[Editor’s Note: Thanks Eric, for this exclusive interview. For our readers, this post is longer than our usual format, but packed with a lot of good information.]
Rob Johnson represents Wallingford on Seattle City Council and also leads land use issues for them, so nobody is more important in shaping how HALA ends up for Wallingford. The following Q&A is lightly edited for clarity. We very much appreciate Rob taking the time to address these questions with us, and look forward to your thoughts in the comments section.
Q- The Grand Bargain: A key complaint that we hear about HALA is that it is focused on developer incentives and treats residents simply as an obstacle to be removed. This ties back to the concern that the “Grand Bargain” framework for HALA was made by 25 developers and housing advocates with only a single person assigned to represent all impacted residents. Do you think HALA should be shifted away from a “teardown and replace” developer incentive model and towards a “reduce, reuse, recycle” model of housing affordability, one that places a value on preserving existing housing? For instance, could permit prices be bumped for teardowns and used to fund affordable ADU / DADU additions?
Rob: The framework for HALA is intended to be “affordability with growth”. I think it is a realistic approach which acknowledges that our City is growing, will continue to grow and that we have an obligation to ensure that with that growth comes more affordable units rather than rely on a dwindling supply of “naturally affordable” housing units or by trying to keep up with increasing affordable housing need with our limited public dollars. Of course, in addition to creating new units, we have several strategies to preserve existing affordable housing. For example, the housing levy was amended so that more of those funds could be used for affordable housing preservation and we continue to work in Olympia to establish a preservation tax exemption.
I certainly do not view residents simply as an obstacle to be removed. I have lived in Seattle my entire life and my family has lived here for generations – we have seen the City change immensely. I believe that we can keep Seattle affordable and livable and I hope that by doing so my young girls can also call Seattle home when they grow up. If we continue on our current path without changing our approach, I fear that will not be possible.
Q- Wallingford’s Upzone Targets: Wallingford is to take more than double the growth of urban villages located directly on light rail like Rainier Beach and N Beacon Hill, simply because we have a lot of single family zoning that happened to fall in urban village boundaries that were drawn over 20 years ago. We have no access to light rail, no community center, no neighborhood elementary school, and a middle school well over capacity already. Instead of basing upzone amounts on arbitrary lines drawn on old maps, why not instead focus development in areas that can be equipped to handle it?
Rob: Wallingford currently has a higher percentage of single family zoning than most urban villages. (Source) Allowing more zoning flexibility will make the zoning in Wallingford comparable with other urban villages and in accordance with the urban village strategy established over two decades ago. As outlined in the Seattle 2035 Comp Plan update, Seattle is re-examining its land use in all urban villages to ensure that each urban village has a range of housing suitable to all family types, more affordable housing and, city-wide, that we provide more housing near light rail and bus transit service and in our amenity-rich neighborhoods.
Based on the growth estimates that are in the Comprehensive Plan, Wallingford has a 30% rate of expected growth which is the lowest rate of growth for any urban village and is the same as North Beacon Hill and Rainier Beach, and lower than areas like Roosevelt, Crown Hill, Fremont, and Lake City. Growth estimates were set based on a combination of the transit service in the urban village and displacement risk. (Source: Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, pages 29-30).
Clarification: As a percentage increase over housing units today, Wallingford’s numbers are similar to N Beacon Hill and Rainier Beach as Rob says. In terms of absolute numbers of new units and also in terms of new units per acre Wallingford is taking on double the rate of N Beacon Hill and Rainier Beach. Here is some raw data.
Q- What About Golf Courses: Why does HALA not target Seattle’s seasonally used golf courses that are located directly on top of light rail, where new urban villages could be established with space for infrastructure like schools and transit, where developer impact fees could easily be collected to fund that new infrastructure, and where developer incentives could be used to subsidize affordable housing across the city?
Rob: The publicly-owned golf courses are considered park land and, as such, are subject to Initiative 42, a Seattle-voter initiative which forbids the City from “selling, transferring or changing any park use to another use unless it receives in exchange land or facility of equivalent or better size, value, location and usefulness in the vicinity, serving the same community and the same park services.” Given the size of the golf courses, I think it would be impossible to find replacement park land to allow it existing golf courses be used for housing.
The purchase and use of the privately-held golf courses would most likely be cost-prohibitive, even if those land owners wanted to sell to the City. Furthermore, I believe that we need to be increasing our publicly and privately owned open lands, not reducing them, as they provide important health benefits for our residents as well as serve a critical role in our city’s ecological systems.
Q- What About Country Clubs: For private, invitation only country club golf courses you previously have pointed to how these locations can be developed- by rezoning them and taxing the value of the zoned land, not the structures on top. Either revenue would be generated to subsidize affordable housing, or the land would be redeveloped. Why are you looking to upzone historic, walkable neighborhoods built at a human scale while elite, car centric communities like Broadmoor, Sand Point, and the Seattle Golf Club go untouched?
Rob: I believe you are referring to a comment I made about during the campaign in response to a very specific question about derelict properties presenting threats to public safety and health. That comment was hypothetical and just an example of what had been proposed in other jurisdictions as a way to encourage redevelopment. I did not, and still do not, have any intention of pursuing that strategy for golf courses or any other privately held property.
I think that one of the challenges of your proposal is that many of the areas you mentioned do not have any, or very few, of the community assets you mention are needed to support growth. The City can and should do more to make those investments in our urban villages, but retrofitting those areas into new urban villages would be a much less efficient use of resources than investing in our 39 existing urban villages.
