Before I read the quiet but encouraging news from Olympia last week — House Democrats fired Rep. Jerry Pollet (D-46, north of Seattle), a single-family zoning advocate, from his position overseeing housing policy — I thought a review of several other recent little-known pieces of news would provide context for why this seemingly minor parliamentary action in the state legislature matters for Seattle.
First, in October, the Washington State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation decided to grant a request by Wallingford homeowners to list hundreds of Wallingford homes on the National Register of Historic Places; The National Park Service made it official this week.
Expect “in this house” Seattle residents to increasingly try to weaponize “historic” neighborhoods as a tool to counter changes in local land use policies that could otherwise increase affordable housing and population density in Seattle.
Meanwhile, another quiet zoning decision has taken the opposite direction: Last month, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Commission voted against a “nondescript” (as Erica hilariously put it) two-story wooden building on Capitol Hill. This decision paves the way for the construction of a new seven-story affordable housing.
You can classify NIMBY Pollet’s politics as an old-fashioned type of left-wing populism that elevates localism (reflex developmental skepticism coupled with weary appeals to neighborhood “character”) to single-family home maintenance. The fight for division.
Unfortunately, these two decisions together end up reaffirming the pervasiveness of Seattle’s unbalanced urban planning philosophy: time and time again, Seattle restricts high-rise building density to the same area, turning down new housing opportunities in the vast majority of cities – 75% – currently designed for single-family detached houses. Unfortunately, population density on Capitol Hill is an urbanist’s Catch-22: By enthusiastically adding new apartments to one of Seattle’s most densely populated areas, you are giving excess single-family city blocks food to prevent the potential creation of new housing reform. This maintains the status quo: house prices are skyrocketing. The Seattle area has the most expensive home prices in the country, with an average rent of over $1,700 (over $2,200 in the Seattle area) and an average sale price of $810,000.
Not surprisingly, King County says we need to build approximately 240,000 new affordable homes over the next 20 years, or 12,000 new housing units per year. Currently, we are far from this speed. According to the Seattle Housing Authority, over the past two years, the city has averaged about 1,300 affordable housing units built per year.
Did you like this article? PubliCola is fully supported by readers like you. Click here to become a one-time or monthly member and help support the sustainability of PubliCola.
Fortunately, housing advocates are working to reverse this trend. Witness a long overdue progressive upheaval in Olympia. Under the leadership of a new young leader, Democrats in the state House of Representatives finally removed Rep. Jerry Pollet (D-46, north of Seattle) as chairman of a key House committee on local government earlier this month. As we have reported for years, Rep. Paulette repeatedly used his position to cancel housing bills. (Unsurprisingly, The Urbanist also accused Pollet of undermining housing laws.) Pollet’s NIMBY policies could be classified as an old-fashioned variant of left-wing populism that promoted localism (reflex development skepticism and weary admonitions of neighborhood residents). “character”)) in the struggle to preserve the zoning of individual buildings.
Initially frustrated that Pollet was downplaying support for housing legislation, the House Democratic Caucus voted in late November to narrow the scope of Pollet’s committee, placing all housing matters under the jurisdiction of the Housing Committee, chaired by Rep. Strom Peterson (D-NY) (D -21, Everett) Supports town planning legislation. Last year, for example, Peterson co-sponsored Rep. Jessica Bateman’s Bill HB 1782 (D-22, Olympia), which allowed the construction of duplexes, triplexes, bodies and ATVs. It was one of several density bills Pollet helped kill last year.
The movement to remove housing policy from the Pollet committee was spearheaded by a new generation of Democrats who wanted to send the signal that affordable housing (linked to population density) would be a top priority in 2023.
Two weeks later—and presumably their message wasn’t finished yet—the caucus voted to completely remove Pollet as chairman of the local government committee, handing over control to Rep. Devine Dürr (D-1, Bothell), another of those who lost last. year.
Because their bills are more likely to pass in the Peterson committee than under Pollet’s parochialism, pro-housing lawmakers could provide much-needed national direction to Seattle’s failed local politics.
