Maybe it is Time to Bring Back the Idea of a Tax on Amazon
Amazon’s lawyer, along with several other local companies, wandered into a mine field yesterday apparently signing a letter is support of Senate Bill 5600. The bill was written by and for attorneys out to sue landlords. It won’t do a thing to prevent evictions just add to the risk of operating housing. Some have suggested that the letter is a fake.” These big shot lawyers wouldn’t be stupid enough to sign a letter like this!” I wonder. Most lawyers I work with would want to know what they were getting into here. We’re checking into the authenticity of the letter.
Read the letter for yourself.
I’m pissed off. I hope the letter is a fake or that maybe it was sent before these people had a chance to read it and understand what they were doing. If that’s the case, maybe Amazon needs a new lawyer. If they meant it, maybe it is time to start taxing Amazon heavily. We can use the money to fund our proposed Eviction Prevention Fund for a start. Here’s what I sent to the Amazon lobbyists.
Subject: Fwd: Amazon signature
Hello Braden,
Please call me about this letter.
I was one that worked very hard to stop the “head tax” in Seattle. If this letter really represents your company’s view, I regret that support. Instead maybe it makes sense to tax Amazon to fund eviction prevention. We’ve suggested an eviction fund to help tenants. Maybe you’ll put dollars into that effort. The advocates of SB 5600 suggest a million dollars.
It makes no sense in any case, however, to support SB 5600 if what your company wants is to solve housing price issues. It won’t do that.
I hope that your counsel and the others will reconsider and withdraw this letter until you’ve had a chance to consider the implications which I don’t think anyone signing this letter did.
Looking forward to our conversation.
Roger—
Begin forwarded message:
From: Roger Valdez <roger@seattleforgrowth.org>
Date: February 5, 2019 at 6:05:55 PM PST
Subject: Amazon signature
Hello Denny,
I’m sorry you have to be the recipient of this but I’m not sure how to reach anyone at Amazon. I’m also sorry I don’t have this electronically (see attached).
SB 5600 is one of the most anti-landlord bills I’ve seen in a while. This language looks as if it was written by advocates of three changes to the rules, mainly lawyers who represent tenants.
The study that is quoted is dubious at best and outright misleading at worst. They’ve taken outlier cases and are attempting to impose sweeping changes that would increase risk and cost for small and medium sized landlords who provide the bulk of housing in cities like Seattle — many who work at Amazon.
This bill won’t fix anything. It will drive some smaller businesses to sell and many will have to hire management companies to deal with the problems it creates, ironically removing the human touch from the work of property management.
The most egregious comment is on the second page:
“Washington’s eviction laws are a root cause of our homelessness problems.”
No they aren’t. The lack of housing supply and over regulation are the cause of higher prices — and homelessness is a complex problem that is economic but also involves mental health and chemical dependency.
Landlords aren’t in business to evict people. And they don’t. Courts do and only as a last resort.
Mr. Zapolsky doesn’t know enough to make a determination about what causes homelessness or eviction laws anymore than I am in a position to determine where Amazon should locate its HQ2.
Would you like it if we weighed against bills Amazon was supporting this session? How about weighing in without so much as asking what the bills are about?
I think it’s reasonable to expect that Mr. Zapolsky find out what going on with this bill after talking with people on both sides. If he can’t do that, he and his colleagues should retract the letter — fast.
This will do serious damage to discussions between stakeholders.
We’d appreciate your help with this. He’s welcome to call me anytime for direction toward people who understand the business of owning and operating rental property.
Roger
A Solution in Olympia: The Eviction Prevention Fund
In Olympia, solutions are often hard to find. When it comes to eviction the solution is simple: cash. And not even that much cash really when compared to the costs of homelessness and of eviction itself. The current effort to address evictions, Senate Bill 5600 doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. If anything the proposal just makes life more complicated for everyone. The advocates of that legislation themselves say it’s only a few hundred dollars or maybe one month’s rent that is the problem. Well, let’s just use some money — a very small percentage of the $600 million being requested — for eviction prevention. Here’s our solution, the eviction prevention fund.