Q- Backyard Cottages: The main concern with backyard cottage legislation is that it will act as yet another developer incentive, a backdoor to multifamily rezoning that will simply drive speculation and tear downs. Current legislation contains red flags like increased zoning envelopes and reduced owner occupancy requirements. Perhaps the focus could instead shift to a model like how Seattle City Light rolled out solar, by going neighborhood to neighborhood with information sessions for residents, incentives laid out and vetted contractors at the ready, making it very simple for homeowners. Instead of just fighting with neighborhood residents who oppose these changes, is someone looking to work with them towards a compromise that empowers residents to be part of the solution?
Rob: During the Environmental Review process, the City initially issued a “Determination of Non-Significance” indicating that there would not be significant environmental impacts due to the proposal. The Queen Anne Community Council appealed that decision and in December 2016 the Office of the Hearing Examiner ruled that the City should do further Environmental Review on the proposed changes. The City is currently considering their options regarding further Environmental Review and amending the proposal, but no decision has been made about next steps.
Currently in Seattle, many of our older, smaller homes are being torn down to build larger single family homes. I have heard from many constituents that they would prefer to keep their existing home and add a backyard cottage for aging parents, grown children who can otherwise not afford to live in Seattle, or to have a rental property to supplement their income and help them stay in their homes rather than sell to someone who may tear down the home. I believe that making it easier to build backyard cottages will result in more homes being preserved.
The Backyard Cottage proposal was developed from an outreach process led by Councilmember O’Brien and the Department of Planning and Development (now the Office of Planning and Community Development) and many of the proposed changes reflect what was heard during that public outreach process. As with all legislation that comes before the Council, I am happy to discuss potential changes and improvements to the legislation. For example, I had been exploring ways that some of the proposed changes could be tied to an affordable housing requirement to further encourage homeowners to commit to renting their accessory units at affordable prices.
Q- Displacement: It seems that having your land rezoned from single family to LR2 or LR3 as is planned for many in Wallingford will incentivize tear downs, since you as a home owner can either sell to a developer or live in the middle of a construction zone for years, ending up surrounded by walls like Edith Macefield. DPD in its presentation to Wallingford estimated that the upzoning of 110 blocks of single family housing in Wallingford will only generate 45 to 74 affordable units in over the next 20 years while adding 1484 additional homes with MHA and 1000 homes without MHA, and that new housing will be more expensive on average than existing housing. Given these numbers, can you explain to people how displacement will not occur and why only about 50 new, affordable units makes this upzone worth the impact?
Rob: The zoning changes are not intended to incentivize tear downs. While zoning changes will create value for property owners, the affordability requirements are calibrated to be commensurate to the value created by the additional capacity provided, therefore neither incentivizing nor suppressing redevelopment.
There are folks who live in single family homes in areas with higher density zoning for decades who do not see any changes in their neighborhood at all. Additionally, there are many people who happily live in neighborhoods that combine single family homes and small apartment projects – the way that much of Seattle developed before more restrictive zoning was put in place. The proposed zoning changes will not force anyone to sell their homes, nor, as I mentioned, will it make tearing down and redeveloping a home more profitable because of the new affordable housing requirement. Most likely, those areas that are currently seeing growth will continue to do so.
I spoke with the Office of Community Development and they clarified that, based on a rough analysis, without these zoning changes and the MHA program, there will likely be 1000 new homes in Wallingford over 20 years. If we implement the MHA program, there will be an addition 484 homes built, mostly by adding more housing units to the properties that would have redeveloped even without the program. Of those new units, 45 to 74 units will be built on-site, however it does not take into account the units that will be built in Wallingford by the Office of Housing using payment-in-lieu funds. The City is currently working on a much more detailed analysis of the production and displacement as part of the Environmental Impact Study and I think we can speak more about the numbers, particularly regarding displacement, after that study is complete this Spring.
I think it is important to note that we are already seeing significant displacement in the City, both from redevelopment of property as well as rising housing costs that are forcing people to leave the City in search of cheaper housing. We know that if we do nothing, we will still see displacement. Implementing this program along with our other affordable housing tools to create new and preserve existing affordable housing is critical to addressing this existing displacement.
Note: Teasing apart how many new homes will be generated by the upzone over the next 20 years is difficult here- we have 1000 as the number for organic growth without upzones, which matches Seattle 2035 targets. We have the 484 additional units through MHA with 45 to 74 affordable units. What we are missing is the contribution from the upzone.
Q- Representing Residents: You don’t appear to be challenging any HALA developer incentives and you have not participated in the open urban village upzone meetings attended by hundreds of district residents on January 7th (sponsored by the Wallingford Community Council) and on January 17th (sponsored by the city). There is a perception that you are simply a HALA cheerleader who is ducking NIMBY blowback rather than engaging. How do you address these concerns?
Rob: In early 2016, I met with City staff to learn more about their planned outreach related to the MHA program and potential upzones. At the time, I expressed my concern that the planned outreach was not sufficient and that there needed to be more opportunities for specific, neighborhood-based feedback on the proposal. I then secured funding from Council to have additional outreach opportunities for residents, which has funded a series of neighborhood workshops and will continue to fund other outreach activities in 2017. In addition, I hired a part-time staff member out of my office budget to focus solely on organizing neighborhood workshops, to respond to questions and comments of constituents, and to attend smaller meetings with neighborhood groups. Feedback from workshop participants has been overwhelmingly positive – even from folks who do not like the proposal. They feel that these outreach activities have been both informative and have been structured in a way that they and the other participants can give the detailed, specific feedback that is needed to inform potential changes to the proposal.
