Affordable Housing Project Feels the Blues

Here we go again.

This KIRO 7 News story kind of speaks for itself.

But this time 44 units of affordable housing are the focal point of neighborhood angst. This is yet another example of why we see a growing problem with overreach from neighbors who want to control every aspect of private development, even down to subtle color changes on the out side of the building. This is similar to another case of color panic at another project in Capitol Hill.

Will the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) make the non-profit agency bear the cost of taking down the colored panels? Time will tell. But once again neighborhood whims are potentially adding costs to housing. And in this case, it’s a non-profit agency, Community House Mental Health Agency. Here’s their mission:

We hold ourselves responsible as instruments of social change to the larger community for creating a society which not only tolerates, but understands and accepts people who have a severe and persistent behavioral health issues.

And here’s a neighborhood comment in the thread on the KIRO story:

I’d be more concerned with what’s inside the box than what’s outside.

This familiar pattern shows that neighbors who kick up a stink about colors probably more afraid of change and people that are different than themselves than they are about subtle changes in a color palette. It’s a sad trend for our city.

DPD: A “Creature of the Internet”

As you might remember Smart Growth Seattle has appealed a proposed downzone of the city’s low-rise zones by Councilmember Sally Clark and the Department of Planning and Development (DPD). The City moved to dismiss our appeal on the grounds that we didn’t actually comment on the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). We countered with our own response explaining that we did comment on the downzone and a local builder also commented on the DNS. The City countered with another response, but rather than just limiting their response to the relevant legal issues about timing and verifying standing of our appeal, the DPD went one step further, suggesting that this whole Smart Growth Seattle thing is just a “creature of the internet.” You can read the document here: W-14-001 Reply-2

In his declaration accompanying this notice, Mr. [Bill] Mills of DPD states that visited the website of Smart Growth Seattle and found no obvious way to join that organization. Further, the website contains no information about membership or corporate structure. It appears that the website is more like a personal blog for Roger Valdez to air his views on urban planning issues . . . Smart Growth Seattle is . . . just Roger Valdez by another name.

There are many problems with this “investigation” conducted by Mr. Mills. One would think he would have used the Googles to find out more about the organization, the numerous mentions in the press explaining what Smart Growth Seattle does and why, and perhaps even looked at the City’s own Ethics and Elections website where I am registered as a lobbyist and reports who are funders are. He could have also checked with the IRS and found that we are a 501(c)4 organization.

He could have also just read the “About Us” tab to find out who our sponsors are, or just had his eyeballs wander over there to the right.

——————>

There he would at least have seen the  logos of our sponsors without even having to take another click. But no, everything you see here is simply me making stuff up about urban planning. Well we all, and I think even DPD, know that isn’t true. All you have to do is read any comment section that takes me to task for who supports our organization.

So we decided to ask our supporters to let Mr. Mills know that, yes, there really are people, lots of people, behind what we do here at Smart Growth Seattle. We asked that they just send a simple e-mail to Mr. Mills with the words, “I support Smart Growth Seattle” in the subject line.

Instead we saw an outpouring of authentic support. I am posting a selection of the many, many comments that are awaiting Mr. Mills in his inbox when he gets back to the office next week. This isn’t about Mr. Mills or me. It’s about the fact that DPD decided to take a single look at our website and determine that we have no support because there are no membership forms or organization charts on the website. It betrays both a willful attempt to denigrate the hundreds of developers and builders that align with Smart Growth Seattle and the thousands of people looking for housing of all types all over the city.

So if you support what we do and the idea that we need more housing, send Mr. Mills an e-mail with “I support Smart Growth Seattle” in the subject line and join your many colleagues and neighbors who are telling DPD what they think about they’re efforts to discredit the work we’re doing.

William.Mills@Seattle.gov

A Sample of Statements of Support for Smart Growth Seattle

I just wanted to make sure you know real people support SGS.  I don’t work for a developer, but I think the most sustainable action our city can take is to make it faster, easier, and cheaper to build as many units as possible in the city limits.  SGS seems to be one of the few organizations working toward this goal.