The Eviction Prevention Fund
An eviction report late last year commissioned by the City of Seattle called Losing Home: The Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle found that,
The most common reason a tenant faced eviction was for nonpayment of rent. We reviewed the complaints, and, when attached, the three-day notices to pay or vacate, in order to determine the amount owed by each tenant. Of all nonpayment of rent cases, 52.3% owed one month or less before an eviction was led. More than three-quarters (76.6%) of nonpayment of rent cases were initiated for less than $2,500.00. Of these 807 cases in which less than $2,500.00 was allegedly outstanding, a total of $997,968.22 in rent arrears was owed based on the rent demands. Among this group, the median rent owed was $1,236.64(emphasis added).
There are issues with data in this report, we propose but establishment of a program funded by the Housing Trust Fund that would address this issue directly with cash support to households who face eviction over amounts of money ranging from $100 to one months rent. We propose that the capital budget set aside $2,000,000 to pilot this program.
This investment in prevention would prevent:
- Households from being evicted;
- Homelessness;
- Increased costs from homelessness (i.e. shelter beds, law enforcement);
- Damage to credit ratings;
- Damage to tenancy history;
- Court costs to tenants and landlords; and
- The need for more expensive, new subsidized units
This program would start as a pilot in King County that would grant funds totaling $1,000,000 to tenants and landlords directly through referral by non-profit organizations working with tenants to avoid eviction or landlords working with their own tenants having issues with paying rent. They payment would be direct cash payment to cover rent. In exchange the landlord would not initiate an eviction action.
Other counties in the state could access the other $1,000,000 in funds through an application to the Commerce Department.
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) would conduct a real time evaluation month to month, to determine
- Did the program prevent eviction;
- Were tenants able to address other on going issues;
- A measure of payment at three and six months for each household;
- A final report on the disposition of each case;
- A statistical analysis of the overall impact on eviction and broader benefits of the program, including impact on existing housing resources.
SB 5646 : Another Money Grab by Seattle Non-Profits
I have never seen a more relentless crusade for money than the one being waged by Seattle based non-profit housing organizations using their political power. They want to tax all new housing in Seattle, they have housing levies at the city and county level, they have money from the document recording fee, and the get money out of the City of Seattle’s general fund. And don’t forget the hundreds of millions they take from the Housing Trust Fund and equity from low income housing tax credits. But it’s just not enough. Now they want to redirect state sales tax dollars into their pockets. I don’t use this word lightly but it is getting disgusting. When one considers the housing needs across the state and servile, unquestioning responsiveness of Democrats to feed the cash addiction the word seems to fit.
Members of the Committee,
Last week I spoke against SB 5646 for three reasons.
It fails to address the costs of regulation — This proposal does nothing to address the leading cause of rising housing costs, lack of supply. A big factor in the inability of both for-profit and non-profit builders to produce housing to meet growing demand are limits imposed by local jurisdictions and the state on housing production. This proposed tax shift does nothing to ameliorate this fundamental problem. Furthermore, non-profit housing costs more per unit for the same reasons: too many costly rules. When we fail to address costs we ensure higher market prices which increases the need for subsidies. This legislation simply puts more money into an inefficient system with no effort to address the deeper problem of needless limits on housing production across the state.
It is unfair to rural communities — This proposal is manifestly unfair to rural counties and cities that have no local money for housing. Meanwhile, this legislation allows cities like Seattle with a city housing levy, county housing levy, a veterans housing levy, general fund money for housing, vouchers from the Seattle and King County Housing Authority, and soon an illegal tax on the production of housing in the form of Mandatory Housing Affordability.