Regarding the meeting on January 7th, I was not invited to attend the meeting, but did send staff members from my office as well as members of the consulting team who are assisting our office on the MHA outreach. In the future, please feel free to invite our office by contacting either Patty Camacho or Geri Morris. The meeting in Wallingford on the 17th was one that was funded by City Council at my behest and was organized by my office. While I planned to attend, a last-minute family obligation prevented me from attending. Though I try to attend as many evening neighborhood meetings as possible, I hope that folks understand that there are some evenings in which my responsibility to my family means that I cannot be present and that when my staff is in attendance, as they were on the 7th and 17th, that the information and feedback from the meeting is shared with me personally.
Q- Impact Fees: How are you advancing developer impact fees to pay for needed infrastructure, and will you insist impact fees are in place before any upzones occur?
Rob: At the direction of Council, the Office of Planning and Community Development is currently studying the feasibility of impact fees and I am happy to consider them as soon as that work is complete. I do not think that we should wait on the zoning changes because they implement the mandatory housing program which will result in affordable housing that our City desperately needs.
Q- No Really, Impact Fees: There is already a detailed Seattle City Council study from 2015 regarding impact fees and they’ve been assessed successfully in many cities throughout the state for many years. Without impact fees, the only plan to pay for new schools, transit, public safety facilities, community centers, and parks required by new residents is increased property taxes, raising rents and worsening housing affordability for everyone. What remains to be studied before impact fees are finally assessed, and why are you not planning to pay for any new infrastructure as part of HALA?
Rob: The Study that was conducted in 2015 was intended to be the first phase of study to conduct a threshold-level policy assessment, develop a recommended approach and a work plan. The second phase is the development of a more specific implementation plan, as described on pages 25 to 27 of the document linked above. The document shows the workplan should have been completed last year, so I will follow up with the Executive branch about the status of that work.
Q- Upzone Ties To MHA: Will you delay any zoning changes until after lawsuits against MHA are resolved, so that we aren’t stuck with upzones that include no affordable housing at all?
Rob: Like all legislation passed by the City, it is possible that there will be a legal challenge to the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program. It is the City’s opinion that it is a program that is authorized by the State of Washington and its implementation in cities like Shoreline, Redmond and Kirkland support that opinion. If the City’s MHA program is challenged and struck down, there are several potential solutions, including legislative action to revert to current zoning, tying the zoning changes to a voluntary rather than mandatory program or by making small changes to the MHA program to comply with any court decision. We are continuing to work with our legal counsel to ensure that the City is creating a program that is compliant with state law and that we will be able to withstand any potential challenge or court ruling. However, because a legal challenge could occur at any time, including years into the future, there is no way to delay the zoning changes until any lawsuits are resolved.
Q- Other Important Upzone Concerns: Finally, what other specific upzone concerns are you hearing from residents that you think are valid and important concerns, and how are you addressing them?
Rob: Council already made a number of changes to the program based on feedback received from residents. During the adoption of the “framework legislation” in 2016, Council made several amendments, including increasing the term of affordability for MHA units from 50 to 75 years, adding language to encourage affordable housing to be built in the neighborhood where growth is occurring, earlier review of program performance so that Council can make changes if needed and increasing the affordable housing requirement, particularly in places with greater upzones or in areas where residents are at high risk of displacement.
As mentioned, I have worked to provide residents with more opportunities to give feedback, both by securing funding from Council and by using resources from my office. I am committing to supporting discussions that foster detailed feedback about the proposed zoning changes that can inform amendments to the program. The comments and feedback from participants will be given to the Office of Planning and Community Development as they revise their proposal and will also direct changes that will be made to the proposal when the legislation comes before City Council.
There are a number of comments that I am hearing from residents and businesses that we can address through changes to the MHA program, the zoning proposal, or through regulations that fall outside of the scope of MHA and zoning. For example:
- Through the neighborhood workshops, we have heard a lot of constructive feedback which can be used to make changes to the proposed zoning changes. In many areas, residents would like to see a more strategic use of the “P” designation (pedestrian overlay) to encourage walkable business districts. We have also heard concerns about areas zoned for neighborhood commercial abutting Residential Small Lot zoning, and residents would prefer a gentler transition between zoning categories. In some urban villages, participants have asked for additional height to support stronger business districts or to create additional housing opportunities.
- I have heard concerns about the design of new buildings and this year City Council will be considering changes to the design review process to encourage earlier outreach to neighbors. I also want to prioritize creating design guidelines for neighborhoods that do not yet have them to empower neighbors to influence the design of new development.
- I have heard concerns about the need for family-sized housing for all income ranges and am exploring ways that we can encourage more large units to be built in the City, through the MHA program as well as other strategies.
- I have heard a lot of concerns about parking and this year Council will be taking up legislation to update its parking management strategies such as the Residential Parking Zone program, as well as potentially expanding our Transportation Demand Management to residential as well as commercial buildings.
- I have heard from neighborhoods throughout the City about needed investments in transportation, parks and community spaces to support growth. I am working with the Office of Planning and Community Development in the establishment of the Capital Cabinet, which is a new approach to budgeting decisions to ensure that those areas that are seeing significant growth are also getting the investments they need to support that growth.
- Finally, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that I am also hearing from residents every day about a list here as long as my arm about the impacts of rising housing costs in Seattle and their desire to implement the Mandatory Housing program as soon as possible. I believe that building new, income- and rent-restricted housing units is our best way to ensure that we continue to be a City where families of all incomes can live. Achieving this goal will require many different strategies and Council continues to pursue as many of them as possible, including increasing the housing levy, working to establish a Preservation Tax Credit, and enacting renter protections to help people stay in their homes.
