Join us for an update on the City of Seattle’s proposed Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) zoning changes and to better understand its potential effects on all residents of Wallingford.
- Date: January 7, 2017
- Time: 10AM-1PM
- Place: Hamilton Middle School
The HALA Mandatory Housing Affordability program rewards developers and speculators, while Seattle residents pay the price. This “Grand Bargain” devised by Seattle’s Mayor and City Council promises to:
- Destroy established communities
- Displace thousands of low and middle-income residents
- Reduce family-scale housing options
The MHA program applies to all multifamily zones in Seattle within and outside of the Urban Villages:
- In exchange for providing a minuscule number of new affordable housing units, developers will be able to build larger and taller buildings
- Currently affordable older housing units will be torn down to provide more expensive market-rate housing
- Every new MHA building will increase the cost of housing in Seattle
The HALA “Grand Bargain” Upzones make Seattle Less Affordable
It also postpones developer Impact Fees, displaces more affordable housing than it creates, and does not fund schools, parks and community centers for the people of Seattle. Other concerns include:
- Increases rents for non-subsidized apartments
- Increases housing without increasing schools, parks, green spaces, parking and transportation
- Displaces more affordable units that it replaces
- Pushes our locally-owned small businesses that cannot afford higher rents
- Rezones all single family properties to multi family inside Urban Villages
- Increases property taxes
- No required parking for new developments
- Affordable housing units built later and elsewhere.
Please join us this Saturday, January 7th, 10AM-1PM at Hamilton Middle School to learn more about the Mayor and City Council’s plans for a developer giveaway under the guise of affordability and what actions you can take to fight this effort. Learn more, stay informed and subscribe to our mailing list at http://www,WallingfordCC.org
Glenn if you care about affordable housing so much why did you oppose the housing levy?
This is hodgepodge of mostly misinformation on the effects of MHA.
Hello Doug, Thank you for bringing this up. This is all misinformation and fear mongering. All of these claims can be disproved with a simple Google search. Are you going to go to the meeting?
As a Wallingford renter who has been here for the better part of a decade, I used to enjoy walking around Wallingford. Every time I see those signs, I feel personally attacked by people I used to consider neighbors. It’s disheartening and frankly quite insulting.
I would go to the meeting, but from the advertisement, I can tell that I won’t get a chance to share the perspective of a renter and neighbor who contributes to the Wallingford community. Instead I will just get to hear a bunch of angry comments about renters, apartment buildings and my lifestyle.
FWIW some Wallingford homeowners believe allowing multi-family housing everywhere and making it easier rather than harder for renters to be our neighbors make the neighborhood, and Seattle, more rather than less livable.
Any new housing stock will be more expensive than existing housing. People will pay a premium for new construction. I live in Wallingford and I have seen rental properties demolished and million dollar homes take their place time and time again. Even new construction townhomes cost more than what most unbiased individuals would consider affordable.
You mentioned in last post that people who aren’t google employees like yourself are “not so fortunate” as you. Bryan, I think you’ll find many people have different priorities and values in life if you can take the time to get your head out of your butt. Not everyone is pining to be just like you.
It would be a much poorer world indeed if we were all alike.
But it would be a much better one if everyone were happy to live next to people who can afford a duplex.
Bryan: “But it would be a much better one if everyone were happy to live next to
people who can afford a duplex, or on a block with a corner store.”
Claims without evidence are like cans without contents. They’re empty.
It’s values statement. Like “the world would be better without war.”
Folks can decide what values they share or not.
Bryan, I happen to be just fine with renters living next door to me, as is the case. As long as they’re nice, responsible people and the property is well kept by them or their landlord and their they’re not nuisances, I don’t care whether they rent or own. And btw, many renters happened to be opposed to HALA, because they understand that it has nothing to do with creating “Affordability” or “Livability” in Wallingford, and it will either jack up their rents or replace their home outright with luxury condos.
As for it being a “poorer world indeed if we were all alike:” It’s fine to be different, just so long as people think and believe like you do when it comes to HALA, right? You’ve said before you’d like to see anyone who disagrees with your agenda move out of the neighborhood they call home. And if we have the nerve to speak out about it, well, we must just be a bunch of “rich,” “white,” “privileged,” “exclusionary,” “racist,” “NIMBY’s.”
After all, you know what’s best for those of us who already live here, and that means that cramming unwanted density down our throats, will somehow make it “more rather than less livable.” If only we’d get enlightened and come around to seeing your wisdom.
Actually, Brian doesn’t push the city’s HALA agenda as the affordability solution so much, he has his own thing. Which to be fair was in part in HALA initially, but it was immediately repudiated by the mayor. Feel free to disregard it as irrelevant.
Bryan, along with many of his urbanist friends, has repeatedly advocated that we should outright ban any and all single family housing. So, his position is actually worse than HALA.
“has repeatedly advocated that we should outright ban any and all single family housing”
No
We should ban outght exclusionary zoning. No law exists or has been proposed that wuld prevent anyone from building a single family house anywhere they want whether that’s in Wallingford or smack dab in South Lake union.
By “housing” I meant “zoning,” and I think you knew that. And you’ve said “Single-family zoning: 0% is the only right answer.” Not 0% “exclusionary zoning,” 0% SF zoning, PERIOD.
If you really want to play the race card with terms like “exclusionary zoning,” look no further than the Central District. The people at grew up there and called it home have all been excluded and forced out by all this wonderful new density you’re advocating.
Single family zoning == exclusionary zoning
Thanks for confirming my earlier point that your position actually is worse than HALA’s. At least HALA has a modicum of common sense to it in that it still allows SF zoning outside the urban village. I know you like to argue the neighborhood would be “better” if there was lot’s more density, tall buildings and no parking, and less of people like myself who disagree with you. But not everyone feels that way, which is why we decided to buy in a neighborhood that ‘s zoned for SF. Sorry, but not everyone wants to live in an apartment building surrounded by millennials, or to have one looming next door to them.
And you still trot out this nonsense about “exclusionary zoning,” like we’re all a bunch of closet racists trying to keep others out simply because of the color of their skin. Put aside how divisive, outrageous and insulting your claim is. NO ONE is trying to “exclude” anyone. That kind of zoning was done generations ago. If there was a luxury 5 story apartment proposed next door to me, which in Wallingford means only people who have good incomes would be living in it, I’d be fighting it just as passionately. And of course with HALA, market rate and luxury housing is what will be built here, and not affordable housing. No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that reality.
None of us care what color, race or creed our neighbors are, as long as they’re good neighbors. How is it exclusionary when anyone, black, Asian, Do you call it “exclusionary zoning” when it’s a poor white person? In our own neighborhood, we have many different races of people living here, and we welcome them like anyone else. No one excluded them. You employ your “exclusionary zoning” argument simply as a wedge to be used to silence your opposition and it’s very patronizing to those you claim to speak for.
The biggest issue is that Seattle has changed drastically in the past five years, and the fight here is really about how do we react to that. High density supporters are more likely the ones that want to react to the change, and low density supporters are more likely just those who want to ward off the changes from this neighborhood. Past plans aren’t authorities. I am sure the original plan native Americans had for this land wouldn’t include us.
If you prohibit more affordable forms of housing, then the folks who can only afford those homes are disproportionately excluded.
Intentions don’t matter, it’s just math,
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d599679dd5863023988e16fbd504bb51e3ba093403169472bb12fdbfe4f5282e.jpg
They will STILL be excluded in Wallingford, in spite of HALA, and probably moreso because of it. So apparently for you, it really is all about the intentions.
If you had enough money to afford a duplex in Maui but they were banned by law, you might yell about it.
HALA only “still allows SF zoning outside the urban village” because Murray pulled the city wide elimination of SF off the table last summer (HALA recommendation SF.1). Indeed, O’Brien’s ADU/DADU proposal (subject of recent hearing examiner decision) implements HALA SF.1, and is arguably triplex rental zoning for most SF zones. Only lots under 3200 sq. ft. would still be “single family” in the sense of one unit per lot.
ADUs are currently allowed everywhere, but I know of no significant opposition to them at all. Ironically, they are the most affordable way to increase rental units in the city. DADUs are not affordable.
If an older couple sells a house that cost $300k back in the day to their grown kid’s family for $600k and moves into a DADU on the property that cost $300k to build, they can live free and clear and their kids get a seriously discounted house (in the north end).
If/when the older couple dropped dead the grown kids more than likely would inherit the house free and clear. What’s your point?
…that they could do this (hopefully many years) prior to the older couple dying
So what; why do you care when the title transfers? What’s your point?
What? Not when the title transfers. When both families can live on the same piece of land affordably = before the older couple vacates the house by dropping dead
They can do that now if they’re willing to have an ADU. A DADU requires significant capitalization ($200±/sq.ft.), so either the elder or the younger generation has to come up with some dough up front or pay a higher housing cost over time. Or more likely, some of both, just like buying a new house.
Good for them is an ADU is th limit of what they can afford or simply what they prefer.
But if a DADU is what they prefer and they can afford it, why make it harder for them?
How are we making it “harder” for them? Which provisions of O’Brien/OPCD’s proposed ordinance do you think would make it “easier”: The bigger DADU size allowed? The reduction of allowable lot size to 3200 sq. ft.? The allowance of both ADU and DADU on the same lot? The elimination of the owner occupancy requirement?