—

Smart Growth Seattle has been very active in providing reasoned analysis of housing issues.

—

I wanted to let you know that I fully support Smart Growth Seattle. I have been in the Real Estate business since 2004 and would not have a career if it wasn’t for new construction, building, small lot in fill development, and the pioneers backing Smart Growth. They are real and very alive.

—

I just wanted to let you know that I am a real person and not a “Creature of the internet”. I support smart growth Seattle and really appreciate all the hard work they are doing to help the housing market keep up with demand. The market has spoken, and we need more housing!

—

Smart Growth Seattle is well supported in the community. I gather 250 people signed their petition on housing. Personally, I think Roger Valdez and his team are surfacing a valuable perspective in our civic conversation on housing in Seattle.

It would be a shame to discount one of the most data-driven voices in the dialogue.

—

I just wanted to reach out and let you know that Smart Growth Seattle has my (and thousands of others) full support and seems to be the only entity that voice’s logical solutions to Seattle’s growth now and into the future.  Please listen to the voice of SGS.  We need to learn from the mistakes of other fast growing and expensive cities like San Francisco and New York where rents are out of control and development over regulations and rent control are the primary reason behind it.

Let’s make Seattle a city that shows the rest of the country how to do it right.

I totally support and align my business with Smart Growth Seattle.

It is not just a creature of the internet. It is made up of the largest and most active group of in-fill builders in the City of Seattle. If you took the time to see who is a part of Smart Growth Seattle, and the % of projects and new homes that this groups creates, you would be impressed. I would say that well over 50% of the new homes/town homes being developed are by builders associated with Smart Growth Seattle.

—

I’m glad that Roger has taken it upon himself to organize around these smart growth concepts and no, this is not just a made up “creature of the internet” with no real people behind it.  I can only speak for myself of course, but I would guess that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who would agree with these concepts as well. Please let’s all continue to move forward and not let a small angry mob stop the Planning Department from Planning, which is what it’s supposed to do.

—

We need more housing, and we need more housing now. We also need housing to be affordable for our middle and lower class residence who are being priced out of our Great City. Stop catering to the rich by keeping Seattle prices artificially high by stifling our ability to build for the people.

—

Please understand that Smart Growth Seattle is not a “Creature of the Internet” as you’ve stated but rather a large group of Seattle’s leader’s in Housing Development.

Our group consists of a majority of the Builders and Developers that build 90% of all the In-Fill Housing in our great city.

—

I absolutely support Smart Growth Seattle.  I believe they truly are an advocate for Smart Growth in Seattle.

—

It appears as though you are seeking confirmation that there are actual supporters of the Smart Growth Seattle efforts to appeal the City’s proposed changes to Lowrise development. Please count me in as a serious supporter of what Smart Growth is doing and what they represent.

—

I and most or all of the new home builders (that includes apartments, townhomes, row houses and single family) support the work of Smart Growth Seattle.

Why DPD can’t fathom that it is a real entity is beyond me. We finally have an organized structure to represent our concerns. The Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties also fully supports Smart Growth Seattle.

—

I’d like you to take the side of those of us out there beating the bushes every day to make a living and provide affordable housing to the Majority of Seattleites. The work that Smart Growth Seattle does promotes policies for more Housing Options- can’t you see your way to endorse their truly important work.

—

In this case, I respectfully argue that your notion that SGS might be a “creature of the Internet” is incorrect. The many people involved might not carry cards stating their allegiance, but are nonetheless real and deeply engaged, be it in design, development or ownership and, in my time spent working with them I have yet to meet a pretender.

