Just in time for the whole mess to unwind all on its own, the City of Seattle is poised to do something about the lack of affordable (to buy) in-city homes for the middle class.
Developers might soon have to provide more apartments and condominiums that moderate-wage workers can afford if they want to put up taller residential buildings near downtown Seattle.
Mayor Greg Nickels is considering a proposal to raise height limits on residential buildings in the Interbay, South Lake Union and South Downtown neighborhoods — on the condition that developers create some units for people who make too much money to qualify for government-subsidized housing, but not enough to buy one of the pricey condominiums going up downtown.
The idea is to ensure a “stock of housing for the middle class,” said Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. Although he expects some resistance from developers, he predicts they’ll ultimately go along. “We have a pretty progressive development community, and I think we’ll work this out with them soon,” Ceis said.
I still think the government is pretty powerless to make significant changes to the housing affordability landscape. However, at least this plan is attacking the problem by increasing supply (by leaning on the builders), as opposed to most programs that simply increase demand (by pouring money into grant programs).
(Amy Martinez, Seattle Times, 09.09.2007)
Jump to the bottom to add your comment. ↓
19 responses so far ↓
1
SeattleHotty
// Sep 10, 2007 at 10:29 am
Why is there this assumption that people have a right to live in a particular area even when they cannot afford the prices there? I don’t walk into Medina and demand that the government find me a house that I can afford there, so why does the government think that everyone has an innate right to live downtown? I wish some people would just admit that they don’t believe in capitalism.
2
John
// Sep 10, 2007 at 10:36 am
I think this is a good idea. Increasing density in close in neighborhoods will provide housing for middle class households without further stressing transit systems. Keeping households who make $50K-$80K in neighborhoods like Greenwood, Northgate, etc makes traffic and pollution worse.
3
biliruben
// Sep 10, 2007 at 10:36 am
I believe in capitalism. I also believe it is inherently flawed, and the outcomes it creates benefit those with capital but often are not the outcomes we should be striving for as a society.
That’s why you have regulation and attempts to tweak laissez faire outcomes with policy.
I am very skeptical this proposal will have any real effect on helping people live closer to where they work, however.
4
Matt
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:03 am
In past efforts like this, has anyone monitored and tracked the quality of the housing? Developers are trying to make money, so I can’t imagine that the ‘middle-income’ housing that they make would be built very well. I’ve seen ‘more affordable’ housing built that looks fine at first, and is built to code, but deteriorates within 5-10 years because the lowest grade materials are used. I don’t think its a good idea for the government to force anyone into that kind of situation.
5
CKT
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:04 am
Something tells me this kite won’t fly. Cash-strapped builders will need a bigger carrot than “teller buildings”, especially with the ever increasing supply of empty high-end condos in downtown Seattle.
But as The Tim pointed out, at least city hall isn’t dumping hard-earned tax dollars into the pockets of the builders to make this happen. Yet…
6
Alan
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:16 am
What are these ‘middle class’ places going to look like? The $600k condos aren’t exactly palaces. Are they going to make 200 sqft places?
I’m all for raising the high restrictions.
7
Mike2
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:17 am
As usual, everyone is overlooking the obvious solution: Fire everyone earning less than $150K/yr. Force the companies to either relocate low paid the jobs out of the city or bring up salaries to the compliance level.
If we’re going to rely on local government coercing private industry to fix the housing affordability problem, get to the root of the problem. The companies are to blame for offering low paying jobs in expensive, world-class locations.
8
B&W Nikes
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:20 am
There’s no point in arguing about any “isms”, our current culture has outlived and modified them all beyond any classic recognition and skipped inventing our own “isms” that fit our behaviors. What this move makes me really wonder is if we will just get more ugly apartments and condos built on the cheap dumped into the city. There are already hundreds of cheaply built eyesores and generally bad ideas that will be standing long after we are all gone and a few developers really ought to have their heads checked. Seattle needs a remedy to it’s overpriced underdeveloped core, but is a ten story maze of crap “coming to a neighborhood near you” the answer? I’d like to see a little more vision out of the city than “build it taller and cheaper.”
9
Chuck Ponzi
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:40 am
So what?
Height restrictions and building codes are anti-capitalist too, does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Chuck Ponzi
10
deejayoh
// Sep 10, 2007 at 11:55 am
Yes, this is a great idea. Maybe we could call these new places Cabrini-Green” or something like that!
11
biliruben
// Sep 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm
That means “environmentally friendly” in Italian, right?
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean “friendly environment”.