I encourage folks to continue to stay involved in this process. The City and Council are listening and want to ensure that this program achieves a more affordable and livable Seattle. Here are some links to resources that you might find helpful:
- HALA Frequently Asked Questions
- Weekly Wonk-About the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Program (Video)
- Weekly Wonk-About Zoning (Video)
- Principles for MHA Implementation (PDF)
- How to read the draft zoning maps (PDF)
- Interactive online map of Proposed Zoning Changes (Map)
- Online Maps (PDF) and Online Survey about Proposed Changes
- HALA Hotline: 206.743.6612
- Contact Information for Councilmember Rob Johnson
- City Council’s Planning, Land Use and Zoning website
Thanks for this! A clarifying question, what are “income- and rent-restricted housing units”? I am asking because I don’t know what this means, not because I am being confrontational.
Housing where rent is restricted by law to (for example) 30% of area median income, and income of potential residents is accordingly restricted – I think “income qualified” would be a better term. That’s what MHA is supposed to provide, and also the housing supported by the housing levy, etc.
As opposed to naturally occurring affordability, which is not supported by any city programs and (apparently) a complete unknown – the city has no data, and has no plan to get any data, about naturally affordable housing in Wallingford, though we know anecdotally that some our neighbors are here only as long as it exists.
Thanks – do you or does anyone else know if this term includes/ applies to both market-provided housing AND publicly-provided housing? Or is it just for publicly-provided housing?
I wouldn’t call it “market”, but that may be too narrow a semantic distinction. Say an apt bldg on Stone includes 2 rent restricted units, for example – they’re going to be subject to city processes that determine who lives there and how much they pay, where for the rest of the units that’s determined by the market. That’s one sense of “market” that applies here, and in that sense the answer is obvious. On the other hand the housing is provided by a market developer, and I reckon that even when the in-lieu money is used to build an affordable housing building, that’s never done by the city but rather by private agencies that make this their business. I’m probably getting tangled up in the semantics and missing your point.
Anything built inside the upzone has to either pay or build onsite. Say the affordable housing set aside is 5%. So either 5% of the units are rent / income restricted (affordable to people who make 60% of area median income) or the in-lieu fees go to nonprofits to build rent / income restricted units.
I’m voting against this guy next election. Period. No HALA.
Nice work here Eric!! I heard one consistent theme through out Rob’s responses – in his mind “the train has left the station”. The “train” in this case is up zoning and MHA.
I noticed that, too. No budging. What good is community feedback if the plan was already decided on?
Thanks Eric for this interview piece.
Yes, if Wallingford and East Fremont remain alone as the communities resisting HALA, our efforts will go nowhere. The only pressure that the Mayor, RJ and their developer sponsored buddies will respond to is broad and very vocal opposition from many neighborhoods in Seattle.
Miranda Berner and I had a good exchange with the Capitol Hill/Miller Park CC and they are raring to go to build opposition to the upzoning plans. Their “Educating Capitol Hill” and UV workshops are coming up next month. Miranda and Mike Ruby have both said that the WCC has contacted other neighborhoods that also are interested in joining the opposition.
We need to increase our outreach efforts to other neighborhoods and we do need a well organized website that provides the key information about HALA issues and also linkages to the participating neighborhood HALA-related blogs. Cyrus
Completely agreed, syboo35. As long as we stay isolated in our own neighborhoods, our HALA overlords will continue to divide and conquer us. It’s time we come together as one force. To quote Braveheart, “Unite the clans!”
Seattle Fair Growth has a website and Facebook page. I encourage people to utilize it more, it could be a good citywide resource.
Yes, good work on the interview. Johnson isn’t going to start waving the white flag of surrender until he’s really right up against the cliff – or more likely, that initiative will come from someone else at city hall, possibly Murray who’s up for election. It’s really up to Murray anyway to revise the “draft” urban village rezones, Johnson just pushes the stuff through council. Right now you’d think Murray is going to end up running unopposed, but if he had a credible challenge from the center, he’d have a lot of room to make some pragmatic course changes.
The train in this case is the huge influx of people and money into the region. These plans are just attempts to catch up the train, and I feel many anti-HALA people are just dreaming of somehow time can be reversed. Maybe you guys can ask for a wall around Wallingford and people from outside of Wallingford to pay for it?
And here we go again….Anyone who doesn’t embrace HALA like you do MUST be a Trump supporter, right?
Tell me, TJ. What are you going to do when Trump tries to build his new luxury hotel here that will be taller than the Columbia Tower? You think density and development with no restrictions is great, so you’ll be OK with it, right? I bet you’d be even happier if he built it in Wallingford.
I am not sure what’s so bad of having a new luxury hotel that’s taller than the Columbia Tower. I’ve stayed in hotels like that in other cities. What’s bad about them? I am for density and development, but surely not against restrictions. I would be all for the restriction that no new development in Wallingford can be single-family houses for example.
“I am for density and development, but surely not against restrictions.”
and then:
“I would be all for the restriction that no new development in Wallingford can be single-family houses for example.”
That’s some fascinating reasoning right there. Can you even keep up with your own argument? But very well, you support letting Trump leave his stain on our city, even it’s a giant luxury hotel with no affordable units. Because as I’ve always said, you and other YIMBY’s favor density at all costs, for density’s sake.
Perhaps Trump’s new monument to himself will be in the shape of a giant extended middle finger?
My words aren’t making sense for you, because you might not be fully aware of the overall vision. What’s your vision of Seattle overall? I am thinking of a bigger city than it is right now as a big cluster of technology. It’s not density for density sake, but a vision that have Seattle as a key city of the world. Density and development are just parts of the paths of getting there, and a lesson learned from San Francisco that a high tech hub with no density is a disaster for many. And of course a city I have in vision can fit a few Trump buildings.