Are you kidding?! On the one hand you argue constantly that we should allow stacked flats everywhere that would result in more expensive housing on many lots (including overall rent increases). And now you say it’s OK for rich people to keep building SF mansions anywhere in town? You’re basically saying South Queen Anne is OK with you.
What’s more exclusionary, a wealthy neighborhood of large SF houses regardless of the zoning, or blocks of all sizes and conditions of SF (and duplex and some three and four house conversions and apartments) like many blocks in Wallingford?
“Exclusionary” has far more to do with class, not zoning. You appear to be oblivious to what is happening in this town.
“or blocks of all sizes and conditions of SF (and duplex and some three and four house conversions and apartments) like many blocks in Wallingford?”
This is *exactly* what I support, and exactly what single family zoning prohibits.
As usual, you are oblivious and non responsive to my basic point. The “agenda” you support speeds up the replacement of those blocks with less affordable, and usually uglier, housing. But it’s OK for rich people to keep their large SF homes despite the zoning that causes that displacement in middle class and lower income neighborhoods. Your position is manifestly hypocritical because it ignores the underlying class inequities at play.
Class dynamics are really, really simple…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8458c6f39dd804dd58ea197b0cdba15b437ff1b930c5e4b17bbec628670b111.jpg
Bryan, you’re generalizing (I’m biting my fingers from using worse language because this in your face ignorance is very old). I know plenty of houses like the one on the left with people who make below AMI. I’m one of them.
But that’s in part true because you’ve divided single family massing into homes for two households, right?
In part, yes. Isn’t that what you want; more affordable housing units in the neighborhood? You resent that the four of us are providing it for ourselves?
No, that’s great, I am advocating for making it easy for everyone to get it off the rack, as it were, by allowing duplexes, triplexes, and 3 flats.
2017 is not 1972. There are a lot more “everyones”, inequity is far worse, and we are closer to (if not beyond) the limits of our wealth. You are spending a lot of energy trying to change Seattle into your vision, and it’s going to get increasingly difficult to do so. Even as much as I see you succeed I wonder how it makes life better for most people.
What problem do you think you’re trying to solve? Is MHA going to to house the willfully homeless? How is allowing duplexes, triplexes, and 3 flats going to provide housing for all the middle and low income households being displaced from Seattle?
You assume growth without considering who benefits from that end of the “supply and demand” equation. I continue to be amazed at how you can profess to be in favor of economic and social justice, but your specific policy recommendations don’t address the causes of inequity. Zoning more capacity is demonstrably not the solution; producing ever more market rate housing to supply capital induced demand will not solve inequity.
“How is allowing duplexes, triplexes, and 3 flats going to provide housing for all the middle and low income households being displaced from Seattle?”
Because every lot of our finite amount of land near good jobs occupied by a 3 flat provides 3 homes each of which will be a lot cheaper than a single family detached house on that same lot.
A new flat at 5 or 600K is not cheaper than an existing house with a mortgage of 150K left from a purchase of 300K. You continue to ignore the distinction between exchange value and place/use value, and the displacement that occurs when houses are torn down and replaced with new. That new capitalization leads to the new demographic having a much higher median income. Do you like that exclusionary result, Bryan?
If the home’s current value in this area is $650k or more, it probably won’t be torn down (but also isn’t affordable once the current occupants move or pass on). And, obviously, the current owners can stay as long as they want. It’s their choice to stay or sell.
If the home’s current value is less than that it is highly likely to be torn down – and by law the only thing allowed to replace it will be a single family detached house which will probably go for around $1.3M (Still, of course, the current occupant’s choice).
Triplexes and 3 flats could “compete” for the teardown lots which more affordable options
Father of my daughter’s best friend currently pays affordable rent at a small somewhat run-down house just off of stone way. He just learned that his home has been sold it will be torn down and replaced by a four-storey building period with multiple units in it I’m pretty sure none of those new units will be affordable housing anymore so now he’s going to have to move so that people with a lot more money than him can take its place. That’simby economics at work for you
That’s sure what happened next door here. Two young families with two kids each and modest means but good people. The 5 new units are $700-$800, and of course those two families are gone.
Bryan is blind to the displacement.
Well if you are just fine with renters who are able to have their own entry doors and kitchens living next door, then we may actually agree on zoning principles.
Your concept of renters is a straw man argument. Before the last 5 years, I never heard of their being a split between renters and homeowners. It’s a fiction that has been created by so-called urbanists who have not done their homework. Look up the Displacement Coalition and how they gather information about all the renters living in neighborhoods like Wallingford, I would estimate, conservatively, that about 25% of homes here are rented and at very reasonable rents. The HALA program wants to replace rental homes, like so many are in the U District with expensive new buildings that benefit only the builders and the city with more permit fees and taxes. Please do the math before you start making up finger-pointing claims.
I think you are missing the idea. There are different stakeholders, and existing Wallingford renters is really a small fraction of the renters. Let’s say there are 100 home owners living in Wallingford, and 100 renters living in Wallingford. There are actually 1000 potential renters out there also that would like to live in Wallingford if they can afford it. The renter vs. owner split is much more between the potential renters and the owners, with the interest of current renters kind of in-between. It’s somebody that just graduated UW with a job in downtown that would benefit from Wallingford up-zoning the most, not somebody who’s lived here for a long time.
In other words, let’s screw over all those renters and home owners who paid to live here in favor of those who don’t yet. Got it.
Well, I do have some socialist and liberal tendency. I consider more in terms of overall social needs as opposed of individual desires.
There is no “social need” to live in Wallingford. “Individual desires” to live someplace is different from actually needing to live there. I might desire to live on beachfront property in Maui. But I don’t have a social need to live there.
And I’m a liberal too, but if socialism was what I wanted I would move to Cuba before Trump took office. Or at least to Sawant’s district. Look how well density has worked out for the people who grew up in that neighborhood.
,
TJ: “There are different stakeholders, and existing Wallingford renters is really a small fraction of the renters.” Respectfully, I would like to know where you get this information. I have friends who live in Wallingford who have been renters for decades because they have had a good deal on rent or didn’t want to buy a house. I would also like to see evidence of a split of renter vs. homeowner over the period from say 1970 to 2010. I doubt you can find it. The only complaints I’ve ever heard about renters here and I’ve lived in my house, (which it has taken me 40 years to pay for and could never afford to remodel) are about loud parties and even that is rare. I believe the current economic environment, which is largely a result of the consequences of global trade agreements, effects of technology, and the irresponsibility of our national government since the Reagan era has largely created this disparity of incomes.
I feel sorry for young people today who are unable to save for a starter home like I was. But this is also the consequence time in which you were born. From 1945 to 1975 most of the economic growth in this country was spurred by investments of the federal government. Now, unfortunately that is gone and likely never to return. I was lucky and today’s youth are not. My parents generation, the WWII generation, profited through government supports even more than their kids, the baby boomers. So much of life is simply about luck.
But there are other solutions. Co-ops may reappear and become quite popular. They offer affordable and liveable housing as well as social support. But, of course, that’s not for everyone.
Of course the issue wasn’t there in the past. Seattle growth really went crazy for the past five years. It was very easy for somebody just graduated out of UW to find an affordable place in U-district, Wallingford, Fremont, or Capital Hill. This whole thing just changed on us, and I reject the idea that we shouldn’t help out those who just born at the wrong time.
hate to tell you, TJ, but as a history professor in American and world history, this type of state support has happened only once, at least in the West. It was the post-World War II era, as I mentioned to you above, from about 1945 to 1970, when the US was THE global economic power. The government could afford to be generous and it was. Through programs like the GI bill when the government would pay for veterans to attend any college or university, even Harvard, and GI backed mortgages as well as the military industrial economy that created jobs for almost everyone and made the fortunes of companies like Boeing, the government created the widest middle class before or after this period in the world. This time was an anomaly in American history and unlikely to ever happen again. This kind of government support has been strongly rejected by our mostly Republican federal government since the Reagan era.
The thing is that American history is so short, that any conclusion or extrapolation from only within American history can never make any convincing argument. So many things in American history are “anomaly” in American history and “unlikely to ever happen again” at the time they happened. In which way is something “since the Reagan era” is enough to establish the norm? That’s just a couple of decades, which I guess is long from modern American history point of view. That’s the mistake that lead to all kind of misjudgement of Trump. And yes, the rise of Seattle is not controlled by regular Wallingford residents, but what’s the point of that? What I know is that Seattle is an attractive place to live, and there will continuous flood of people coming into the city. If we don’t increase density, Wallingford will be a place only affordable by rich people in the near future. I surely prefer Seattle to be a city of Ballard as opposed to a city of Laurelhurst.
Shout Out to TJ! Thank you for engaging in the conversation. I would love to discuss your citations more in depth in the future.
I appreciate your contributions to this thread.
It is unfortunate that this discussion has devolved into “HALA Good” vs “HALA Bad”. There are good parts to HALA and there are terrible parts to HALA.
The good in my estimation is the bulk of the backyard cottage aspects- they would allow infill without tearing everything down. The existing rules need to change, especially the bit about requiring new parking for a backyard cottage. I think the fixes could go further- for instance providing assistance for adding low income housing while preserving existing housing. The way seattle public utilities sponsored solar through the city by going neighborhood to neighborhood could happen with backyard cottages as well.