—

Please recognize that as a responsible and sustainable Seattle developer, we rely on Smart Growth Seattle to keep us informed and represent our interests on zoning and legislative issues.  We firmly believe the proposed low rise downzone is a taking of value from property owners and plan to vigorously oppose it.  To that end, we’ll appeal a “for” vote by the council and will look to Roger at Smart Growth to represent us as a group and push for a reasonable solution to this question on zoning.

Seattle needs to encourage responsible growth and Roger is our advocate toward that end.

Please feel to contact me at any time should you want more information on our position regarding this initiative or future zoning questions.

—

I support the efforts of Smart Growth Seattle.  The City’s efforts to downzone L-3 is a mistake and is bad public policy.  We need upzoning to accommodate the rapid growth in our city, not downzoning.

I support Smart Growth in Seattle, I see the need for housing that is affordable for the working class folks to be able to live in the heart of Seattle as well as other surrounding neighborhoods.

—

I don’t know the ins and outs of it, but I heard there was some question as to the legitimacy of Smart Growth Seattle.

I have found it very helpful in making me aware of issues & events that matter a great deal to me as a homeowner and voter in Seattle.

—

The population is increasing in Seattle and more housing is needed.  I build housing.  Feel free to join the builder’s community in Seattle at the MBA dinners or Builder’s Council breakfast to learn what issues we are facing with the DPD and why we support Smart Growth Seattle.

—

Just writing to let you know that my wife and I are supporters of Smart Growth Seattle. We feel strongly that we need to accommodate our city’s growth with more housing. Please consider Smart Growth’s recent appeal.  Thanks for your attention.

—

We need more housing of all types that create vibrant communities. I support Smart Growth Seattle.

—

I absolutely support Smart Growth Seattle.  I believe they truly are an advocate for smart growth in Seattle.

—

Another voter for Smart Growth Seattle.

I am one of many Seattle residents (and I am not a home builder myself) who wants to see more housing built in Seattle.

—

I want to say that Smart Growth Seattle is a real thing I’m one of the local builders and I am very disheartend by how long things are taking to get through the DPD process.

—

Roger Valdez and his colleagues are not alone; they are simply stating the obvious much more clearly and forcefully than is the custom here in Seattle.

—

I read an excerpt from a document filed on behalf of your department that stated that Smart Growth Seattle was more or less a figment of someone’s imagination.  There seems to be a theme at your department of minimization of the builders and developers in Seattle, which is evidenced in such parochial language as “creatures of the internet”.  We are not nameless and faceless nor are the small group of our supporters such as Seattle Smart Growth.

—

Roger has been a great advocate, not only of local builders, but working class people of all classes and color.

—

SmarthGrowth is doing what it can to fill Seattle’s present leadership void that surely, if not filled or re-directed, will cause Seattle to become San Francisco in terms of housing affordability in a few short years.

—

It is not just a creature of the internet. It is made up of the largest and most active group of in-fill builders in the City of Seattle. If you took the time to see who is a part of Smart Growth Seattle, and the % of projects and new homes that this groups creates, you would be impressed. I would say that well over 50% of the new homes/town homes being developed are by builders associated with Smart Growth Seattle.

—

Providing housing for our residents is paramount and I stay extremely involved with research on this subject, and as part of that research I stay close to Smart Growth Seattle.

Smart Growth Seattle is helping many developers, which in turn are helping residents find housing solutions – which is key to the development and health of our city.

Zoning in Seattle – Does It Make Sense?

Seattle, like just about every city small and large in the U.S., has a built environment dictated by a land-use code. We use this code to determine what can be built where, how big or small the building can be, how dense it can be (housing units/X square feet, for example), how much parking is required, etc.

This act of land use dictation is called zoning. And lest you think that this is the way things have always been, think again. Zoning as a tool for cities to control their environments (and dictate to their citizens what they are allowed to do with their land) only got its start in the early 20th century, in the small Ohio town of Euclid. The year was 1926 and Euclid citizens were fed up with the smog and pollution that was being pumped out of the factories – factories that were located right in the city where people lived and worked. It certainly was not a setup conducive to one’s health and happiness – and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. It decreed that it was lawful for Euclid to ban the factories from co-existing with residents, and thus the precedent was set for the segregation of uses from each other, soon adopted by cities across the country.