The real “Wall” in HALA and this construction boom is around Downtown & SLU. There the set aside percentages that are currently being discussed are only 2-10%. (Two!!!) Vulcan gentrifies and reaps the profit while having to pay hardly anything towards affordable housing. They have the option to build onsite with voluntary incentive zoning now, but they always opt out and pay the fee. The only time they replaced 1 for 1 is when they tore down Yessler Terrace and that is because they were required to replace it because it was housing authority. Paul Allen is the real rich, single family home (and yacht) owner we should be upset with.
Is Vulcan the only one ripping profits. Aren’t all current Wallingford homeowners “ripping” tons of profit also? How much money have we all made just buy owning a house here? Does that make us all evil? Does that make owning Wallingford house a bad thing? We should resist the urge to always make it an argument like that, because there is no lack of good moral reasoning to make everybody all look evil. And it has nothing to do with if Paul Allen lives in a single family home. That kind of argument just means you favor developers that live in high-rises, and there is no lack of developers living in high-rises.
Lucky for you I guess, but I haven’t made a dime owning a house here, and I’m not counting on it – no intention to move to Spokane. If home owners were as is often implied motivated by this “wealth” (that’s really unrealizable for most of us), we’d presumably be eager to see our lots upzoned. Not that it matters one way or the other what we think anyway, when Vulcan’s calling the tune at city hall.
“How much money have we all made just buy owning a house here?”
Not a dime. The only thing my rising property value has meant to me is ever higher property taxes. I know you like to say we’re all greedy and view our homes as an investment vehicle, because that, like the YIMBY’s underlying argument that we’re all just racists trying to hold onto “white power,” helps your narrative of trying to shame us into going along with the mayor on HALA. But the reality is, we bought here because we wanted to settle down and LIVE here. And guess what, most people, regardless of race or income, want the same thing and will fight to protect it: a stand-alone, single family home.
Donn, Phil — what’s the value of your house today, versus what you paid for it? 60% more? double your purchase price? That’s “making a dime” just the same as when a stock you own increases from $50/share to $150/share. Now, it’s not a very liquid asset, but you’re making money on it. You’ve got wealth. (Heck, I’ve got it too!)
It does mean that it allows us other choices, such as saving a little bit less in a 401(k) or IRA because we know that come about 80, 85 if we really need it, we’ve got the house to sell and fund the rest of our years.
Yes, it is also rather different than a mutual fund, since you can’t sit on the front porch of a mutual fund.
I’m just encouraging you to recognize the amount of privilege these houses — these investments — give us versus so very many other people who live in our city.
It’s utterly illiquid, but let’s get to this privilege business. What would your point be, here? I find “privilege” defined as “a special right, advantage or immunity granted or available to a particular person or group of people.” Supposing that I “recognized” anything of the sort, which I do not, would it have any relevance to anything under discussion?
Would a person endowed with the privilege you refer to be expected to support ruinous urban planning initiatives out of some kind of guilt? (Note that to the extent these initiatives benefit anyone but developers, it’s tech bros with plenty of money.)
Would we be suspected of acting to increase or consolidate our undeserved gains, by opposing such initiatives? (Note that the single family lots they upzone in Wallingford can be expected to increase in value, in some cases significantly, and the remaining single family areas outside the UV will only become more valuable as SF supply shrinks, so it would seem like we have every financial motive to support this BS.)
Just what is your point? We were talking about Vulcan and real, realizable profits that they siphon off this miserable situation (and use to fund astroturf support lobbies); is this in any way like the situation Wallingford home owners are in?
What is Paul’s point? Just like the rest of the urbanists: To shame and guilt trip us into compliance.
Developers vs neighborhoods. Gee, I wonder whose side Trump would be on.
The old Trump would be with developers, but the current Trump is all about folks that want to keep things as is or even revert back to the “good old days”.
You can take the politician out of development but you can’t take the developer out of the politician. Don’t worry, Trump is still on your side. Good job
Trump did try very very hard to be accepted by the city folks over most of his life. That’s why he used to be closer to Democrat politicians. I do think he still secretly wishes to be considered cool like Obama, but is it that hard to see that’s not what he is now?
The new Trump is all about the interests of the little guy over big business and an overbearing government? Be sure and tell the Standing Rock Sioux. They’ll be thrilled! Just kidding. Trump sides with developers and big government, kinda like Rob Johnson.
TJ, you are obviously too young to realize that economies don’t continue on an upward cycle inevitably. Many of us remember the billboard put up during the Boeing bust, Will the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights.” Whether this sign was an urban legend or not, many people did leave Seattle in 1970 (including myself) because of the massive job loss and unemployment. Sure the economy is more diverse now. But what happens when Amazon, Google, Facebook and other technology companies lose income because of technological obsolescence or a more profitable business environment or any number of unpredictable factors? This will happen inevitably. I bet the residents of Detroit in the 1950s could have never imagined what their city would become. With Trump in office the downturn may come sooner than we think.
Excellent interview, Eric. Thanks for your work.
And the point is to build Seattle up enough so what you said would be less of an issue. What’s needed is to have clusters of talents and an attractive city. You are actually describing why Seattle have to grow as opposed to stay as is. The recent growth of Seattle has made it a much more crowded city with much higher concentration of high earners, which has in turn generated booms in high end restaurants and services. And those in turn would attract even more people. It’s how cities like New York can stay relevant and attractive. Companies will come set up headquarters here and keep their top employees here for that. Surely cities all have up and downs, but it should be obvious to you that the top cities remained on top, and it’s the secondary cities that sometimes die off.
Three questions Rob:
1) You said, “Of those new units, 45 to 74 units will be built on-site, however it does not take into account the units that WILL be built in Wallingford by the Office of Housing using payment-in-lieu funds.” So how many are currently slated to be built, and where? You say they WILL be built, so obviously some are in the works, right?