The bad in my view is the push to upzone urban villages. Upzoning = tearing down and replacing. Even if you want to stay put and not move, it means you’ll live for years amidst a construction zone, like what happened in Ballard. If we’re planning to destroy something, why not upzone all the private golf courses through the city? We could bump the tax rate way up on those places to encourage their redevelopment. Nobody would be displaced, very few would be inconvenienced during construction, and the only people hurt are country club members and people in the most elite, car-centric neighborhoods (think broadmoor, windermere, etc).
People talk about infrastructure in Wallingford, but what do we have? Zero neighborhood elementary schools, one middle school with portables, no high school, sewage dumping into lake union, no transit except a few bus stops, parks that turn to mud due to overuse, no community center. Our infrastructure is terrible. If we redeveloped private country clubs instead then we could more easily impose developer impact fees to pay for needed amenities like new schools and parks.
So it’s not “good HALA / bad HALA” in my view, it’s fixing HALA to focus on the good.
The urban village upzone is a perfect example of bad planning practices that have become popular at city hall. The initial idea was good – a center to focus transportation and other infrastructure along with development – and the boundaries were downplayed, in particular I understand they said they would not use urban village boundaries for zoning. Now they want to use these boundaries to expand those centers to the limits, making urban villages like Wallingford into little Ballards. This doesn’t necessarily add a lot of housing – there are plenty of reasons why the rate of new housing is likely to go down despite any upzones, see Sunday’s Seattle Times front page article for more on that. It just gives developers access to a wider area.
Re: “Bad Planning Practices,” two emails from last fall:
From: [email protected]
Sent: 2016-09-04
HALA would destroy the city’s 25 year commitment to the Urban Village Strategy, is anti high capacity transit, and is antithical to “smart growth” because more than half the city’s 30 designated urban villages still are more than half the population an employment densities needed to support high capacity transit and complete, walkable neighborhoods. HALA is car centric, as it extends densities along the city’s many car dominated arterials and corridors outside the urban villages, akin to opening up the county’s urban growth boundaries on a regional scale. It is nothing more than worst city planning dumbness and a public sale of land use development rights with little public benefit and ruinous to the city’s urban village focus, strong, complete neighborhoods and smart growth.
Peter Steinbrueck
——
Me again: Through Mike O’Brien I tried to get the City Council to get a presentation from Peter on the basis for these conclusions, a report the City bought and paid for. My email of Sept 12 last:
…As for Peter Steinbrueck’s commentary, the data supporting his conclusions is largely in his report prepared for City HALA process:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2357239.pdf
Seattle 2035 Urban Village Study
Peter tells me he would welcome the opportunity to explain the connection between that document and his conclusions from the email (i.e, connect the dots); he was never given the chance to do that when he turned the report in last year. All you have to do is invite him, but it needs to be a public briefing on Council or committee agenda. Now (ASAP)—before you act on the Comp Plan 2035, and before the MHA-R rezone proposals come out of OPCD—would be most timely. Is that possible?
…
—-
Back to the future (10 Jan 2017)
What happened next? crickets
Eric, I suggest your read the city examiner’s rejection of the backyard cottage proposed ordinance, that was linked to a recent article in the Seattle Times. The suit against it was brought by the Queen Anne Community Council even though they had the more difficult burden of proof argument. O’Brien’s suggestion that home owners not have to live on the property for more than 6 months opens the way for speculators and developers to have up to 3 units on one single family lot. This was the examiner’s conclusion — that such speculation would have adverse affects in an SF neighborhood that O’Brien and the council had failed to consider.
Yeah- I saw that article, and it sounds like the existing backyard cottage legislation might drive speculation and tear downs, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Put another way, I don’t know what owner-occupancy requirement would be best. It sounds like the measure as written would at least require the owner to be there during the construction and transition time. My preference would be for the legislation to focus on adding affordable housing alongside existing housing stock. At least it has the possibility of being a good change, unlike the urban village upzone mess.
Hello! Frankly I agree with your point about Golf Courses. What a waste of such wonderful space! They are also quite bad for the environment.
Wallingford would do great with MIL apartments and backyard cottages. I know many mid-thirties renters who would relish to find an opportunity like that. The recent ruling in Queen Anne is heartbreaking. MIL’S and cottages can help preserve a neighborhood’s character while providing much needed housing. This weird notion that if the owner doesn’t live on-site, the property will get torn down and replaced with “new development” is a fable that I don’t understand. When I walk through Wallingford, I count the mailboxes. Why? Because it IS possible to build a duplex inside an existing craftsman.
Does Wallingford need some upgrades to handle more density? Of course! A bigger library, new sidewalks (you can break your neck walking around a night), safe Greenway for bikes, schools…. most Seattle neighborhoods need these. There are ways to advocate for these line items without negating HALA in it’s entirety. And honestly, with the way public funding is allocated, Urban Villages with dense populations will get those things before neighborhoods of single Family Homes.
Yes, HALA is not perfect. But it’s a start and it attempts to address what truly is a Housing Crisis. Wallingford is not a suburb. It is convenient to the city. It is walkable. There is a 24hr grocery store. Stopping HALA in it’s tracks will only make things more exspensive, keep the amenities like libraries and schools and sidewalks sub par.
Stopping the HALA MHA upzone process won’t make any difference in those things. Really. It will just keep development where it is, rather than spreading out.
We had more crane here last summer than San Francisco and New York combined, building so many apartment units that in 2017 they’re expected to double the existing record. Zoning has not been a problem. Some of it may actually be developers rushing to beat the MHA upzones, to avoid the penalty. The thing that will stop this is investment money – the bean counters are going to pull the plug on new projects. See Sunday Seattle Times, front page, for more on this.
There is nothing about the HALA signs that should be discouraging to renters. The anti-HALA people don’t like the direction the city has taken where developers are allowed to cash in at the expense of both home owners and renters. It would be a good idea to attend this meeting and understand that most of us HALA and anti-HALA want the same thing. We just don’t like the mayor’s way of achieving it. There is nothing affordable or liveable about HALA excect for the truly low income people who qualify for the few subsidized set asides. If developers actually cared about affordability they would be building apartments in South Seattle, Kent, Auburn etc where affordable housing is most needed. They are not. They build where they can make the most money, which is what private companies do and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s the city’s encouragement of it that I have a problem with. See the Seattle TImes article that appeared earlier this week. Also recommend the Displacement Coalition website to get a more in depth view of HALA’s proposals.
Spot on, Berta. Here’s a good article from Forbes backing up your point:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2016/12/15/more-housing-to-address-affordability-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#bd2179148fe7
Kent is definitely not a place where affordable housing is most needed. Kent has a housing problem because all the poorer people who used to live in Central moved there. If you care about people currently living in Kent and Auburn, you should advocate building up Seattle more so people can move back.
“you should advocate building up Seattle more so people can move back.”
I nominate Aurora. It’s naturally affordable, and developing all those empty lots and run-down derelict properties would clean the strip up, and be a win-win for all.
I agree Aurora overall needs to be developed, but so are the areas around light rail stations. I really don’t think Aurora would be an excuse to spare Wallingford though. I still believe Ballard development should have happened in Wallingford instead, due to location.
“I really don’t think Aurora would be an excuse to spare Wallingford though.”
Even if developing Aurora provided more than enough of our “share” of density? And Wallingford is not getting a light rail station. What’s been done to Ballard is EXACTLY what we’re upset about. And it sure isn’t affordable.
Ballard isn’t affordable, because there aren’t enough neighborhoods developed like Ballard. We need all urban villages to be like Ballard really, with Wallingford needing to be higher density than Ballard because it’s at a better location. Studies found that if San Francisco wants to be affordable, it needs to be like Paris: 6-stories everywhere. Seattle is not there, but really San Franciso didn’t know the situation would have ended up so bad, and we might be on the same track. I want a city where neighborhood baristas and teachers can walk to work as opposed to riding a bus in from Kent. In Bay Area that’s just impossible already, and I’d hate to be like that.
The problem is the fund. Neighborhood baristas and teachers could still very well be pushed out since none of the units built in Wallingford have to be affordable. If the hope is that supply will make the luxury units that are built affordable, that’s only as long as there aren’t as many high-income new residents as the developers are banking on. I don’t believe developers are building to provide affordability. I believe they are going to try to build to projections that maximize the sale and rental of luxury units.
The city then plans to build what on the east coast is called “the projects,” primarily in the city center but occasionally in other areas. See their map at the next HALA open house. If you don’t know the projects on the east coast, it might be worth looking at. It didn’t go well. Mainly because it’s still segregation. If I don’t have to see a low-income single mom come out of her apartment, it’s east to forget about her.
Developers of course are not going to build for affordability. They have to build for profitability since they are businesses not charities. And when we have so much restriction and want all projects to be like Smith & Burns, of course, the very few projects that got built are all have to be expensive. Studies found that cities like Seattle got big housing price premium because of regulation. It’s the balancing act between deregulation to help the poorer, while not turning Seattle into Dallas. However, picking holes on steps toward change is easy. Proving how that change isn’t better than status quo would be pretty hard. In no way is the status quo working, and all the changes we can observe right now are proof of that.
The city is not a charity either and it has something the developers want. Why should they ease zoning without exacting payment in return for it? I’m talking impact fees where everyone wins.
Somehow “developers have to build for profitability” but the city getting impact fees is a non-starter.