I use this story to set the context for what I’d really like to talk about, which is zoning in Seattle, and whether or not our land-use policies are contributing in any way to the common good of Seattle’s citizens. After all, shouldn’t that be the goal of zoning? If the powers-that-be determined that we need zoning in order to create the best, most logical, most vibrant built environment possible, then the land-use code ought to do that, right? Take a minute to ponder what your version of a logical land-use map looks like. Where is the housing? What kinds of housing go where (choose from single-family, multifamily, attached, detached)? What about commerce? Offices? Ok, so hopefully now you have a general idea. Want to know what Seattle’s land-use map looks like? Here it is. All of those light yellow squares that dominate the map? That’s land for detached single-family housing only. Minimize lot size: 5,000 square feet. Up to 9,600 square feet. How much land do we devote to this low-density single-use option? About 65%. How does that percentage strike you?

I’ll tell you how it strikes me: it’s completely absurd. It’s way too much. The 5,000 – 9,600 square foot lot is the relic of a small-town, bygone era in this city. Seattle’s 1900 population: 80,000. 1950: 467,000. Today: 650,000. Did it make sense in 1900 to build large suburban-style homes on big lots in a city with lots of land and few people? Sure. But if it made sense 100 years ago, it just doesn’t make sense now.

Consider the housing affordability issue that Seattle is facing right now. We are in the midst of a massive housing crunch as builders race to meet the demand of all those folks wanting to live here. But they face a massive uphill battle because 65% of Seattle is all but off-limits. And when they try to get creative in a way that allows for new development in the single-family zones, the City strikes down their attempt. The obvious truth is that the building of anything other than traditional suburban-style large lot homes in single family zones will upset the politically powerful folks living in those homes today. So nothing gets built there. Ever. We have spilled plenty of ink on this blog about this problem; it is a fear-based reaction to change, coming from folks whose sensibilities will be disturbed by any shift from their current way of life to anything else. The Seattle City Council is sensitive to the desires of these mostly older, white-collar homeowners because they voice their displeasure with elected officials as we all do – with their votes. It’s practically become an oath new council members take upon entering office: “I promise to leave our sacred single family neighborhoods protected and unchanged.”

As such, the fraction of land devoted to multifamily, higher-density development takes the brunt of new housing. And it turns out there are some pretty nasty consequences to shoving all new development onto little slivers of land and freezing the rest in amber. First, it leads to monolithic megastructures. New apartment buildings, for example, often take up whole blocks, as with this Othello megabuilding. They have to, to be profitable for builders who can’t build anywhere else. This can be oppressive visually, creates a less interesting, less vibrant street-level pedestrian experience, and reduces the usefulness potential of retail, because the developer is less likely to split up the ground floor into small retail spaces where independent shops, cafes and restaurants might take up residence. Bigger retail space = increased probability it will be a chain store.

Second, limiting development to small slivers of land (think Pike/Pine in Capitol Hill or Stone Way in Fremont) reduces walkable urbanism in the surround area. Seattle’s pattern is to stuff all commerce onto one busy street, and return immediately to single-use residential zoning the minute you move one block over. This limits the potential for truly mixed-use, vibrant neighborhoods.

The third and quite possibly most damning consequence of such aggressive land-use segregation is that it destroys potential housing diversity. Seattle’s zoning policies have largely distilled our housing styles to two options: apartment buildings and detached single family. When you think Seattle-style home, do you picture a Craftsman offset from the sidewalk and popped up from the street? Me too. Yes, there are a handful of townhouses being built, and the occasional rowhouse or cottage, but these housing types are exceptions to the rule. Which brings us back to the original question: Is it right to be setting aside 65% of our land to a single housing style, especially one that discourages density, increases suburban sprawl, limits residential growth potential, and deters smart people from keeping their brains in Seattle? Because this is largely the cause of the monoculture of housing types. You can’t build a rowhouse in a single family zone but you can’t make that rowhouse financially feasible in a multifamily zone.