Yet, vacancy rates in rural communities with no access to local resources and little access to vouchers have higher rates of poverty, lower wages, older building stock, lower vacancy rates and almost no investment from the Housing Trust Fund. Kititas County, for example, with lowest vacancy rate in the state has received zero from the HTF in the last decade. Yes, this would allow the shift of some state money to these counties if they imposed the tax, but larger cites, especially Seattle should not be allowed to tap this resource, a shift of state general fund dollars, until they address their own self-imposed housing crisis which is consuming resources from the rest of the state.
Housing Trust Fund Reform — The legislature simply must address the obscene systemic inequity in the distribution of Housing Trust Fund dollars. While Seattle continues to impose more and more regulation on the production of housing, pushing up prices, they also are imposing more and more local exactions, taxes, fees, fines, and regulations. This is a perpetual motion machine of inflation that crushes poor people under a higher cost burden for market rate housing and longer and longer wait lists for subsidized housing.
Yet, the legislature keeps appropriating more and more money to extravagant projects in Seattle with costs as high as $500,000 per unit. The findings of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) confirmed these higher per unit costs. Meanwhile, communities like Grays Harbor County with serious homelessness have received nothing from the HTF in the past decade. Instead of shifting general fund dollars to Seattle, the legislature should be putting more Housing Trust Fund resources into rural Washington.
Can this bill be salvaged?
Maybe.
Exclude Seattle — The City of Seattle must be excluded from accessing this resource unless the legislature conditions this on a preemption of design review and mandatory inclusionary zoning. They simply cannot be allowed to deliberately drive up costs to score political points then devour more state resources. This is inefficient and misgovernment that the legislature would be condoning and enabling by allowing even more resources to subsidize Seattle’s overregulation of housing production. A limit could be placed on Seattle’s use exclusively for vouchers or eviction prevention in the form of one time cash assistance.
Reduce Regulation — Access to these funds must be coupled with an exemption from requirements like impact fees. Another way of accomplishing the intent of this legislation would allow local jurisdictions to keep the whole share of state sales tax collection for housing provided they impose no impact fees, reduce permitting costs, and that limits imposed by the Urban Growth Area be suspended. Other local requirements like design review should also be suspended as a condition of this use of state funds.
Match Sales Tax with Housing Trust Fund in Rural Counties — Since this is a shift of state tax dollars back to local communities for housing, the legislature should favor and help clear the backlog of need in rural Washington. As I said before, rural communities don’t have access to the many local sources of revenue available to larger cities. Connecting the dollars kept at the local level with state housing dollars could create a mix of flexible and and adequate resources for capital projects as well as rental assistance.
We hope that the Committee will consider changes to this bill that reflect the need for more fairness and efficiency in our state’s approach to housing across the state. Thank you for your consideration.
Supply Over Rights: Another Note for Socialists
There are few more basic and important debates the form the foundation of public debates on policy than the one about rights. What is a right? Where does a right come from? How do we know what our rights are? What effect do government, policy, rules, and taxes have on rights? There’s no way to rehearse all that debate here. You can read one of my posts on Edmund Burke if you want to get a glimpse of my views. The short version, out of step with almost everyone, is that rights are social constructs evolved over time and both ensured and infringed by government. This last point is hard, because what follows is one of those, “you’re a libertarian moments.” I’m not. What I am is an advocate of working together to be responsible to each other and to do the thing that helps the most most of the time for the longest. That has nothing to do with rights but simply giving people what they need the most, in this case, more housing.
Oddly this excerpt from a Forbes post called, “Efficiency Is Compassionate: Markets Don’t Solve Housing Problems, People Do” and accompanied by a picture of the latest socialist wonder, caused some people to think I am a socialist. I’m not. And if you are, you need to think this one through all the way. Even if God or the Great Spirit granted a right to housing or if it simply is a willful demand made by crowds in the street, we’d still have to build as many units as there are people who need and want them to create equilibrium. Someone has to build them and manage them and that means money and financing. Even if we grant that “housing is a right,” there is no escape from the reality that it will never be “free.” Here’s my little parable of the drink ticket.