The editorial board of The Seattle Times echoed Pollet’s protectionist views, publishing an editorial last week bemoaning a dramatic change in leadership, emulating Pollet’s mantra of “local control” by arguing that the housing bill would bar local governments from accepting affordable housing. . It is not true. The bill, backed by urbanists like Rep. Bateman, simply gives local jurisdictions the ability to allow multifamily housing developments in single-family housing areas, leaving the need for affordable housing up to local jurisdictions.
“If we really care about affordable housing,” Rep. Bateman told PubliCola, “let’s start by recognizing some basic facts: single-family zoning is 100 percent crowding out and leads to gentrification.”
This status quo – not the genie of future development – poses a current threat to housing affordability. Existing policies, for example, not only restrict supply by banning most of Seattle’s available land for multifamily development, but also encourage demolition and the construction of mansions. A more ambitious 2023 proposal, now under consideration by Rep. Bateman, would challenge the status quo by allowing quads — wherever detached single-family homes are allowed — in uptown areas of cities across the state.
The data show that even a slight increase in this density improves accessibility. Two years ago, Portland legalized four-story homes across the city, and early numbers show they are cheaper to rent or buy than two-, three-, or one-family homes. In addition, Bateman said her legislation would create affordability incentives through a “density bonus” if two housing units generate between 30% and 80% of the area’s median income and are affordable, expansion to six units is allowed.
On the State Senate side, Senator Marco Lias (D-21, Everett) is working on legislation targeting the uplands (the most dramatic uplands) near transit hubs.
However, for more news that could have a big impact in the coming year, keep an eye on the State Legislature Bills and keep an eye on new housing legislation. Because their bills are more likely to pass in the Peterson committee than under Pollet’s parochialism, pro-housing lawmakers could provide much-needed national direction to Seattle’s failed local politics.
About 15 years ago in South Pierce County, I was contacted by two social service agencies and asked me to sign a long-term lease for a space (a dilapidated building at a market price in Parkland) so that they could relocate homeless people from Gold County, relocated to the south. I talked to both of them for about an hour, explaining to them that Pierce County had its own housing problems and that moving the poor to King County didn’t solve anything. None of the social workers really “understood”. In their opinion, they help others. In the real world, they are part of the “homeless industrial complex”. This is a small group of non-profit organizations that “provide services” to the homeless… soup kitchens, shelters, all sorts of financial assistance… but they control very little actual housing. 80 something like this? Non-profit organizations receive millions from New York to fight homelessness … but the problem is only getting worse. For every nonprofit working with the homeless in Seattle, there are about 12 housing vouchers a year. It’s easy… less social workers, more housing.
The real problem is that the housing problem can be solved “cheaply” politically. They can not. Poor Mr. Faith really believes that the state legislature will somehow change housing in Seattle. it won’t. The market is the market.
The real solution is to move people from expensive markets to cheaper ones, and yes, the federal government can help with that. The FBI (with government help) could build 10 low-income housing units for every apartment in Seattle, North Dakota…
I actually volunteer for several non-profit organizations for the homeless, so I can say with confidence that in general you are completely wrong. The nonprofit connects the homeless with existing services and often has temporary shelters in its offices.
Ironically, many non-profit housing organizations such as UGM, SA, and SHARE/WHEEL are part of a system that you should object to. It is they who have financial incentives to make the homeless homeless. Most nonprofits that do not directly profit from housing have general mission statements that often include POC and LGBTQIA+ work. If there were suddenly no homeless people left in Seattle, they would have many places to turn to and still be active.
Forced relocation of the homeless in the United States is reprehensible, not to mention illegal. Why are you promoting this?
You can buy a trailer home in North Dakota for less than the fees and permits to build an apartment in Seattle. By design, New York is only for people with high incomes. Unless you’re locked in some kind of rent-regulated apartment, anyone with a steady income is at risk of becoming homeless in the Northwest Territories. Even if you are an older person and have a free and clean house, only taxes will go through your SS check. Housing is an emotional subject, and every politician in Seattle has lied about it time and time again. Seattle is not solving the problem of homelessness. Thousands of people living on the outskirts of Seattle do not have permanent housing. Politicians talk and talk, lawyers talk and talk… But 8 or 10 years or God knows how long to wait for low-income housing is inhumane. Harrell just doesn’t have the courage to tell the truth. So is Josh Feith. Low-income people in the Greater Seattle area have no options. Live in a tent or pack up and move to another place.