12
Grvetti
// Sep 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Does anyone know what’s going on with Hjarta in Ballard? I’ve been staring at that thing for over a year and it still looks the same construction-wise, some of the playwood’s getting that gray look…. and I don’t see the stick-in-the-ground flyers as much.
13
SeattleHotty
// Sep 10, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Okay then, since you can never have too much of a good thing, why don’t we just let the government own all property, and they will assign us each the house that is good for us.
14
softwarengineer
// Sep 10, 2007 at 1:55 pm
MAYOR NICKELS IS NO CITY PLANNER
The man is a complete buffoon. His idea sounds progressive Democrat, but its a total joke coming from an educated idiot. He’s no liberal either, even suggesting this horrifying overpopulation environmental impact to Seattle.
How do we get to work, the roads are already clogged?
Snohomish county has a brain. They have blocked all future home development on 164TH, due to the fact 4 MPH gridlock means we telework or stop working. Its in the books as I blog.
This was on the MSM local news a few days ago, but try to find it on the internet now….lol.
It must be nice to be a King County Councilmen land build planner, re: all those new home permits east of where you live, so your commute is not impacted. This condo “pack ‘em in” idea is totally absurd and should be in Mad Magazine.
15
biliruben
// Sep 10, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Okay then, since you can never have too much of a good thing, why don’t we just let the government own all property, and they will assign us each the house that is good for us.
It’s a delicate balance that we elect our politicians to attempt to maintain. The profit motive is, on balance, a good thing, but you don’t to let developers make all the decisions regarding what to build, how and where, or else you have shoddy housing with no infrastructure and amenities, no parks, and a decaying and inadequate transportation system.
Hey, wait a sec…
16
Old Ballard
// Sep 10, 2007 at 5:10 pm
As usual our Mayor, Gregory “Fat ass” Nickels, and his fake liberal crony capitalist friends on the city council:
• Nicky “the tricky dick” Licata.
• Sally “isn’t it enough to be a lesbian” Clark.
• Richard “I’m just going to sit and quietly listen” Conlin.
• Tom “how many developers can one man entertain at lunch?” Rusmussen.
• Peter “I quit” Steinbrueck.
• Richard “quiet please, I’m sleeping” McIver.
• Della, Drago, and Godden, well, they don’t even try faking the liberalism, because…huh….their the republicans.
Have come up with yet another plan to win votes and screw the public at the same time. All you Ragan “trickle down” Republicans need not worry. This new plan will not work any better than the old plan. WHY, BECAUSE IT’S NOT DESIGNED TO WORK AT ALL.
These plans are only designed so that guilty homeowners can feel better when they walk around the homeless, or when they see on TV that rents are rising yet again, or when they read in the newspaper about how old people are being thrown out for another condo conversion.
Richard Conlin’s plan for zero waste, composting, serves the same propose. Wealthy people don’t want to feel culpable. They don’t want to admit that maybe they’ve taken more than they have given. So they vote for the politician/s that pretends to take action without taking action. For true action would mean commitment, giving and sacrifice on their part. Sharing the wealth for the benefit of everyone isn’t what they want.
“I’ve got my house and you’re screwed, but see I compost!!! I helping the environment, see how wonderful I am?!?!?!”
Sound about right to you SeattleHotty?
17
AndySeattle
// Sep 10, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Sounds mighty socialist to me…
Another potential solution would be to offer subsidies, based on income, to all residents that moved downtown. All properties would be open game and no price reductions required.
For example, if a family with a household income of 60k wanted to live in Olive8 they would get a subsidy of $n per month.
Of course you would have to limit the number of subsidies per property but it would sure avoid the potentials for ‘projects’ in the downtown, still allow for some flavor of capitalism to exist, and work towards solving the issue of mixed incomes living together in harmony downtown.
Group communist hug anyone?
18
urbnlivn - A Seattle condo new construction real estate blog » Changes to height zoning laws?
// Sep 11, 2007 at 8:01 am
[...] Tim at Seattle Bubble had this to say about the article: I still think the government is pretty powerless to make significant changes to the housing [...]
19
locust
// Sep 11, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Affordability is a genuine social and economic problem for the City. Unfortunately, this type of program can only make a token gesture at fixing the problem. So they build a 200 unit building with 30 affordable units. That means those 30 people get a discount of $100,000 each, and the other 170 buyers pay more, $17,647 each, as the builder passes through the cost of the subsidy. I am not sure that the net effect is that positive for affordability, or for societal fairness.
Jump to the top of the comments. ↑
Leave a Comment