Ask the Attorney General: Can Cities Donate City Owned Property for Housing?
Some hullabaloo has been made about recent legislation by the City Council allowing non-profit housing organizations right of first refusal for surplus property. Not only does this City commonly do this, they could actually donate land for purposes that are in “benefit of the needy” like housing. Oddly, the City of Seattle seems not to understand this. An Attorney General’s Opinion (AGO) from a decade ago seems to point in the direction that contrary to most City Department and legal opinion: the City would not be violating the Constitution’s prohibition on giving away public land for housing. But a clarification of that AGO would help. So I asked the Speaker of the House Frank Chopp to ask the Attorney General for a new opinion. I’m not holding my breath but who knows.
Greetings Mr. Speaker,
Ten years ago, in July of 2008, then Representative Fred Jarett asked the Attorney General for an opinion on this question (see attached):
May a city operating under the Optional Municipal Code (RCW 35A), under its general authority set forth in RCW 35A.11.010 and any related statutes and constitutional limitations, donate surplus personal property to a qualified charity organized as a nonprofit organization, with a requirement that the donated assets be used for the benefit of the needy?
Then Attorney General responded in the affirmative.
The City of Seattle hasn’t gotten the memo. Affordable housing is for the “benefit of the needy.”
Continually the City Council wrings its hands and passes legislation that is wholly unnecessary based on this opinion. Recently they’ve been patting themselves on the back because they have given first refusal to non-profit housing organizations.
As you know, this is already somewhat common practice. Many projects get special arrangements on land like the one the Capitol Hill Housing got at a City owned parking lot on 12th. I confess I really don’t understand the transaction. But nevertheless, land is a big cost driver.
Consider Plymouth Housing’s 501 Rainer Project which will produce about 80 units of housing for $31,000,000 or about $369,000 per unit. Plymouth paid $3,500,000 for the land. Most people I’ve talked to agree that is quite a large sum for that parcel. Similar market rate projects we’ve surveyed have been built for more like $14,000,000 total, including land. You can see the project’s Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) attached.
Land costs and rising prices for land add to costs and consume subsidy. Seattle’s restrictive housing policies are the main contributing factor to this, especially the zoning code that limits use of much of land to single-family.
As you often tell me, you aren’t the Mayor of Seattle. Maybe you’ll consider running!
Until then you could request an AGO clarifying that Seattle could, for example, simply donate the Roosevelt Reservoir for a housing purpose (see this post). Seattle seems intent on complicating this issue when it is clear the the Constitution would not limit this kind of transaction. An AGO clarifying the housing for people earning under 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) could reduce rising costs that consume subsidy dollars.
It is a simple intervention that I think would yield some benefit.
Thanks for listening.
Roger–