2) How about we rezone Aurora to Neighborhood Commercial? You have instant access to BRT, yay! You have supermarkets and other businesses and services there as well. You’re close to Green Lake and Lower Woodland. You’d have views of the Cascades. And currently, it is largely just empty lots and derelict, run-down properties. Developing it would take care of a major eyesore that draws a lot of crime to our neighborhood. My guess is you’d have virtually no opposition to rezoning it. So why don’t you?
3) Lastly, can you tell us what Urban Village YOU live in? Just your cross streets is all I’m asking for. I want to make sure you will benefit from a proper rate of growth as well.
hayduke, I’ve wondered too what makes Aurora off limits for development. Is it an environmental cleanup issue, the area’s less than desirable history, the proximity to Aurora itself, or more likely developers aren’t interested? For after all, the push for up-zoning is coming primarily from developers who want to maximize profits by paying as little as possible for the land while avoiding expensive restrictions. Hence the race to buy and build before MHA goes into effect. When will HALA admit that prices are being driven up primarily by would-be buyers/speculators having the means, even cash, to out-bid everyone else? Meanwhile, the consequent density without any relief offered for the deleterious consequences is already driving young families to the suburbs again. This is happening not only in the Puget Sound area but around the country. HALA needs to catch up on its research.
Yes. Well, I don’t know of any environment cleanup issues, but Aurora itself comes with irremediable noise and air pollution issues. There are people living up there, they complain specifically about excessive noise from motorcycles going up the hill, but I’m sure the steady background of trucks, buses, car tires etc. takes its toll as well. So far, anyway, the developers have been more interested in Commercial zoned properties along Stone south of 40th, but who knows what’s next.
As for speculators, it would be interesting to see something like British Columbia’s foreign investor tax. I think we couldn’t do it so easily as they did, though, because 1) we would (I hope) act before the situation got completely out of hand, which BC did not, and 2) since the US represents a much larger share of the world’s investment money, than Canada, we’d be less well served by their foreign tax. Ideally something that manages to effectively distinguish speculative income property from home equity, and would be state level (because it would have to be) but locally determined (to make it palatable at the state level.)
How about renovating the Oak Tree Inn?
Well, like any plan, it has its good and bad points … honestly I’d have no idea, but just want to bring up the notion that viable hotel space in the neighborhood could take some of the AirBnB business from the residential areas, so given reasonable occupancy rates it could be considered housing units for practical purposes.
I’m totally down for the foreign investor tax! And I’d go even further: a non-resident investment tax. If you don’t live in the city, we tax any property you own at an increasingly higher rate depending on where you do live. Own commercial real estate in Seattle, but live in Arizona? Thank you for your tax contribution!
Well, that’s what I’m saying, is that unlike BC we need to look at something like that instead of strictly foreign investment. It’s thrown into sharper relief as of Monday when we learned FNMA will back $1B debt from a big single family home rental investor, Blackstone – government backing for big time corporate competition for home buyers.
Donn: “Well, I don’t know of any environment cleanup issues, but Aurora itself
comes with irremediable noise and air pollution issues.” Aurora was the strip mall for used car companies and gas stations for years. It only takes one former gas station to create a clean-up problem that most investors would not be interested in. As for air pollution and noise there are expensive condos and apartments right up against the Alaska Way Viaduct that people are willing to tolerate for their proximity to the Pike Place Market and Belltown. When I lived on 7th NE adjacent to the express lanes exit, you couldn’t even hear conversations outside. Yet new apartments have gone up there too. No doubt, the builders assumed they would be good enough for students. I wouldn’t call either of these areas ghettos in any sense, especially since they are high rent buildings. But builders will take a chance where they think they can make money.
True, Berta, but it’s not just the developers. It’s the YIMBY activists who are pushing HALA, as well. Their demands are based on creating “equitability” and what they WANT, not on what people actually NEED, as they claim. EVERYTHING has to be “equal” in their world, regardless of the ability to pay for it. People, of course, need housing and if they don’t have a car, they need easy access to transit and services, which Aurora provides. But they don’t like Aurora, because it’s a highway. Nevermind that millions of people who live in cities bigger than ours live right above lots of traffic.
The activists know the city could build housing on Aurora that’s a 10-15 minute bus ride from downtown. But that’s not good enough for them. As long as they continue to see any SF housing in the city, and for that matter, outside of it, they’ll continue to be resentful of it.
By extension, there’s no need for people who haven’t been born yet to have a environment hospitable to human life. 😉
Aurora is not “hospitable to human life?” People all over our country and the world manage to do just fine in far worse environs. You’ll have to do better than that, Paul.
Phil — here you’re equivocating “equitable” and “equal”.
The position the city has taken is simply this: as we know people are moving here, and as we know people who already live here are looking for housing that is affordable (as defined by their income level), it is unequitable to segregate these new people and low(er) income people into only unappealing and environmentally less-healthy districts of the city. Can Aurora be part of the solution? Yes. Is it the main solution? No. The city has taken a stance against ghetto-izing the poor and new residents.
Tell you what, Paul, since it’s so unfair to lower income people that they’re not treated “equitably” in every aspect of their life, let’s mandate that stores and businesses be required to sell their products to the poor for less, and have the “privileged” make up the difference in higher prices.
BTW, it was fun to finally met you in person the other night at Hamilton. I appreciated our civil conversation, especially considering the circumstances. It must have been terrifying for you and the rest of the YIMBY’s at your table to be surrounded by hundreds of privileged, angry old, white racist Trump voters who were just bitterly clinging to their zoning.