Lower income residents will for sure continue to be pushed out. As the astounding surge of housing scheduled to open up here in 2017 – developed under current zoning – starts to exceed the record for any previous year by a factor of two, it will taper off significantly, because finances won’t be committed for fear of oversupply. That should still give us a short level period, but the city is urgently working on making it worse, by bringing new corporations in high tech and other similar industries. One clear indication is the University District high rise office building upzone, which is supposed to lead to another South Lake Union right next door, full of affluent employees looking for a place to live. These policies will make sure, if it wasn’t already a safe bet, that Wallingford will be an enclave of affluence for generations to come. Upzones won’t change that.
Hayduke,
A win-win for all but the developers until the area becomes gentrified.
What are these imaginary evil developers are you thinking about? Developing Aurora is going to benefit developers, and developing Wallingford is going to benefit a lot of non-developers. Please stop associating development you hate as developer money schemes, while everything you like as somehow anti-developer. The strongest high density supporters are not developers. It’s people with stronger liberal/socialist leanings than you.
TJ, you know nothing about me. You make far too many gross generalizations to be convincing.
I was asking about what’s this gross generalization of developer you are doing is all about?
I can’t even understand your question. I think it would be advisable if you took some classes in macroeconomics, real estate, and finance, so you know something you’re talking about.
What license do you want me to have first to be able to discuss these topics? I am not sure I am less qualified than most participants in these discussions. I do have an MBA from UW, but the school isn’t ranked that high I think. Why do we need to start comparing credentials, when it should be obvious the arguments on all sides are obviously valid? This topic is not about good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. These are value issues, and I hate it when people mask their personal value as morals. That’s pretty…immoral.
TJ, I suggest your read the Times article. They did the research.
I’m also a Wallingford renter, and I have the same feeling when I see the anti HALA signs. I know that’s not the intention of homeowners opposed to HALA, but it doesn’t feel good.
The residents in my apartment building are very close. About half have been forced to move to other neighborhoods
Seriously I am glad you feel personally attacked by those because you are ignorant. The people with BLM signs in their yards are ignorant of the facts too. These “Urban Villages” were planned in the 90’s by the same politicians that people around here elected back then that like the phrase ” It Takes A Village” . Designed to skirt codes that no one else can because they say so and to include low income housing in the project around the light rail centers.
This doesn’t work unless you give the developers a break on taxes or something else in order to get them to build housing artificially held down in rent. Meanwhile everyone’s cost of housing goes up. Tell me if you make 30 bucks per hour would you take 20? It is what it is. Rent control never works. Price controls of anything drives up the cost.
There was already railroad right of ways that go from Seattle to Issaquah around the lake both directions and beyond that could have been used for rail lite immediately rather than spending 60 million a day for consultants years before they ever broke ground.
The grand bargain was put in motion to destroy this neighborhood and others like the University District with 11 to 22 story buildings. How is this going to improve housing while you destroy housing that exists now. Where will those people go live in the mean time?
Do you just think government should tell you what to do and when to do it and how to do it from cradle to grave. Incidentally I don’t have one of those signs in my yard and I have rented around here for years. It is too expensive to continue living here as more people are buying old crappy houses for close to a million. the price is what it is. And the upzone isn’t going to change any of that.
An example of where this went wrong exists in Portland Oregon. A small house single owner area where crime was virtually non existent was destroyed to build low income housing around light rail. Currently today its a dangerous place to go.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=248
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/03/affordable_housing_no_recourse.html
http://debunkingportland.com/transit.html
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/GJLtRail.pdf
“The OCTA Directors continue to be made aware of the national experience in light rail over the past 18 years and light rail’s documented inability to solve urban transit problems such as traffic congestion and pollution. ”
You want to understand why there are so many homeless in Seattle? read this blog on SHARE and its connections to the city and how unaccountable they are. The people you elected then and now are completely inept and will continue the lie that upzoning for light rail is productive and will improve housing costs. At what cost?
Read this and ask yourself seriously if you can trust your local government anymore. Read about SHARE and how unaccountable they are for the private donations and public money they are supplied from the taxpayer.
http://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/
http://roominate.com/blog/
At the cost of your property taxes and other taxes so they can pay for a developer to build and rent at an artificially controlled price which means your property taxes will go up even more. We could not trust them to build a simple toy train in doing it the easiest and cheapest way why would you think they will improve anything? Do you like riding the bus to the U district first when there were multiple ways to go down town before the changes last year?
How do you like 4 lane roads reduced to 2 and all your parking disappearing for empty bike lanes. Much of this was put in motion back in the 90’s too not due to bike lanes but due to the fact federal law requires them to put a stop light to cross at every so many feet on that wide of a road.
You can thank Dow (never had a real job) Constantine for similar anti (growth) sprawl initiatives as the one that Ron (leave the county in debt) Sims created back in about 94 that stopped all growth in King County. First it was one acre needed then 5 acres needed for one house then 10. As a young carpenter you cannot afford to buy a lot to build a house but now it is 100 acres needed to build a house in this county.
This means only a multi 6 figure software engineer or something similar can afford that land to build that house. Tell me people is that a fair thing to do to youth and the cost of housing as they got their planned density housing? You can thank your leaders you voted in for this. Until you look at the big picture you will never have affordable housing in King County.
Doug: “This is hodgepodge of mostly misinformation on the effects of MHA.” What is “this” please? i have been studying the so-called “new urbanism,” which is actually about 30 years old. After reviewing the topic in about 10 different disciplinary peer-reviewed professional journals I have yet to see any factual evidence — that’s with numbers in professional studies — that support the claims that are made for it. The Mayor and HALA also provide no numbers or they select the definitions and numbers they want to support their claims. I would be happy to send you a bibliography of some of these articles. For me the goals of the MHA are little better and even less achievable than those of urban renewal in the 1960s and 70s and we know how that worked out. Claims without evidence are worthless.
The norm of these type of discussions is that everybody exaggerates. On the other hand, there is never ever gonna be any claim by anybody that’ll be without holes, since none of these policies are something that we can do controlled studies on. Because of that, it’s easy for people to cite whatever evidence they want to support whatever conclusion they want.
The problem is actually pretty simple: we just have conflicts of lifestyle preferences, and somebody just gotta lose. Trying to insist low density in Wallingford is a long term losing proposition that makes no sense, but for a lot of people delaying long enough until they retire/die might just be enough as a total victory. That’s what these discussions are all about.
TJ: “The norm of these type of discussions is that everybody exaggerates. On
the other hand, there is never ever gonna be any claim by anybody
that’ll be without holes, since none of these policies are something
that we can do controlled studies on. Because of that, it’s easy for
people to cite whatever evidence they want to support whatever
conclusion they want.”
TJ, With all due respect, you don’t seem to know much about doing professional research. We cannot do in-lab studies obviously, but many professional studies have been done on housing, community building, etc considering multiple variable likely to effect the outcome. You can’t find these studies on Google, however, You need access to a research university library.
Well, I got professor parents and all my families got advanced degrees. I do get a hard science degree, which means I am biased against the way social science works. Yes, many professional studies have been done, but they are done at specific time and space with tons of factors not even measured. I would think as a researcher you’d know how dangerous it is to predict outcomes. It’s the norm in social science to have 10 predictions and none of them right. That’s not the fault of the social scientists, but the limitation they have to deal with. Not even medical science is that accurate.
On the flip side, I don’t think we need to keep pretend we all want the same thing, and theories and studies can provide answers to what we all want. None of us have the same preference, and we really just try to find a medium that as many people can tolerate as possible. It’s similar to the temperature setting at the office: there is only one setting but tens of different comfort levels. This is not a homogeneous society.
So I really hope people here can stop trying to use bad labels. The fight here isn’t about warding off evil. The fight here is about everybody fighting for the city to be configured in the way they prefer. There are more socialist approaches ( build more so we can share this Wallingford place with more people”), and more nativist approaches ( let’s maintained the feeling of Wallingford as it was). They are all understandable tendencies with human nature behind them. We are just wired differently and trained differently, and evil is just a self-centered label we put on things we personally don’t like.
“Bad labels,” lol. socialist approaches vs nativist approaches is about as bad as labelling can get. You equate socialist with growth (“build more”) and nativist—talk about a loaded whistle—with maintaining current ‘feelings’.
Socialist has to do with allocation of economic and political power, not growth. I don’t know what your science degree is in, but the robust weight of scientific evidence is that we are beyond levels of sustainability. The bottom line (so to speak): Growth is not sustainable. If you want to discuss this intelligently, I believe you need to study Georgescu-Roegen, Howard T. Odum, Donella Meadows, Charles A.S. Hall, Herman Daly, and numerous others in the fields of systems analysis, ecology, and ecological economics.
Even without any study this basic truth about sustainability is known intuitively by all humans. It’s summarized in the aphorism, No tree grows to heaven.
Socialist isn’t equating to growth. It’s equating to share. Nativist equates to status quo. In which way are those label not accurate? I think they are pretty neutral labels. What other labels would have been better? Isn’t the whole debate here about if we should maintain the Wallingford old characteristics, or should we allow changes to that for the better goods of the whole society?
Your very words: “socialist approaches ( build more so we can share this Wallingford place with more people”. You are saying growth is needed so we can share, then use “share” to jump to “socialist.” Your logic is flawed; socialism might buy into growth as necessary like capitalism, but is most certainly not in support of the increasing inequity that is the direct result of a capitalist political economy.