The worst that could happen is that the Biden administration will give Seattle millions of dollars to build more affordable housing. It would be a waste of money because Seattle needs billions, not millions, to buy affordable housing. Biden could also invest millions in low-income nursing homes in depressed rural America, which could actually reduce homelessness. 20 units in Mississippi or 1 unit in San Francisco? The need is so urgent.
“Seattle is not solving the problem of homelessness. Thousands of people living on the outskirts of Seattle do not have a permanent home.
Solving homelessness in Seattle is easy. Taxing a large corporation like Amazon is entirely feasible and easy to sell. The problem is the lack of political will for this. Harrell is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In this and many other ways, he is indistinguishable from his predecessor, Jenny Durkan. Both are active against the homeless, in support of businesses, and against proven strategies that cities and regions need to address the homeless crisis.
There is an answer. As voters, all we have to do is demand their use and elect only those who are interested in using them.
Stop lying about the percentage of land dedicated to one family. Seattle is now about 30%. You cannot include parks and public right-of-way or lakes in your room. Journalists should report facts, not lies.
A good example is a new lawsuit filed by a local government employee against the city of Seattle about the impact on the cost of a “major deal” for the construction of its existing property, as well as the city’s awareness of the impact on low- and middle-income residential areas. . what real life looks like, what the hell is going on here as our committees struggle to create horrible legislation affecting everyday life that they don’t seem to care about: https://seattlepapertrail.com/new – to mha for legal issues/
First, the lack of intermediate housing is not the solution to our problems. It just doesn’t produce enough units, nor does the ADU/DADU reform which doesn’t produce the expected units. We need high rises and at best this MMH will give us 5+ boxes of 1 box of goo and floor rot.
Second, focus on 30-80% AMI. In Seattle alone, we need over 20,000 units of AMI 0-30% to meet today’s demand, and that number is increasing every day. What good are we doing ourselves by ignoring such a great and growing need?
This article does readers (including donors) a disservice when they miss out on new lawsuits and reports on the Seattle rental cartel activity that ProPublica and The Seattle Times have reported on multiple times this year. These kits and coverages don’t even include all of the supporting management companies, like the one my landlord uses, which uses the same software. He boasts to “clients” on the real estate giant’s website that he sells his side job to homeowners. I’m in a 13 story 3 story building in downtown Fremont with few amenities. OK. 700ft 2 bed with no lift, no office or secure delivery etc cost almost $2600 in 2015 for an older structure that was not seismic upgraded when restored in 2014. There were frequent electrical problems, as well as recurring security and hacking issues.
Zoning won’t get us very far if ProPublica keeps quiet about the really dark side of the rental business. The crux of the problem is that dirty businesses are leaving rented space empty instead of renting it out at market rates. This strategy has resulted in rents hovering above market prices, but still making a profit.
Sorry, we need PubliCola for local coverage – of course, when the topic is directly related to the affordability of the housing market and its causes – what national publications like ProPublica already cover, they only capture the largest and most visible part of the local price corruption. In my 13-unit building, I am helping long-term 1-bedroom apartment rentals “frog jump” to vacant 2-bedroom apartments on the market during covid by sharing the shortcomings of apartments with those who apply and request a “price adjustment”. In November, all tenants received a six-month rent increase notice. Compensation for rate increases is not provided. Our division is managed by Crosby & Co and their hidden division is Seattle Management Services. Even though it’s an established company, the owner’s representative uses a non-commercial email address. We have filed a Public Disclosure Request with SDCI asking landlord representatives to file a lease law complaint and update the building registration of the last owner who sold the building to them shortly after changing hands a few years ago.
The Seattle Planning and Community Development Authority told me that a recent zoning opportunities report indicated that Seattle has enough viable zoning to absorb all of the growth called for in the 20-year plan. Josh, can you think of a story about this?