I attended an event recently at which everyone was given a “free” drink ticket. But the bar had one bar tender and one waitress. There were a couple hundred tickets handed out. Getting a ticket didn’t mean getting a drink since the lines were maddeningly long. People gave up waiting and gave their tickets to people in line hoping they could cash their tickets in for them. But the bartender was instructed to honor only one ticket per person. There was a perverse incentive to try different sides of the bar, and eventually people just decided to pay for drinks. Because of a lack of supply of labor, rationing resulted so while the drinks were free few people realized the benefit.
This is how “free” housing based on a natural rights argument would work without huge increases in the supply of housing. Socialists can declare that housing is a right and hand out “tickets” to redeem housing, but if someone doesn’t build that housing, people will wind up right back where we started: needing to pay increasingly higher prices for housing that isn’t being provided by the state. Simply codifying a questionable right to a certain amount of living space won’t create that space; large scale housing creation happens when people can invest in it and make a return from it’s rental or sale. That isn’t ideology just fact. Of course the government could seize private property and force labor to work for free but that would be, truly, a road to serfdom.
Impact Fee Appeal: Our Response to the City’s Motion to Dismiss
What follows is our response to the City of Seattle’s City’s motion to dismiss our appeal of their Determination of Non-Significance on a proposal to allow impact fees through an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. You can read the documents in PDF form at the links below.
Seattle For Growth Response to Motion to Dismiss
Seattle For Growth Declaration
I. Introduction
In its motion to dismiss the Seattle City Council (City) claim that Appellants Seattle for Growth (SFG) and Seattle Mobility Coalition (SMC) (together Appellants) do not have standing to bring an appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) because the Appellants have not, and cannot, establish concrete and particularized injury-in-fact for this non-project action a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as required under SEPA. We would as the Examiner to reject this motion.
First, our appeal is based on the fact that impact fees, if implemented, will have an adverse affect on housing. The City’s motion to dismiss is based on the faulty notion that because we have pointed out the connection of the economics of housing in our appeal that housing supply and price is not an environmental issue within the zone of “zone of interest” of SEPA. This is easy to rebut since the SEPA check list includes housing as the 9thitem on the checklist jurisdictions use to determine environmental impact. The checklist asks, “Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing” and “Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.” The price and supply of housing, which we argue would be adversely affected by the imposition of impact fees is the basis of our appeal, and these issues are acknowledged in the requirements for implementing SEPA. And we represent the people who produce the housing subject to SEPA analysis.
The City argues that any environmental impacts created by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are “totally conjectural because the fees have not even been established, nor has it been determined what types of development will be subject to the TIF Program.”
This is simply false since even in the introduction in its motion to dismiss the City states that the proposal would make a new policy to establish “a methodology for determining deficiencies in the transportation system necessary to create a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program” and that they already have “a list and map of transportation infrastructure projects that would be eligible to receive transportation impact fee funds, when a TIF Program is established.” There is no precedent for any city imposing a fee on the construction of bowling alleys or convenience stores for example, so it is safe to say that if the City imposes fees it will be on new housing. This is the essence of impact fees that are based on curing deficiencies in infrastructure created by new population growth.
Finally, members of the City Council have already stated their intent to impose fees as soon as this appeal is resolved. The Examiner should allow the appeal to go forward since either the City has no intention to impose fees in which case they are in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Growth Management Act which requires implementation of Comprehensive Plans or they are engaged in a meaningless exercise of legislative authority or theater for purely political purposes. In either case, the City has failed to explain why it has found “no probable significant adverse environmental impacts” as required in WAC 197-11-340(1). This determination cannot be made because the proposal has been piecemealed in 340(1). This determination cannot be made because the proposal has been piecemealed in order to avoid adequate environmental review, and the City has failed to show we lack standing in its motion.