Nativist is commonly used to describe a form of right wing populism. Calling neighborhood residents in Seattle nativist is insulting.
The “changes” you want “us” to “allow” are not to promote “the better goods of the whole society”; they are changes done at the behest of those with more wealth and political power to better their position. We have been on this capitalist path for about 500 years and the space and resources needed to accommodate “better goods” as you define them (more of everything apparently) is running out.
At its core, your ideology is a form of imperialism: you claim the right to demand that people significantly and rapidly change their environment to accommodate people who don’t live here without meaningful participation in the changes. The main drivers of the current land use changes are not social justice advocates who wish to accommodate immigrants (anti-nativists, if you will); HALA is a developer (capital) driven agenda.
TJ, I am not predicting outcomes. But I do believe in fact-based research. Whenever you’re dealing with people nothing is ever irrefutable like a mathematical equation. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go to a doctor who hadn’t kept up on medical research over the last 50 years. You dismiss social science research, which unfortunately deals with people. However, we use social science in our scientific outlook everyday. Take psychology for instance. Just because today’s theories will most likely be superseded by better theories based on evidence we don’t have today — like the discovery of genetic causes of illness has been — doesn’t mean we should sit and twiddle our fingers until tomorrow.
Here’s just one example: https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/01/05/seattle-times-displacement/
A survey of old apartment units does not equal a displacement analysis. The John Fox numbers the WCC cites as gospel are mostly meaningless since he does no analysis of which are likely to redevelop and which aren’t.
The urban renewal of the 1960s/70s was about tearing down mostly low income apartments to build mostly parking or highways. We are not taking that parking about building apartments. It’s completely different. And yes we are also tearing down some old retail and apartment buildings but we are replacing those units many times over and the MHA requirement which the WCC calls trivial would help create 600 to 900 affordable units in the U District alone.
The Displacement Coalition does, in fact, provide info on their survey techniques and the likelihood of tear downs. Please read last Sunday’s article in the Seattle Times, which does not take a position but shows the radical differences in their measurement techniques, analysis, and results vs. the HALA proponents of expensive high rises in the U District.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to accept any position but your own. Maybe it’s time to do some some research in scholarly journals that will show you the difficulties involved in implementing social engineering solutions that are so contrary to American traditions of free choice and free enterprise, (not that I subscribe to the latter in the current laissez-faire, neo-liberal tradition). The issue is not just about housing, but primarily about community. Both urban renewal AND mixed use can and have destroyed communities. Middle class policy makers and urban planners seem to think little about this except in theory, not in practice.
I have no objections to social engineering as long as it is done correctly with concern for the people who are its subjects. I have found no scholarly published evidence of mixed-use success, unless it is promotional. Perhaps urban planners condescendingly assume that it must be good for the poor simply because they are poor, without even bothering to ask them. The post building surveys of low-income residents I’ve seen for Seattle have been negative — Holly Park and Yesler Terrace. I still offer my bibliography of articles on this subject, if you want to become better informed.
Oh but I did read the Seattle Times article which is why I cited a rebuttal of its framing and the Fox numbers it cited.
—> “John Fox from SDC indicated that the City’s estimate of growth was unreasonable and said “a more responsible analysis would’ve assumed development closer to maximum buildout, maybe around 80% of capacity.” Unfortunately, OPCD doesn’t have the privilege of working with assumptions and did an actual analysis of growth. SDC doesn’t have an analysis or research supporting that growth would be higher. Any estimate of demolished units without a time frame and without a construction estimate is not a real estimate.”
Fox also doesn’t appear to have bothered ascertaining what percentage of people in the buildings he surveyed are in fact low income or even if the rents are “affordable” merely for the units being old. A one-bedroom in the Malloy building, for example, rents for $1700. I rent for less than that in a brand new building.
But since you insist, sure, share a book or article that you think will open my eyes. I’m skeptical, not because I’m close-minded but because I’ve studied this issue thoroughly, and allowing more supply in the highest demand areas (i.e. U District) is well supported by the research.
One obvious example of “mixed-use success” are is the urban downtown core of Seattle that caused so many people to flock to Seattle in the first place and continues to do so. I’m not sure what you mean by no examples of mixed-use success. Do you mean only single use neighborhood succeed?
Doug: “But since you insist, sure, share a book or article that you think will
open my eyes. I’m skeptical, not because I’m close-minded but because
I’ve studied this issue thoroughly, and allowing more supply in the
highest demand areas (i.e. U District) is well supported by the
research.”
Doug, I really doubt that you have studied the topic of mixed-use thoroughly. “a book or an article”? If you had studied this thoroughly you would have read hundreds of books and articles by now. You are not impartial nor an expert until you do.
Are you going to share your bibliography or not? I’m interested.
You know who *has* read hundreds of books and articles on this stuff? The HALA committee members, collectively.
This blog is worse than Fox News.
Did you go down the HALA committee member list and ask them?
Any reputable scholar of urban planning, geography, housing or whatever related discipline has. This is what you do in graduate school. I doubt the HALA members have collectively for they probably come from many different disciplinary backgrounds.
No, seriously. I’d love to see the bibliography. You’ve made a big deal about it, now my interest is piqued. Do you have one or not?
Chuck,
Setting aside your sarcastic comment, “Do you have one or not?” yes I do have the bibliography or I wouldn’t have said I did.
Here are just a few in my bib:
“What’s wrong with tear downs visual analysis.pdf by National Trust for Historic preservation
Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson, “A Critique of New Urbanism,” Conference Paper presented at the American Collegiate Schools of Planning USC, Nov 1998
Scott Rodgers, (2009) “Urban Geography: Urban Growth Machine from the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Vol. 12, 40-45.
Loic Wacquant, “Relocating Gentrification: The Working Class, Science and the State in Recent Urban Research,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 32.1, March 2008, 198-205.
Tom Slater ([email protected]) Centre for Urban Studies, University of Bristol, “The Eviction of Critical Perspective from Gentrification Research,” 2004
Laura Wolf-Powers, “Up-Zoning New York City’s Mixed Used Neighborhoods: Property-led Economic Development and the Anatomy of a Planning Dilemma,” University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons (2005)
Michael Ward, “The Production of Value: A Study of Urbanism in South Lake Union,” Masters Thesis, University of Washington, (2012)
Douglas J. Krupka, “The Stability of Mixed Income Neighborhoods in America,” Discussion Paper No. 3370, IZA Bonn, Germany, (Feb., 2008)
Diane K. Levy, Zach McDade, Kassie Dumlao, “Effects from Living in Mixed Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature,” Urban Institute, (Nov. 2010)
Olivia Hetzler, Veronica E. Medina, and David Overfelt, Gentrification, Displacement and New Urbanism: The Next Racial Project, Sociation Today, Vol. 4, No. 2, (Fall 2006)
Lucy Sargisson, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, “Cohousing: a Utopian Property Alternative? Centre for the Stud of Social and Global Justice, Working Paper Series (n.d.)
There are many more but my fingers are beginning to hurt. All of above are refereed scholarly articles or conference papers, and some may even be found online. There is a lot of valuable research out there if you are willing to spend the time to find and read it.
I hope both of you go to the meeting. It is possible that you might be the folks who are misinformed. Please attend. It is a well know fact (just ask them, and look at the breaks given to the developers) the the mayor does not care about any of us, and they are good buddies in this area.
Thank you, Brian. I am a homeowner who believes if we work together we can make Wallingford livable and lovely for everyone.
How do you know the mayor does not care about any of us? I think you just mean the amount he care about your opinion isn’t sufficient for you. Are you using the homeowner disclaimer to hint that you do not want to work with non-homeowners for issues? And wouldn’t that give you some hint why the mayor sometimes wouldn’t go your way, since he’s not just a mayor for homeowners?
What’s the phrase “livable” supposed to be a code word for? I am a Wallingford homeowner, and I think livable does not mean “comfortable for the selected few who happened to own houses in the neighborhood”. Even homeless life can be “livable”. You can ask those people next to the highway and ask them if Wallingford is livable, and many will say yes.
“Livable” as you say can mean almost anything. But what is your point exactly?
I beleive his point is, 4-5 bedroom craftsman mini-mansions are not considered livable by many people’s standards, but I shouldn’t speak for others.
eo-liberal
I would like to know where these 4-5 bedroom craftsmen houses are. I know there aren’t many in my neighborhood. Why should people who bought their houses in Wallingford 30-40 years ago when it was affordable be considered wealthy now? Most of us are anything but and many will eventually be forced out of Seattle because of the increase in yearly valuations and taxes which is driven by wealthy people moving in. It’s called gentrification and the city is doing absolutely nothing about that.
There are alternatives the city might encourage. Like linking up low-income home owners who could rent part of their houses with those who are trying to get an actually affordable rent. These sorts of solutions, which don’t benefit developers, might require some ingenuity and help both renters and homeowners but seem not to be of interest to the city. I have asked about it with Council member Herbold, who liked the idea. Why can’t any policy makers think beyond the neo-liberal capitalist agenda? There are lots of solutions like co-ops, community land trusts, and any number of solutions that are not even being considered.
The city should not do anything to stop gentrification. Co-ops are solutions, if you mean people who bought houses cheap more than 20 years ago are willing to give up their house/land to convert one unit into five and get two units back. That is a co-op solution. Resisting change is not a solution.
That is not a co-op you’re describing. Look it up.
