Burgess: New Housing Not Meaningful?
- He is a strong proponent of the City’s concentrated density strategy, which focuses our development efforts on designated urban centers, urban villages and transit station areas.
LU67 Permit exceptions to minimum lot size requirements to recognize building sites created in the public records under previous codes, to allow the consolidation of very small lots into larger lots, to adjust lot lines to permit more orderly development patterns, and to provide housing opportunity through the creation of additional buildable sites which are compatible with surrounding lots and do not result in the demolition of existing housing.
- Single family zones are not the most efficient zones to target for new development to achieve greater density and affordability. The number of additional development sites created through the proposed exception is not likely to meaningfully add to the overall supply of housing in the City.
We agree. That’s why we proposed the 80 Percent Rule which would have created as many as 1000 developable lots all over the city. However, we compromised to the 100 percent rule. If Councilmember Burgess truly wants to “meaningfully add to the overall supply of housing in the city,” perhaps he’ll propose the 80 percent rule as an amendment. If not, why would he opposed 250 more homes. We think for the 250 families that won’t have that opportunity to live in Seattle the loss will be, contrary to Councilmember Burgess’ rationale, meaningful.
- Adding a new exception to minimum lot sizes in single family zones runs counter to the original goals of this legislation, which were to limit the use of lesser-known provisions in the land use code to build development often out-of-scale with the neighborhood.
Seattle’s entire land use code is a spaghetti of confusing rules and amendment by reference. We would agree that this legislation doesn’t meet the goal of making things more understandable. But does Councilmember Burgess understand that the code is riven with exceptions, including the underlying legislation he voted for in committee? Without exceptions virtually no building would go on in the city. If the Councilmember is willing to take on a major revision of the code to make it easy and clear to understand for everyone, we’re on board. Until then, the 100 percent exception is a helpful if modest improvement that makes small-lot development more predictable and scalable.
- New homes created through the exception are not likely to further other Comprehensive Plan goals, such as providing housing affordable to middle and lower income households.
This is simply false. In fact, small homes are far more affordable and energy efficient than larger, older homes. Dwell Development, for example, is building new passivhaus single-family homes for $500,000 to $600,000 right near light rail in the Rainier Valley.
- Making this change gives neighborhoods a sour taste of density when they could be allies in supporting smart, concentrated density.
This is like saying seeing an ugly car would lead me to be against driving. We’ve heard this argument before and I think that someone who is opposed to these homes is likely opposed to these homes because they’re worried about change. Denying people the opportunity to find a new home or a builder to create new jobs because a few people (remember the Councilmember points out there aren’t that many new homes being created) seems like a misallocation of utility in favor of the few over the many.
- New land use code provisions often come with unintended consequences; the effects of this new provision are still too unclear to be fully understood.
The effects are pretty clear: 250 new buildable lots that will create at least that many homes. The only thing we don’t have an exact number for is how many jobs and sales tax revenue will be created by the new housing being built. Perhaps these might be “unintended consequences” but it’s hard to argue that 250 new homes, with height limits, set backs, and a minimum lot size requirement would be a bad thing.
Jim Potter: Builder, Innovator, and Leader
WHO is the happy Warrior? Who is he
What every man in arms should wish to be?
—It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his childish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That makes the path before him always bright:
Who, with a natural instinct to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn,
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there,
But makes his moral being his prime care.
The words are from Wordsworth’s poem The Happy Warrior, a poem that describes a life many of us would want to emulate. The thought is for someone the poem could have been written about, Jim Potter. Jim died on Tuesday, May 6 after the very rapid onset of cancer.
I came to know Jim because of our work on microhousing. His booming voice over the phone, his imposing presence, and his sense for the numbers and basics of the business were inspiring to me. Jim was always confident that if Councilmembers or others in government simply understood the facts, they’d eventually come around. He was confident in his cause and the cause of building the city.
Contrary to what many think, developers don’t usually gather together and plot and strategize. But it was Jim’s leadership that convened the first gathering of microhousing developers to start thinking through how to preserve microhousing from the sustained attack from its opponents in and out of City Hall. Jim that encouraged me to pursue Smart Growth Seattle full time. And it was Jim that inspired the confidence among others to invest the resources to get me started as full time director this year.
It was just before our kickoff presentation to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce’s Community Development Round Table (CDRT) that I first heard Jim was sick. He wasn’t going to be able to make it to the lunch meeting because he wasn’t feeling well. That seemed odd to me at the time. He must have a really bad case of the flu, because Jim wasn’t the kind of guy to not show up to something so important that he set up. Later, as the weeks went by, we discovered how seriously ill Jim was.
And yet my phone would still ring and Jim would be on the line to talk about what we should do next or how we could gather more support for the cause. Jim would get annoyed and agitated at where the discussion on land use and housing was going in the city, but he was never cynical; he was always looking for a way to solve the problem. I know that his thoughts until the end were about his family and his work and those of us out here doing our share the work everyday.