II. Statement of Facts
A. Conjecture, Intent, and Law
While the City has suggested that impact fees and possible harm created by them are “totally conjectural,” the City has engaged in a pattern of behavior that makes it clear that they intend to impose impact fees and so a TIF is an inevitable outcome of any amendment to the comprehensive plan. And, in the end, they are required to follow through with fees based on a plain reading of RCW 36.70A.070.
Conjecture
The City has proposed an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan that establishes the legal basis under RCW 82.02.050-090 for a TIF and creates a potential list of projects that would benefit from fees collected. The legislation itself identifies 21 projects (Attachment 2 Transportation Appendix V1a, page 2) by address and on a map. The amendments proposed explicitly state that, “ Projects included in the list are eligible for expenditures using revenue from the transportation impact fee program” (Attachment 2 Transportation Appendix V1a, page 1). The City is either legislatively enacting a plan it has no intention of implementing with specific projects and a methodology for imposing fees or, more rationally and realistically, it is passing the plan with the intention of implementing fees.
Intent
With respect to the City’s intentions, Councilmembers Lisa Herbold, Sally Bagshaw, and Mike O’Brien have said publicly in the Seattle Times (Seattle is overdue for developer impact fees, June 16, 2017) that, “We want to confirm that we’re underway,” and “The need [for impact fees] is clear,” and that “We believe impact fees represent a reasonable path forward,” and that, “in the last three years we’ve been steadily moving forward toward adopting impact fees. Like all things land use-related, we are never able to move as quickly as we’d like.”
Councilmember Herbold said in a message to constituents that while a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be “necessary but not sufficient” to impose fees, she also said,
We’d planned to, in December 2018, consider 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments for a transportation impact fee program. After passage, then from December 2018 to February 2019 the City Council would continue analysis and development of a potential impact fee rate schedule, development of options for credits based on planning geography, and legislation drafting. Finally, the Council had planned from March to April 2019 to consider legislation implementing a transportation impact fee program (Herbold email November 16th, 2018)
Finally, with respect to intent, 2019 is an election year. Councilmembers are proposing impact fees because it is popular. In an article called, “Herbold the hero – Councilmember goes to bat for constituents” (August 7, 2017, Westsideseattle.com) Herbold says,
“’It’s important for council members to not just pass something – but also to follow the legislation and make sure it’s done,’ she said.” The article goes on in the next paragraph that,
“These days, [Herbold] is focused on creating developer impact fee programs – to ensure that developers are contributing back to the communities in which they are building.”
The Law
In terms of what is required by Comprehensive Plans, the state law is clear. Comprehensive Plans are not a conjectural exercise. The section on transportation in RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements states that,
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development.
The law requires that the Comprehensive Plan be applied in local ordinances. This means that Seattle is obligated to pass a TIF if this proposal goes forward.
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan are not, as the City argues, conjectural at all but the first step in an intentional effort to impose TIF to raise money to pay for projects and to satisfy a popular sentiment for impact fees. These changes would require action by the City in the form of an ordinance to impose TIF.
B. Loss of Housing
Obtaining declarations of the harm created by the uncertainty created by just from the consideration of impact fees has been impossible because of fears from developers and builders about reprisals from the City. One builder said when asked for a declaration said, “I’m trying to get my building permit so don’t want to mess that up” (Declaration of Roger Valdez (“Valdez Declaration”), p. 1. However, some comments were offered with the promise of anonymity to underscore the point that with Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) already being considered, the promise of another fee is discouraging development.
My . . . apartment project . . . got imposed the MHA fee because it went through a contract rezone (before we could get vested) and was subject to the Director’s Rule that all rezones meet MHA. The MHA requirement (either fee or performance) has changed five times since we started this process. I think the fee is now $20.75/SF so for our 100k SF project; it is approximately a $2 million fee! That wiped away much-needed equity to get a loan to build this project. I won’t do another project in the Rainier Valley, as it isn’t worth it. (Valdez Declaration, p. 1)
Many builders and developers I spoke with said that along with MHA and now impact fees, they are not going to put any more projects through the permitting process. Many have said that they will only buy or build projects that are already entitled to avoid MHA fees and impact fees. They won’t build anything new after that. One builder reported that he has already had to reduce the price on his townhouses because prices have fallen. He said that if he moves forward that he would be “building for free,” something he cannot afford to do, so he would start looking for land to build in other cities if impact fees pass (Valdez Declaration, page 1).