My point is that co-op itself isn’t a solution, unless you are talking about converting existing single-family houses into multi-unit co-ops. What’s needed is density, not new ways of managing properties.
My point is exactly that livable can mean many things, the phrase “keep Seattle livable” is really not trying to say what it means literally. It’s just a misguided marketing slogan designed to beautify certain living preferences.
While we’re picking apart the “livable” why not “grand bargain.” It was no bargain. The only committee was mostly developers.
I agree it’s marketing but both sides are playing it.
Indeed, “comfortable for the selected few who happen to own houses in the neighborhood” is an odd way to think about. To start with, ownership isn’t relevant to the question, at all, so we can throw that out.
“Selected few”? Neighborhoods are always populated by a “selected few”, and these are certainly the people who would care most about it, so here we’re simply stating the obvious.
“Comfortable”? Don’t know what you meant by that. For me “livability” is about the sum of many factors that make a neighborhood great to live in. It isn’t the same for every neighborhood – people are different, neighborhoods are different, and there are many great neighborhoods that are very different from Wallingford. People who chose to live in Wallingford are naturally going to have a different idea about it than people in Belltown, Laurelhurst, etc. For me, it’s streets lined with big trees and interesting gardens, an interesting mix of houses, habitat for bird species, people I know and like, small local shops. Places that can repair a saxophone, or shoes, or a backpack. It’s sunlight. It’s people with some time to spare. It’s some things that take time – as I said, there are a lot of very different great places to live – but not many that are brand new.
“Selected few” means rich, which is what Wallingford is turning into. Livability is getting close to zero in Wallingford now for many due to housing cost. Trees, gardens, local chops, and stuff are all things youc an find in many other places, like Bainbridge or La Conner. Wallingford is unique from those places for its location. It’s close to UW, downtown, and all kind of major job centers. It’s also have easy access to I5, 99, and 520. If all that you want is what you stated, you have a lot of choices. Not so for many people who want a short commute to work. That’s the main reason why Wallingford is a way better choice than Ballard to build up. Ballard is locked in the corner and have to travel through very narrow traffic corridors to get anywhere.
You and others who think we could find Wallingford out in the sticks, obviously don’t know or care much about what we have here.
“For me, it’s streets lined with big trees and interesting gardens, an interesting mix of houses, habitat for bird species, people I know and like, small local shops. Places that can repair a saxophone, or shoes, or a backpack. It’s sunlight. It’s people with some time to spare. It’s some things that take time – as I said, there are a lot of very different great places to live – but not many that are brand new.”
Downtown Issaquah (the old downtown)
I’m offended by this post content and its misinformation that is clearly ignorant of reality and basic economics.
I’m equally offended by all of the signs around our neighborhood [ some illegally posted ] that claim HALA is anti livability. HALA [ like all bargains and policies that try to help a mosaic of citizens ] is not perfect, but it is pretty good.
I’m interested in creating a welcoming environment for ALL people, not just those who have been here for the past few decades. Maybe I will start putting out “WELCOME TO WALLINGFORD, WE’RE GLAD YOU ARE HERE” signs?
I expect the meeting to present a lot of reality, and basic economics. The city hall / developer alliance has done a pretty good job convincing people that anyone opposed to their initiatives is “anti-renter” – one of the first few comments here predicts “I will just get to hear a bunch of angry comments about renters, apartment buildings and my lifestyle.” Well, I think not, but if so that will be a victory for the developer alliance that has done so much to make this issue divisive.
I was the one who made the comment about what I will hear at the meetings. I’ve been to at least 4 HALA meetings and have tried to have civil conversations with my neighbors in Wallingford. One woman looked me straight in the eye and told me that my opinion on the subject doesn’t matter because I do not have children. I have been called a transient to my face, despite the fact that I have lived in Wallingford a long time, my grocery store clerks know me by name, I tend to neighborhood gardens and community clean up efforts. Please do not assume I am speaking from opinion. I have directly experienced the renter-hatred from my neighbors… specifically at an event that occurred at Hamilton school.
If you want a diverse amount of opinions at this upcoming meeting, try changing the VERY aggressive tone of the advertisement. Try not covering OUR neighborhood in unwelcoming signage. Reach across the fence to start a conversation. This event is advertised as “Wallingford Educating Wallingford”… that there in itself says there is no room for differing opinions.
I’m sorry that happened to you at the last HALA event at Hamilton. Just in case there is some confusion, this event is not being put on by the city and I don’t think the idea is that it will be a forum for everyone to give their opinion (I could be wrong about that, but it doesn’t read like that’s the plan). I went to the Hamilton event put on by the city – and, WOW, people were very, very angry, so I can sort of imagine those unkind words being said. I felt like I had to provide emotional support for one of the city employees after she was aggressively questioned by a very upset man. That original event was the city’s effort at “community outreach” and it was such a miserable flop. I think there was a lot of frustration and anger in that room, and the city only stoked the flames by not answering questions in a public forum (instead, they relied on uninformed city employees at booths to answer questions), having that loooong, irrelevant presentation, and then saying, “Ok, now break out into groups (without a moderator) and have a good vent!” It was ugly!
I rather expect that people will have a chance to discuss the issues, but I hope in an atmosphere of neighborly respect, and I feel fairly sure that WCC board will do what it can make that happen. Which is not much, and I would encourage anyone who wants to come and push the city hall agenda, to consider that your neighbors are frustrated, divisive politics have taken their toll, and many of us may not be all that skilled or even interested in cutting the right politically correct line. If you come in determined to take offense, as “E-LO” seems to be, it’s likely that your expectations will be gratified. If you’re an adult who can listen to your neighbors, my hope is that we can have a lively discussion.
Well, if you want to be neighborly, why not start here? You can read your sentences again, and it shouldn’t be hard to see how people reading it might not feel so neighborly. It’s as if people with different opinions are just “pushing the city hall agenda”, and creating “divisive politics” that “frustrated neighbors”. How is your opinion not also divisive politics that frustrated neighbors? Why highlight that? It’s a fact that we both live here, and we have very different opinions and preferences. No matter what happens, there is no way we’ll all be fully satisfied with the outcome. It’s about tolerance.
Kaydal: “That original event was the city’s effort at “community outreach” and it
was such a miserable flop. I think there was a lot of frustration and
anger in that room, and the city only stoked the flames by not answering
questions in a public forum (instead, they relied on uninformed city
employees at booths to answer questions), having that loooong,
irrelevant presentation, and then saying, “Ok, now break out into groups
(without a moderator) and have a good vent!” It was ugly!”
I was there too and the anger was at the HALA organizers who allowed a UW architecture professor to take up 75 percent of the time showing slides of his students’ projects, which was horribly insensitive to the interests of the audience. When he was through hogging all the time, there was only about 15 minutes left — no time for asking or getting answers to questions. It was a “disaster,” as Trump would call it.
E-LO I’m betting you’re offended by pretty much anything that doesn’t conform to your worldview. if you want to put up your own signs, we wouldn’t care, we’d actually probably think it’s funny. Try not being a snowflake.
Here is an example of 3 plus rental units in a home that is being advertised as a row house development site by the realtor. I’m guessing the row houses will be out of the affordability range of the existing renters.
https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/1408-N-36th-St-98103/home/120432
I’m sorry to read the way this discussion has gone. There is density done right and density done wrong. For example, I think most people are fine with the Smith & Burns building on 45th next to Walgreens. The brick is nice and it has public art. But the HALA upzones are proposing changes like in this picture, which I don’t agree with. It’s not about anti or pro renter. I rented for 15 years myself. But it is about incorporating density in a way that makes sense.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6da075a1751e5997e1cf54e2f2542c7148a3ff69923f3408f5644f26b42a04e.jpg
I personally don’t see anything not agreeable in the picture. What’s not making sense? It’s really a thing of preference. And if we only allow projects like Smith & Burns to happen, why would you wonder only high priced condos are built? Projects like that are better because they cost more, therefore they price higher.
Are you kidding?! How do you see this as “…not agreeable…”?!! Clearly you are of the “pack’em in like sardines, neighborhood quality of life be damned” camp.
I don’t think we have the same preference, and that’s really the base of the problem. That’s why I find the “livable” label funny. You think I have lower criteria, but I am sure I just have a different criteria.
TJ means he doesn’t “see anything not agreeable” to HIM, and other YIYBY’s (Yes In Your Backyard). If it’s not agreeable to you or the homeowner whose being impacted, well too bad, you’re just a “privileged.” homeowner and shouldn’t have a say in the matter. It’s so easy to support HALA, just so long as you get to tell others that any sacrifice they’re being forced to make is somehow “agreeable” to them.
Actually, this wouldn’t have been an issue if it’s not true. The housing regulation you are looking for to protect yourself from unwanted neighborhood developments are enforced by the government that’s supposed to be for everyone, not existing residents. You are requesting to have larger voices in the matter due to your current residency status. How is that not asking for special privilege? You should know if it’s all free market Wallingford would have built up much more by now, and if it’s not government force we all wouldn’t be where we are today.
“If it’s all free market?” TJ, when we bought our home, it was, and for the time being still is, zoned for single family. We PAID the free market price to have a SF home in the city. If we knew that a few years down the road we’d potentially have a 5 story building looming over either side of us because the city decided to change the rules, we probably wouldn’t have bought here.
