person, not just sit on the computer all day). I am not an undesirable itinerant, and I don’t want to live out in the boonies where I can’t get to work easily. I’d rather take the bus than drive my car and wear it out before I get back on my feet and can afford to replace it. And it doesn’t have fancy rims.
Sorry to Mr. Gossett who believes the working poor or full-time students, who are Mr. Mulhair’s “Partner’s in Housing”, are not good enough to live next to him. May he remember that the next time when he walks into a restaurant, rides the bus, calls the police, visits the hospital, orders a coffee, walks into a hardware store, goes to the fish market, picks up his morning paper, orders a pizza, purchases groceries, pumps his gas, goes to a movie…these are the very tenants that will be calling this affordable place home!
FYI-Mr. Gossett, did you know that you have been living three doors down from exactly what you fear? A subsidized housing project! Bet you didn’t. Have you had a problem with those tenants? I suppose the crack distribution house two doors down was a nice selling point to your house, too? Development is a good thing.
Also, check your math when you make a point…Mr. G-“With just a little quick math it’s easy to see that this guy has figured out how to crank his so-called “affordable” housing into a money mill! Just the two complexes that he has coming online this Summer alone at $500 per room translates into nearly $40,000 in rent per month!!! -46 total rooms at $500/month = $23,000 and is a far cry from $40K. BTW- did you know this is in direct relation to apartment revenues?
Your points are valid but maybe, Mr. Gossett, you should call Mr. Mulhair directly as I did. He might turn you into a believer. He did me and I too, am your neighbor next door.