A recent Colliers advertisement emailed to possible buyers of a project in the Roosevelt neighborhood stated
MUP to be published by February 1, 2019***
7001 Roosevelt Way NE is a shovel ready apartment development, fully vested under the existing code.
This will save a developer over $400,000 in MHA fees (Valdez Declaration, Exhibit A, page 3).
This clearly indicates that in the current regulatory environment that buyers are looking to avoid fees, sellers are pitching projects already entitled, and people who build housing are saying that they will not be able to build in Seattle if more fees are added. Furthermore, as we stated in our appeal, the City itself in its own documentation submitted in support of the DNS, cites the Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation Plan 2018-2022 that says this about impact fees:
Additionally, there are well-documented arguments that hold that increased development fees will be passed on to consumers, exacerbating the already-high cost of housing in Seattle (SFG appeal).
We believe the City must consider what those “well-documented arguments” mean not just for housing costs, but the collateral damage to the wider community when people cannot afford to live in the city and must make longer, more costly commutes. So this is not a “bare assertion” like the one cited in Trepanier v. City of Everett. There is an abundance of evidence that rational actors in the housing economy will not build and the City’s own master plan says that will increase prices. This will have the effect of limiting housing access because of price and if prices fall, builders won’t build because additional fees will eliminate the return they need to finance construction.
Unless the City can suspend the law of supply and demand or offer halt its efforts to impose MHA, builders, developers, and lenders are already beginning to step back from creating new housing because of falling prices (Seattle home prices are dropping. The last time this happened was during the recession, KUOW, November 17, 2018), increasing costs, and rising uncertainty in the market. Will demand for housing continue to rise? Will costs keep going up? The uncertainty created by new fees is an “immediate, concrete, and special” impact being felt already by builders and developers in Seattle. And if they are imposed they will either make projects infeasible because of falling prices or if demand continues to rise, prices will too because of the exaction being passed on. What environmental impacts will this have? This is what the City must analyze uner SEPA and is the basis of our appeal.
3. Zone of Interest
The argument above might seem to make the City’s point that even while we persuade that damages are ongoing that they are economic in nature. The City cites Harris v. Pierce County that our injury is economic and that economic injuries are not “within the zone of interest protected by SEPA” (City’s Motion to Dismiss page 7). This they argue means Seattle For Growth lacks standing. Harris found that, “SEPA is concerned with broad questions of environmental impact . . . Accordingly, our courts hold that economic interests are not within the zone of interests protected by SEPA.”
However, our appeal does not allege damage to “economic interests” at all. Instead, we also appeal to Harris because the court cites in that case RCW 43.21C.020 that includes in that includes in the “broad questions of environmental impact” the ability of people to “fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Washington citizens.” Our request for the City to complete further environmental analysis is not based on economic injury but on the broader impact on people who will have to make different decisions when housing is scarce and expensive; when they do, those decisions are likely to result in impacts to the environment that should be analyzed under SEPA.
4. Appellants satisfy the requirements for SEPA standing.
Along with the points above, the City Code provides that “any interested person” may appeal a DNS to the Hearing Examiner. SMC 25.05.680.B.1. An “interested person” is a defined term, meaning “any individual, partnership, corporation, association or public or private organization of any character, significantly affected by or interested in proceedings before an agency.” SMC 25.05.755. Seattle For Growth is an established non-profit that has weathered efforts to challenge its standing before (W-14-001, Order on Motion to Dismiss) and represents people who are “affected by” the City’s proposal.