Of course Seattle’s single family neighborhoods will never completely disappear, nor should they. They do provide a unique housing option that is attractive to a lot of people. But for the sake of the folks who don’t want to live in a detached craftsman home with a big yard, or folks that can’t afford to, it is imperative that Seattle reduces that 65% to a more reasonable number, and re-zones the rest of the land as multifamily of one form or another (residential small-lot, LR2, LR3, etc.). The Council knows the vast benefits of housing diversity – how it stratifies housing costs and creates affordability for all income levels, encourages heterogeneous cultures, ethnicities and demographics, and provides a more interesting built environment. That’s why they changed the code four years ago to encourage such development. But four years on, the evidence is clear: meaningful amounts of different housing types (rowhouses, cottages, townhomes) aren’t being built because most of our land is off limits to them.

There is great potential in Seattle to diversify our housing stock. We recently tackled one such innovation, the perimeter block house, at SGS. But these new kinds of homes simply won’t be built in any meaningful quantity until we stop prioritizing a single (anachronistic) housing style over all others. So in the name of equality, sustainability, and diversity, let’s take another look at the zoning map and come up with changes that will lead to a more sensible and vibrant built environment.

Eastlake Neighbors Tell You How to Live

This KING 5 story pretty much says it all. Councilmember Mike O’Brien is trying to make these neighbors happy by mandating how microhousing projects are organized and built. What it amounts to is a mandate about how people should live and what they should be forced to pay for. Do you want people in Eastlake telling you how many sinks and how much space you should live in?

IZ and Inclusion: It’s Time to Move on to Better Ideas

Update: here’s a statement from CHHIP’s Communications office.

It is incorrect to say that the Capitol Hill Housing board is no longer endorsing this policy. The board decided not to take a position on either side of incentive or inclusionary zoning policy.

Recently the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program (CHHIP) decided they are no longer endorsing incentive and inclusionary policy to create affordable housing. Is it possible that even non-profit housing agencies are seeing the light on these bad policies?

Over the course of the first half of this year we’ve spent a lot of time informing the press and public why Incentive Zoning (IZ) and inclusionary zoning are tools that won’t work and the problem they are intended to fix is one we don’t have.

Here’s a summary.

Incentive Zoning

Wrong Tool

• Doesn’t create very much housing (about 600 units)
• Adds costs and risk that make it a disincentive
• The Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Creates lots more housing (Over 3,000 in 2013 alone)
• Consultants have validated that IZ projects are usually infeasible over 85 feet
• Capitalization rates that used by consultants that suggest higher IZ fees are far too low and depend on future housing scarcity; cap rates are the wrong measure for planning housing policy

Wrong Problem

• There is no housing crisis for people earning 60 to 80 percent of Area Median Income
• The real problem is for people who are poor, earning 50 percent or less of Area Median income and families

Inclusionary Zoning

Wrong Tool

• Functions as rent control and is therefore inflationary

Wrong Problem

• Seattle’s subsidized housing is not segregated by neighborhood
• And even if it were, inclusionary zoning wouldn’t solve that problem

The evidence against the continued use of Incentive Zoning is overwhelming; it is a policy that will neither lower prices nor help poor people. Instead it adds costs and risks to market rate housing that is currently meeting the demand for housing for people earning 60 to 80 percent Area Median Income.

It’s time to stop and come up with a better analysis of our housing challenge as we plan for coming growth. Smart Growth Seattle has gathered 250 signers for our petition calling for a comprehensive housing plan.

Let’s stop policies that would reverse microhousing development, building in our low-rise zones, and increases in fees on new growth and let’s come up with a plan!