I must say, I especially enjoyed looking over the HALA map of the Wallingford Urban Village with you. I noticed you had marked many areas outside the UV you’d like to see upzoned as well. It’s fun to mark on maps, isn’t it? I can tell you I had fun marking Aurora and watching the horrified reaction at your table. But I’m confused, Paul, because when you showed me where YOU live in Wallingford, for some odd reason, you weren’t in the UV. Not only that, you somehow forgot to mark YOUR block as a place you’d like to have more density. I was happy to remedy that oversight of yours by marking it as well, and hopefully you’ll get all the density there your little heart desires. Perhaps a 200 foot tall building on either side of your home? You wouldn’t mind, right? Because if you did, people might call you a N-I-M-B-Y.
Berta — this is why the MHA must go into effect before any zoning change. Anyone who want to buy and build now before MHA is operating under current zoning. If you don’t like changes around you today, we can’t blame MHA or Zoning changes.
Yes, the MHA program is sure likely to slow the rampages of development, though according to current analysis, the effect will be more pronounced in lower market areas. When the University District upzone sails through council next month with MHA baked in, Vulcan will be able to build their big office towers, which is what counts with Johnson and Murray, whatever the consequences for lower cost wood framed housing construction.
Seems like a waste for the 2nd and 3rd questions to be about golf courses, while Rob side-stepped the question about overcrowding at Hamilton and why he wasn’t at the Jan 7 meeting even though his staff attended (not being invited didn’t seem a problem for his staff–why was it for him? and that’s lame–it was an open meeting, not restricted to “invited guests only”) Also, why not insist that Rob engage with the Wallingford Community Council who have reasonable counter-proposals, imo?
We can’t insist on anything, we are very lucky Rob agreed to this interview at all. Murray has simply shut down accepting any press interviews or forums that aren’t friendly to his point of view.
Regarding golf courses, they seem to me the obvious answer to “where should we put all the people, schools, and community centers” and it also answers the question “how do we pay for all that”? Some we’re paying a billion dollars a mile to tunnel rail underneath, others are in great locations for new urban villages, and nobody gets displaced if they’re developed. I tend to get agreement from people on both sides of the debate that they’re good targets, but then everyone goes back to their individual corners of HALA upzoning yes or no.
I have to disagree with you Eric: “we are very lucky Rob agreed to this interview at all.”
You have exceedingly low expectations of the people we elect to represent us! Just because our mayor is an isolationist and doesn’t want to interact with the unwashed masses doesn’t mean we are “lucky” that RobbyJ was willing to answer a few questions from a neighborhood blog – from a neighborhood that is in his district and whose votes he is counting on in the next election! RobbyJ SHOULD be more attentive and responsive and we should be holding him accountable, not making excuses for him.
He knows damn well he should be attending our local meetings and he doesn’t need a hand delivered invitation every time. He likes to act shy and docile when it suits him. The fact is, he doesn’t really want to come, and at the few events I’ve seen him at, he ducks out early or is half listening while he scrolls through his “HeyRobbyJ” Twitter feed. I’ve seen other councilmembers do far better in their districts. I’m not going to congratulate RobbyJ on account that he is slightly less constituent-phobic than Mayor Murray.
Well, just for some perspective, personally I don’t need to see Rob Johnson at Wallingford meetings or anywhere but in the council chambers, if he’s doing a good job in council chambers, and if he isn’t doing a good job there (as indeed he is not), all the Wallingford meeting attendance in the world doesn’t make up for it. When he didn’t show up but Spencer Williams did, I reckon we may have come out ahead in the deal.
Spencer isn’t in a decision-making role and I didn’t have a lot of confidence that he was absorbing all of the concerns and would fully represent them back to Rob. He seemed more like he was there to “check the box” and communicate what the city is doing vs. really listening to us
All I ask is that they not be delusional, and I’m pretty sure he is not. Rob can read my yard sign. Spencer Williams’ interest in absorbing the concerns expressed there was more than proportional to Johnson’s interest in hearing about them. The only way we’ll get any relief from Johnson is if Murray pulls the rug out from under him.
Golf courses are an interesting idea…. but that requires changing the law, policy, and levy. Start an initiative 🙂 I’ll sign.
If we want a politician at our community-organized, community-run meetings, then we should invite the politician. If Rob kept showing up at meetings we’d end up getting mad that he was stealing the spot light. His attendance shifts the tone and scope of the meeting. It changes the agenda from what the organizers had planned. So, I see it as very respectful of us that Rob does *not* show up when we don’t ask him to.
So, don’t blame Rob for not showing up, blame ourselves for not asking him. If we keep on asking him, and he keeps avoiding us, *then* by all means, let’s blame him for blowing us off.
It is also very very different for a councilmembers staff to appear unannounced that for the councilmember to. The presence of a staff member doesn’t impact the agenda of the meeting in the way the councilmember’s does.
Paul, I believe it would be possible for Rob to behave in a way that doesn’t “steal the spotlight”. And I don’t think my neighbors would be so distracted by his presence that we couldn’t have the kind of meeting/discussion that we need to. The guy isn’t George Clooney, after all. Do we know that the Wallingford Community Council didn’t invite him?
Johnson may be pulling a fast one here –
I wasn’t involved in the establishment of the urban village strategy, but some of us were there, and the impression I have is that he’s misrepresenting it, that when introduced it did not intend to map areas of higher population density, but rather to map areas with higher density cores, a significant distinction in Wallingford. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan passed by Murray and Johnson changes that strategy to one that simply prescribes higher density within urban village boundaries.