Interested persons must also meet the two-part judicial SEPA standing test. In the Matter of the Appeal of Laurelhurst Community Club et al., Hearing Examiner File No. W-11-007, Order on Motions to Dismiss/Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (April 10, 2012), at 2 (“Laurelhurst Community Club”). An appellant has SEPA standing if they: (1) allege an interest that falls within the zone of interests protected by SEPA; and (2) allege an injury in fact. We believe as argued above that we meet these two tests.
Kucera v. State Department of Transportation, 140 Wn.2d 200, 212, 995 P.2d 63 (2000), citing Leavitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wn. App. 668, 875 P.2d 681 (1994). A nonprofit corporation has the standing of its members. Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 866, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). Again, Seattle For Growth has the standing of its members who will have to pay impact fees, pass them on to their customers and reduce the number of units they build each of which adversely affects housing supply and will have environmental impact that should be analyzed under SEPA.
On a motion to dismiss for lack of SEPA standing, courts construe the evidentiary facts in favor of the nonmoving party. See Leavitt, 74 Wn. App. at 679 (noting alleged impacts were “speculative and undocumented; they are possible, but not necessary impacts. However, the claimed impacts are within the interests protected by SEPA and Leavitt alleges that they directly impact her property and interests. We will assume Leavitt has established standing[.]”); see also Kucera, supra, 140 Wn.2d at 200.
Here, Appellants have SEPA standing because they allege interests that fall within the zone of interests protected by SEPA and they allege an injury in fact.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner should reject the motion for dismissal because it has failed to demonstrate the Seattle For Growth has no standing. The City’s own motion to dismiss holds enough language of intent to extinguish the argument that imposition of the fees is conjectural. The piecemeal approach they’ve taken is a deliberate effort to evade adequate analysis of the impact on housing production that their policies are already having, an analysis that is at the heart of the State Environmental Policy Act as stated in the statement of legislative intent in RCW 43.21c.020. The fact that the City, along with an onerous per square foot tax on all new housing, is even considering another fee is having specific and concrete injury already. Our appeal doesn’t assert economic damages or even challenge the underlying legality of impact fees; our appeal asks the City to do what SEPA requires.
Dated this 28rdday of January, 2019
By: s/Roger Valdez
| Director
Seattle For Growth
|
Declaration
Roger Valdez declares as follows:
- I am the Director of Seattle for Growth and a resident of the City of Seattle. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the following facts about which I am competent to testify.
- On January 21, 2019 I received the following from a developer after asking for how existing fees and possible impact fees would impact his projects. I asked, “Can you possibly help me with a declaration explaining how impact fees, if imposed on any of your projects, would affect them financially?” He answered, in part, “I’m trying to get my building permit so don’t want to mess that up.” However, he offered the following comments with the promise of anonymity to underscore the point that with Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) already being considered, the promise of an impact fee is discouraging development.
My . . . apartment project . . . got imposed the MHA fee because it went through a contract rezone (before we could get vested) and was subject to the Director’s Rule that all rezones meet MHA. The MHA requirement (either fee or performance) has changed five times since we started this process. I think the fee is now $20.75/SF so for our 100k SF project; it is approximately a $2 million fee! That wiped away much-needed equity to get a loan to build this project. I won’t do another project in the Rainier Valley, as it isn’t worth it.
- On November 29th, I spoke with a townhouse builder who expressed frustration with the current backlog in permit review and the possibility of MHA fees. He told me that he has already had to reduce the price on his townhouses because prices have fallen. He said that if he moves forward that he would be “building for free,” something he cannot afford to do, and that he would start looking for land to build in other cities if impact fees pass.
- MUP to be published by February 1, 2019***
7001 Roosevelt Way NE is a shovel ready apartment development, fully vested under the existing code.
This will save a developer over $400,000 in MHA fees.
I hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington this 28thday of January, 2019.
S/ Roger Valdez
| Roger Valdez, Director
Seattle For Growth
|