And please, spare me the “free market” platitudes. YIMBY’s are the ones who are truly against the free market. All they ever talk about is rent control, housing subsidies, doubling the affordable housing levy on property owners tax property owners, making landlords rent to “first come first serve,” and to people with criminal records, letting developers get away with not paying impact fees for the new burden they place on already lacking infrastructure, and forcing MIZ and MHA onto the market. On top of that, you have no problem with the every department of the city from the mayor’s office on down pushing HALA on us at taxpayer expense.
YIMBY’s keep saying that SF homeowners “unfairly” got their equity because of the current zoning. First of all, put aside the thousands of hours of sweat equity we’ve put into improving our property. We didn’t buy our home as an investment. We bought it to LIVE IN. We liked the neighborhood, and wanted to settle down and raise a family here. You’re asking us to sacrifice our home, something of real, tangible value to us, supposedly for the sake of people who don’t even live in our state yet. And we’ve been given less of a voice in the matter than them. So yes, I object to that. Furthermore, a home doesn’t exist in a vacuum; when you buy, you’re paying for the neighborhood, not just your physical property. We happen to like knowing who our neighbors are and socializing with them and having our kids grow up playing together; you lose that when midsize apartments replace homes with front porches. The only thing rising property values do for us is raise our property taxes every year.
So tell me, how is it fair to SF homeowners, especially those who recently bought here, to say, “Sorry, we know this is the biggest purchase you’ll ever make and you wanted to settle here, but we’ve decided that since other people want to live here too, we’re going to change the rules on you now.” And btw, the fact that people WANT to live here is different from people actually NEEDING to live here, which they don’t. If they want density, they can live downtown. If they want affordability, they can seek out less desirable neighborhoods in the city. And even if HALA passes, it will do nothing to make Wallingford affordable anyway, so what’s the point again?
Perfectly stated, thank you!
We didn’t buy our home as an investment. We bought it to LIVE IN. …a home doesn’t exist in a vacuum; when you buy, you’re paying for the neighborhood…
This is a very clear statement of use or place value as opposed to exchange value. So-called urbanists refer often to the latter, as if the escalating paper value of a house is a financial windfall for the owner occupant. To have an honest dialogue with them about how to solve “the housing problem” (caused by increasing inequity and the unfettered power of capital), HALA supporters need acknowledge that place value exists. The value of community is real, and it cannot be bought or sold in any market.
You did no purchase the right to freeze the neighborhood environment when you bought your house. If such a thing existed, Seattle would still be a native American nation. And the housing regulations are factors that make the market less free. And free market got NOTHING to do with your sweat equity. To even mention that means you don’t understand the concept. Free market means price is set by supply and demand, and is not about rewarding you for your contribution.
And you keep talking about what you personally like is as I stressed all along it’s all about personal preferences instead of what’s right or wrong. There is also a fact that what you desire is actually not sustainable in Seattle and Wallingford. We cannot change the fact that land value in Wallingford is going up greatly because the demand for this land is very different from ten years ago, which means to try keep the neighborhood as it was is going to be at a higher and higher cost for everybody else. That’s true even if we ignore the affordability. The way property price is going up is already forcing out a lot of long term Wallingford renters, and is already making the property tax high enough that long term residents are selling and leaving. It’s also a fact that the type of people that could buy into the neighborhood 20 years ago can no longer do that. The old Wallingford you want is already not here and will not come back. We can force the city government to keep effectively subsidize your living style as much as it can, but that’s like subsidizing the coal industry.
what you desire is actually not sustainable in Seattle and Wallingford
It seems to me that what you desire—always respond to increased demand by growing the supply—is not sustainable anywhere. How is locking in GMA urban growth boundaries to prevent sprawl to the Cascade Crest and beyond different from trying to “freeze the [Seattle] neighborhood environment”?
IMO your short term vision for how to “improve” Seattle leads to a very dystopian world.
TJ, I didn’t say the free market had anything to do with my sweat equity, so nice straw man attempt there. I said, “YIMBY’s keep saying that SF homeowners “unfairly” got their equity because of the current zoning. First of all, put aside the thousands of hours of sweat equity we’ve put into improving our property….”
In other words, my point is that when I and other homeowners see their homes gain value, some of that is due to our sweat equity. When you add value to something, it typically raises the asking price, and that is true regardless of what happens in in the free market. But as I said, we bought our home to live in, not as an investment, so the only thing my increased property value means to me is higher property taxes.
As for your claim that what I “desire is actually not sustainable in Seattle and Wallingford:” Um, no, what YOU desire is unsustainable for Wallingford. It is a FACT that we don’t have the necessary infrastructure in place to accommodate existing needs. And being a YIMBY, you hate the free market idea of making developers pay for their added burden with impact fees, just as you hate the idea of people having to pay market value to live here if they can’t currently afford it. This means the rest of us either have to subsidize the developers’ profits, or see an even greater impact on strained infrastructure.
Finally, per your comment that “The way property price is going up is already forcing out a lot of long term Wallingford renters:” HALA does nothing to create affordability in Wallingford, and you know that. Besides, what do you care? As you’ve stated, you think nothing should be done about gentrification, anyway.
Amen
You didn’t buy the zoning of the area.
You bought a piece of land. If you wanted to control what people did on land next to you in perpetuity you should have bought easements on the lots.
The price you paid for your house priced in the fact that zoning can change.
Obviously – you may have noticed the Mari Don amidst single family homes.
Bryan, by your reasoning, we shouldn’t complain if the city were to do something like say, allow tent cities in neighbor’s back yards. If it were up to you, since people next door didn’t have the foresight to “buy easements on their neighbor’s lots,” then those neighbors should be allowed to host a tent city, regardless of impact to the neighborhood. So one morning you wake up to the joy of having 20 tents within pissing distance of your property, yippee!
This actually almost happened in Shoreline of couple of weeks ago, and thank goodness the citizens up there stood up to their city council and smacked that idiocy down.
As for your point that “zoning can change:” The city doesn’t get to decide on a whim to change the rules. They have to justify the rule change with concrete reasoning. After all, what’s the point of having any rules for anything if you can just change them whenever you want. Which of course, is what you’d like, since you’re for o% single family zoning. The city needs to demonstrate a need for the zone change, which it hasn’t. People might want to live in Wallingford, but they don’t NEED to live in Wallingford. Furthermore, Wallingford and the city have the capacity to handle far more than our projected population growth under the current zoning. The city also needs to demonstrate that it’s publicly stated goals of providing affordability, livability and equitability in neighborhoods all across the city will be met, when in fact they won’t. But you know this already.
Lastly, HALA’s proposed rule changes are illegal. Just wait for the lawsuits by developers if you don’t believe me. They will have Mandatory Inclusionary zoning thrown out, while they get to keep the upzones. So not only does Wallingford not get any affordable housing, the whole city loses out on it.
So in the end, all that happens is Wallingford gets stuck with horrible density and unaffordable buildings with their upzones. But then, that’s been your goal all along.
Of course city zoning should be justified. Still, the city government as a democratic institution representing the will of the whole city, should have more authority on changes as opposed to individuals who happened to own a house in the area.
“democratic institution representing the will of the whole city”
Since we all claim to support democratic governance, how you define “whole city” is the real issue. Does that include people who don’t live here? (e.g., the 100,000 planned new Amazon hires) The developers who make money off conversion of existing to new housing? The banks and other capitalists who lend the money for that development? How do you balance the voice of those who live in an area with those who live in other neighborhoods within the city? With those who commute to or through the area?
These are key issues; failure to understand and acknowledge the limits of “the will of” various communities of interest—and the overwhelming power of money under an increasingly inequitable and growth driven capitalist political economy—leads to undemocratic governance.
Of course we always have to find ways to balance it. It’s not just the city. There is also the state and the federal government. All have different level of engagements. Somebody who live in Florida would still have a share in the game, just a much smaller one than us. And this isn’t about capitalism at all. Market mechanism is just one of the tool we utilize as a society, but that’s hardly the issue here. The fight has been about if we maintain the neighborhood to the standard somebody wants at a cost, or can we modify that standard for different preferences and reasoning. One key point has been that people who want to resist modifications knows all along the path to what they want has to start with giving a very narrow group of people much bigger power in this: the existing single family house owners within the neighborhood. I reject that idea, because for me that’s like asking existing energy sector workers to design the energy policy for the whole country. It’s the same as how doctors are the worst candidates for designing health care systems.
“And this isn’t about capitalism at all.” lol — What do you think this power struggle is about, unicorns? What systems or social structures do you think are most responsible for how political power—and power to make new buildings “appear”—is allocated? For going on 500 years.
I agree “the existing single family house owners” are not entitled to sole authority (power) over land use planning decisions. On the other hand they are entitled to far more than “almost none” which is what our neoliberal Mayor wants to implement via HALA. If you think the HALA engagement and public input processes to date have been fair to all communities of interest you are hostile to the aspirations of thousands of individuals and households. Not just homeowners, but low income renters and POC in many neighborhoods.
The balance of power during 1990s neighborhood planning was much more equitable. If you don’t understand that the balance today is far from that period you haven’t been paying attention.
I’d live in the blue house. Lots of people live in condos with no windows on 2 or 3 sides. And lots of people live in single family houses fronting the I-5. I’d consider the blue house a superior alternative to those that if I had no other options.