Can you unpack the distinction you’re trying to make? I’m not following. (higher population density vs higher density cores)
Consider the Phinney/Greenwood urban village, for example (and there are others like it), whose boundaries exactly follow the higher density zoned areas along the arterials, in contrast to Wallingford where a great deal of ordinary single family was included. These neighborhoods are the same, or ought to be the same, with respect to the “urban village strategy”, but that strategy has changed, and the arbitrary boundaries created then are now a very big deal. Murray and Johnson have adopted a policy that requires rezones in the entire extent of the arbitrarily drawn urban village, and are calling that “the urban village strategy established over two decades ago”, but it’s a bit of a lie, they established it last summer.
A few things about RobbyJ:
Councilmember RobbyJ totally bypassed the question about why Wallingford should take on more density when despite our urban village “designation” the city’s never provided urban village amenities in our neighborhood. No community center, a closet for a library, no light rail, modest bus services, no neighborhood elementary school and an overcrowded middle school…….
Councilmember RobbyJ is a true YIYBY. He doesn’t live in an upzone. He loves to talk all about his family, but he is raising his kids in a big single family home with a large back yard. Robby has lived a life of great privilege – He’s a product of the most elite private school in Seattle (University Prep). He doesn’t care about our homes, our neighborhoods and our families. He’s got what he wants. And he has the money from special interests to ensure his campaign is fully funded so he can continue to tell other people how they need to make SACRIFICES while he makes NONE.
Make no mistake about it, Councilmember RobbyJ is a hawkish corporate democrat.
I agree he sidestepped the whole “livability” part of greater density: the infrastructure doesn’t exist, and the changes they’ve made to certain things like height limits and street setbacks aren’t necessary to build density in Wallingford… they’re just more $$$ in the pocket of a developer at the expense of the quality of life of new and old residents alike.
I asked one of the presenters at the city’s workshop about the miniscule number, 45-74, new affordable units that would be built under HALA. He said this was based on a guess of 50% built in place and 50% built with the in-lieu-of fund. Even doubling a miniscule number gives you still a miniscule number — all in exchange for 3-4 zoning level increases.
Well it’s been obvious from the start. And the Sand Point question – he ignored entirely because he knows full well that areas like that, Cap Hill, part of Queen Anne, Magnolia etc, contain wealthy and powerful “enemies” and so they’ll start with what they consider weaker neighborhoods, like ours. I’m still baffled that he acts as if Wallingford is some sprawling suburban nightmare with acre lots and McMansions. the reality is that we already HAVE some of the most dense single family homes in the nation. As anyone who creeps up a one lane avenue looking for kids to pop out between cars, can attest.
I would be shocked if 50% were actually built onsite. Only nonprofit developers will probably choose the onsite option, at least in “profitable” neighborhoods. Everything else in Wallingford will probably be build with developers paying the in lieu fee. It’s much less complicated for them.
Initially HALA was supposed to require every building to build affordable housing onsite, and then it would have actually resulted in mixed-income buildings. But that quietly slipped away, likely due to developers having behind door conversations with the Mayor.
Let’s also not forget that the City was telling us how great the in lieu fees were because they were supposed to be able to get matching dollars 3 to 1. But with the current federal administration, I don’t think anyone can count on those matching dollars anymore.
One thing to keep in mind is that the “affordable housing” we talk about is actually city subsidized housing. The rest of the housing that will be created is the actual affordable housing. Though it may not be cheap, it is new housing space, and adds more supply to the natural balance of supply and demand, which is the only realistic way to keep the cost of housing in check.
Not without consequences and painful change, I get that.
Personally I think the DADU/ADU options preserve the quality of the neighborhood better than new development, and are a good idea.
1 – Not much here about city subsidized housing. The subsidy in the MHA program comes out of the developer’s pocket.
2 – The market rate housing built under MHA isn’t going to be “affordable” in any normally accepted sense of the word. Part of the reason is simply the progressive demolition and replacement of older housing stock, which tends to raise aggregate market prices; part of it is MHA itself, which adds extra cost to pass on to the buyer.
3 – We’re adding to the supply – Seattle’s new units in 2017 are expected to double the previous record – but that’s going to taper off for a couple reasons. Development capital isn’t going to be there for the tail end of a boom, for one, and much of the current surge appears to be developers getting in under the wire before MHA.
4 – None of this has anything to do with zoning or other land use regulations. Plenty of land has been available, obviously, and will continue to be available per city’s own figures.
5 – Trying to address the problem from the supply end by itself is a recipe for failure. You “Econ 101” guys may recall that the phrase is “supply and demand” – there are two sides. While city hall is trying to pour gasoline on the fire with stunts like the University District high rise office park, we can expect little relief from rising housing costs no matter what the developers do.
6 – Accessory units are generally not seen as a problem in neighborhoods, but it helps that they’re owner-occupied. Proposed legislation to remove that requirement, and bizarrely allow multiple accessory units, would change the picture significantly.
The new “market rate” housing is for people with high salaries. It’s not affordable and likely won’t be for about 30 years or so.
Unless there are more houses available than the number of people with high salaries.
Sure, but developers are not going bring that on their own. see #3 above – there are limits to what they can do (for 2017), limits to what they will want to do (rent decrease due to overbuilding is unlikely), and we have no control over it (zoning has not been an issue.) (A couple of recent Sightline articles make a case that MHA program costs will inhibit production, but the term “affect” is more appropriate here than “control”, since the outcome appears to be unintended.)
The 3-4 zoning level increases are arguably the worst part of a bad plan. The extra cost to a developer may put these lots fairly low on the list for immediate development, and slow turnover will create a long term situation with modest single family houses interspersed with the occasional grossly out of scale apartment building. If it’s any consolation, the developers are no more impressed with this program than we are.