I have been in residential construction for over 20 years. We all agree that we need more housing, at least 250,000 for low-income families across the state. Unlike market urbanists, simply building more expensive apartments will accommodate more high-income skilled workers, but it will not alleviate the acute housing shortage for families earning less than 60% of the area’s median income, about $34 an hour per person. . It took 40 years for seepage housing to become affordable. We need it now.
The previous “missing average housing” bill contained neither accessibility provisions nor any anti-displacement measures. In fact, I have seen a lot of anti-relocation rhetoric, but no plans to help real families who are forced to relocate to rebuild their homes in their communities (family detainees, churches, school medicine, i.e. support systems).
To make matters worse, the MMH bill has received support from environmentalists, who argue that the increase in density alone will protect the boundaries of urban growth and reduce car travel. The proliferation of apartment buildings (duplexes, up to 6 units) without taking into account frequent (15 minutes) available traffic will force low-income households to have their own cars. In fact, low-income multi-family housing subsidies include frequent movement as a criterion for site selection.
Households with incomes below 80% AMI require approximately 80% of the rental housing shortfall. The question is not whether we need more low-income housing, but where and what kind of housing we need.
In addition, the previous bill would eliminate all impact fees allowed by the Growth Management Act to pay for infrastructure costs. No wonder cities are unhappy. The law takes precedence over local zoning. Cities would never allow such extreme measures. This caused a fight among the Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans.
In the last session, proponents failed to hastily work with stakeholders in advance on legislation to protect coastlines, steep slopes and wetlands. This is the local branch. The bill was supported by developers, not housing unions. Jerry Pollet worked with stakeholders to get it through his committee and grant. He died in the rules for not having enough Democratic votes. Stop blaming Pollet and solve the problem by taking the city out of zoning control. A bill allowing only duplexes, triplexes and ADUs in all single-family complexes could easily be passed.
Well, Biden is throwing the federal government into a housing crisis, so maybe that will help? There is simply no way, just no way to build enough low-income housing in Seattle to meet half of the current demand. The federal government may decide to spend money wisely and build low-income housing in depressed areas of America… like Indian reservations, small towns in the Midwest and Far South, run-down towns in the Rust Belt… and move the regular income of the elderly and disabled in certain areas that they can afford. Not Seattle. 250,000 low-income housing units in Washington State? will never happen.
Liberals love their money. After all the talk and messages, Seattle isn’t paying enough for low-income housing. This has not happened in the past and will not happen in the future. If you have a fixed income in Seattle and don’t have a home, you need to move on because they don’t have a place for you.
I must be missing something here. Since when has dense housing become affordable? Not yet in Seattle. The demolition of the rough houses in the R1 block and the construction of a luxurious upscale 4 storey meant that 4 wealthy families from California found a good place to live in the Emerald City. No good Jack for those poor bastards who make pizza. It’s all about supply and demand… the supply of rich, creative people who want to live in Seattle will always exceed the supply of housing… and it’s almost impossible for working people to survive in PNW right now. .. (See San Francisco or New York for details.)
The solution is for people to admit they can’t afford Seattle and leave. I know many people in their 30s and 40s living in the Greater Seattle area who barely make ends meet, don’t own a home, and don’t have a clear vision of what their retirement life will be like. There will be no political solution to all this… ever. Unhealthy attachment often ends badly. Just admit that you’re not yourself and pack your bags. There is life outside of Seattle… so move on. You can thank me later.
Tacomi, the vast majority of the 0 to 30% AMI homes I see in Seattle are tower blocks. At least 5 to 1 more than the absence of the middle shell. Thus, dense housing equals affordable housing.
You are correct that most of Seattle’s low-income housing is in mid- to high-rise buildings. To provide ongoing supportive housing services with an efficient staff, you will need at least 50 housing units. Simply building smaller houses in wealthier areas does not provide affordability or even rent. Allowing builders to sell three apartments on the same lot as condominiums defeats the purpose of the ADU rules.
Post time: Dec-26-2022