It appears to me that Mayor Murray and the City Council need to demonstrate more progressive leadership by holding multiple public discussions/conversations. (I distinguish this from the multiple open houses and public hearings that have been held so far.) The City has adopted a strongman approach and it has served to divide the city. An episode from KUOW’s, The Record, had a guest on a few months ago in support of HALA and the City who said, while in the past the city pitted residents against developers, this time they are pitting developers, homeless housing advocates and renters against homeowners. The City has rejected homeowners from the focus groups and only provided events that create the frightening echo chamber. But it doesn’t have to be this way and it’s not the progressive way. I haven’t decided whether I’m in support of HALA or not, but the City’s advertising/marketing events called open houses and the neighborhoods’ responses to not being listened to and heard have created a unhealthy environment in which to make a sound decision. They could so easily calm the city by acting as progressives — i.e., providing opportunities for real communication and compromise. I understand the city’s fear is a public discussion would devolve into chaos, according to one of the reps at one of the open houses. I suggested the city could put rules around it, as you do in a debate. He actually thought it was a good idea. The community councils could also do much to bridge the divide by reaching out to renter groups for a direct conversation. Such a discussion could very possibly reveal all that both groups have in common. Perhaps 2 things to put on tomorrow’s agenda.
I rented for ten years, worked hard, saved my pennies, and finally bought a house in Wallingford last year… only to get here and be demonized because now I’m one-of-them… a homeowner. Ugh! So much for hard work! I’m near the point where I don’t care too much about HALA anymore. Me and my single family home are here to stay regardless! Pass all the regulation you want, but there is no regulation you can pass that can force me to move. And when you save up enough pennies and I move on, you’ll be thanking me there’s still a home for you to buy.
Let me also add that if developers were required to build affordable units in the buildings they build, I’d be more pro-HALA. Not requiring this really is going to result in segregated communities. Not sure why people are for that.
Many if not most neighbors are not “for that.” Developers are (assuming the requirement survives their legal challenge) because they’d rather just pay the fee and let someone else mess with affordable units somewhere else while they build their market rate buildings. Also, because the MHA requirement is such a small percentage that not a single on-site unit is required until you get to buildings with about 20 units (depending on location).
For anyone who thinks that’s a joke – demonized as homeowner – it is my impression that homeowners really are political pariahs, in today’s rarified ultra-politically-correct atmosphere around city hall. Not infrequently referred to as “mostly white homeowners”, to suggest that the injustice is not only economic but racial. It would be very bad news for any of our city council members to read in the Stranger that he or she is friends with homeowners, because that would seriously undermine their political ambitions. There are elections coming up this year, and it would make a huge difference if we had a sane, middle of the road, candidate who opposed some of what’s going on and got some votes. Seattle voters have to get over the guilt complex.
So today I happened to notice a copy of the “Capitol Hill Times” had an article titled, “City crafts HALA open house at Optimism Brewing.” I was curious to read it, because of course the CHT wouldn’t dare offend the tender sensibilities of all the eager young urbanists who are it’s bread and butter.
This paragraph jumped out at me: “On Broadway, north of East Pine, rules allow for building heights of 65 feet, but only if residential use occurs above 40 feet. The draft MHA rezone map would increase the maximum building height to 75 feet and remove the residential requirement of up to 40 feet, which would allow for more office development.”
Let me see if I have this straight: HALA would actually raise building heights and DECREASE housing? Am I missing something here? How can this be? I mean, the city and it’s urbanist cheerleaders have insisted all along HAHA is about providing not just more affordability, but more housing, period.
I’d like to go ask some of the YIMBY’s about this at the meeting, but apparently questioning them on HALA’s agenda is some sort of microaggression. Indeed, further along in the article, it quote’s DON’s Jessica Brand as saying question and answer sessions about HALA are just too intimidating for some folks: “That’s actually something we have been getting a lot of feedback about,” she said. “People are kind of unwilling to come to meetings where there’s a large Q&A, because they don’t feel like it’s a space where they can ask their questions safely.”
First the “Keep Wallingford Livable” yard signs have been deemed “offensive” and “insulting.” Now even daring to question city bureaucrats and HALA supporters on their plans for us is somehow threatening? Quick, YIMBY’s! Run and hide in your safe space!
All the outrage about yard signs (how dare anyone differ from the urbanist party line!) has a variant in today’s Seattle Times letters to the editor – some urbanist has his britches in a knot because of the article that compared the mayor’s numbers on displacement to the numbers from the displacement coalition, and explained how the two sides got different numbers. It’s as if HALA is a fundamentalist religion, do not question, do not dissent. The mayor and his buddies have a lot more in common with Kim Jong Un and Trump than they realize.
That’s pretty much how it goes with homelessness, drug-driven crime, you name any topic where SJWs have strong points of view…the Progressive Machine is very good at self-preservation and attacking invasive species. 🙂 You’ll be pilloried at meetings, in blogs, The Stranger…SILENCE, or else!
If you look at Broadway today, the buildings are far from that tall, and there are not exactly a lot of residential housing there to be displaced, other than the newly built condos. What decrease of housing are you referring to in this case? And really Broadway is the new Belltown now, and it’s going in a direction where it’d be more than Belltown with much more commercial activities. With the light rail station and the new street car, it better be more commercial activities.
What decrease of housing? What he’s saying is, over 40 feet a building today would need to be housing, but after the HALA MHA upzone, that building could be even higher, but won’t need to include any residential at all. What does HALA stand for, again? Why do people keep buying the city’s line that it’s about housing?
And in which way does it have to be only about housing and nothing else? As my post said, Broadway should have more commercial spaces. A city would be a suburb if it’s only housing. Looking at Capitol Hill, in which way wouldn’t you want to design Broadway to be mostly commercial, with the big residential buildings mostly off it? Having mostly residential on Broadway would be something like what we have in stretches of Stone Way now: high density but surely not lively.
Seems like a point of agreement; we need space for small (and medium) businesses in our neighborhoods along with housing. I believe councilmember Jim Street was largely responsible for pushing the requirement to have commercial space on the ground floor when developers just wanted to built housing. In Fremont, we push hard at every relevant design review for the ceiling plate to be as high as possible and the space as deep as possible. Some developers know what they’re doing, others resist it and build spaces that sit vacant and/or turn over a lot.
The 40 foot threshold sounds like a reporting error to me.
Do you have a figure for depth, off the top of your head? It seems to me that we’ve seen projects on Stone with something like 32 feet – that’s got to be pretty near the minimum usable? Unfortunately I’m usually otherwise engaged on Monday nights, so seldom seen at design reviews, but a person can always write in. Height would be interesting, too. I’m not so sure it’s always a design problem, though – property managers might be equally to blame for lack of viable tenants.
No, I’m not an architect, so metrics are not handy to me. I think the ceiling plate should be at least 12 feet. I can’t remember minimum required, but “departure” to allow lower is one of the common developer whines in design review. I don’t know the depth requirement, if any.
Here’s an example: MUP 3015117, 3501 Greenwood Ave. N., (next to the George and Dragon, across from the 7-11)—the “Vibe” apartments. (The plans are still available through http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/) The developer and architect actually walked through the site with a number of us from the neighborhood council. Much appreciated. We, being urbanists, asked that the parking spaces behind the commercial frontage on 36th be minimized to maximize the commercial space. Result: the commercial space is just over 21 feet deep at the narrow end (36th runs at an angle) and about 45 at the deeper end. The floor to ceiling in the commercial space is not even 12 feet on the drawings.
Even more irritating is that the developer (and the City) never disclosed that the two large sycamore street trees (i.e., on public right of way) were slated for removal to accommodate the project. Their removal shows up buried in the final permit drawings, but the “Perspective View From South East Corner” on the front sheet shows the sycamores, not the new saplings that replaced them. Google maps still shows the pre-2015 building and sycamore canopy. I learned of our loss of these great trees seeing the City Arborist’s signs while walking by in August 2014. Sucks.
At least there are some 2 bedroom units in the Vibe building, more than we get out of many of the LR projects in Fremont. More often we see lots of 260 sq. ft. “studios.” And we’ve seen lots worse than Vibe for avoiding the truth about the impacts of projects, with the City (including the “arborist”) participating in the deceit. And people why we get irritated? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/858c41d0ab297dac4fc864a6c900d3babd51e2a0fadab812bf71e35c90a97f69.jpg
While I’ve not been following the proposed changes to neighborhood land use, it sounds like somebody out there is thinking the best way to increase density in Wallingford is to destroy the integrity of the single family zones and I disagree for at least two reasons:
1-Making it legal for 2+ units on lots zoned SF without required owner occupancy is nothing more than a slimy way of upzoning. Many of our good neighbors live in illegal duplexes and multiplexes without resident owners and the city’s process of enforcing to complaint works just fine, we have no reason to complain. But not all tenants and their non-resident landlords feel protective about the home and neighborhood and livability declines just the same as when you have resident homeowners who stop caring. If we want Wallingford to stay a desirable place to live in the long term, DPD needs to REQUIRE owner occupancy for homes with ADU or DADU permits AND retain a way to force compliance when problems arise.
2-The ‘affordable housing’ and increased-density folks are unfairly targeting the SF areas only because we’re the low-hanging fruit. What about all the 1-story buildings along 45th that have been zoned NC2-40 and NC2-60 for decades yet remain woefully underdeveloped? There’s certainly a lot more capacity on those lots if some creative folks put their minds to tapping the resource. But I guess that’s too much to ask.