Jim is a big part of the reason that I am here doing this job. He was an inspiration. He encouraged me to take a chance on something new by pointing out that I’ve got what it takes to handle any of the downsides. I started thinking bigger and making different plans for my work because he said I could. He was an enabler of taking risks on good things. And I am not alone; there are many people out there who Jim guided, mentored, and encouraged. His voice will continue to be the one we hear in our heads when things get tough, or something goes wrong; don’t give up, you’ll find a way to make it work.
The final words of the poem could be Jim’s epitaph:
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven’s applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is he
Whom every Man in arms should wish to be.
James B. Potter
September 23, 1955 – May 6, 2014
James B. “Jim” Potter, Seattle area real estate developer, passed away on May 6, 2014 in the loving presence of his family and close friends after a graceful and thankfully short battle with cancer.
A Seattle native Jim, attended Te Aroha College in New Zealand (1972-73), then graduated from Nathan Hale (1974) and the University of Washington (1978). He completed a BA in business administration with a concentration on finance and urban development. Jim married Rebecca Ann Potter in 1980 and is survived by her, their three grown children: Wesley, Jayred and Lisa-Baylee, his mother and father (Bill and Joan Potter) brother Doug (Karen) sister Jill, plus an aunt, cousins, nieces and nephews. Jim’s family resides in Snohomish, Washington.
Throughout his life Jim demonstrated both remarkable business acumen and a commitment to family that resulted in career success and work life balance. Many looked up to Jim, emulated his personal drive as well as his clarity of priorities. He always put his family first, frequently taking them on adventures from scouting camping trips to a year spent in South America. “Jim began his housing career early, in our back yard with a three-story tree house in one tree and a 20-foot bridge to another tree house in another tree,” said his sister Jill. He was about 12 years old at the time.
Jim started his career as a sales agent in residential and commercial real estate sales in 1974 with a concentration on multi-family land and buildings. In 1984, he established a real estate development company of multi-family properties and as the business grew, in 1987 he founded and was chairman of Kauri Investments, Ltd. “As anyone who knew Jim knows, he was a planner and forward thinker,” said Kent Angier, president and CEO of Kauri Investments, Ltd. “After being diagnosed he spent his last three months as he lived – divided between his family and friends and putting his affairs in order so that his businesses could live long beyond him. Jim was larger than life in so many ways and has been both an inspiration and mentor to me and more people than I can count in both how he lived as a family man and how he did business.”
Jim had many areas of expertise that include: the Growth Management Act, City of Seattle Zoning Code, investment strategies, permit processing, multi-family construction, building rehabilitation and property management.
His family operating company, La Serena Holdings, is an asset management company involved in more than 50 real estate projects from Olympia to Burlington, Washington. La Serena also manages several operating companies, including Lynnwood Bowl and Skate and the Seattle Hostel at the American Hotel. Jim also founded Footprint Investments LLC as the brand for micro-housing that he has been developing for the past several years in the greater Seattle area and now is expanding in Portland, Oregon and Oakland, California. In 2013 he hired Cathy Reines as the Footprint CEO. Jim often said of micro-housing, “I feel like all my 40 years is real estate have led to micro-housing, to be able to change the way for people to live in cities.” “Jim gave us the foundation to fulfill his vision to drive micro-housing globally,” said Reines.
“Jim was one of the most creative real estate developers that I’ve ever had the privilege of working with,” said Dan Piantanida, vice president of G.P. Realty Finance. “He always had the ability to find niches that were not being served by traditional real estate developers. It was that instinct that was one of the main factors leading to the birth of micro- housing. He was a dear friend and mentor, and I miss him tremendously.”
Erin Scannell, business associate and close friend said, “I was attracted to Jim because of his desire to have a positive impact on people’s lives. For example, his love for travel as a means to experience going out of your comfort zone to see how other people live and bringing them into his life as well. I cannot count the number of times Jim would meet someone new at a meeting, on a plane trip, on a chamber mission or some other trip and next thing you knew he would be telling Rebecca he had invited them to dinner, or to stay at their home during their visit to Seattle. Jim was also interested to know peoples’ life “stories”. Even in the hospital, he would ask all the caregivers their names, where they were from, to talk about their families.”
In business he didn’t do the same successful thing over and over. He would see things that no one else saw and with that created many successful businesses. When I would ask him why he did so many different things he always said ‘I’m having fun with it.’”
His community involvement included the Boards of WellSpring Family Services of King County and America for 15 years, Master Builders of King and Snohomish County; including as its President in 2006, Boy Scouts of America, Seattle Rotary, Associates in Cultural Exchange (ACE), Seattle Academies Foundation, the board of directors of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber, Washington State Affordable Housing Advisory Board, ACE, the Burke Museum and variety of other civic engagements. Jim was a long-term Seattle Rotarian and served as co-chair of the Sustainability Committee.
A memorial will be held at a later date. In lieu of flowers donations will be appreciated to Boy Scouts of America (http://www.seattlebsa.org/), WellSpring Family Services (http://wellspringfs.org/), Nature Bridge (http://www.naturebridge.org/), or Associates in Cultural Exchange (http://www.cultural.org/).
Small-Lot Compromise Passes PLUS Test, but What About Burgess?
Today the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee took the next to last step in finalizing small-lot legislation. It’s been almost two years now since the City Council passed legislation shutting down development on historic lots, promising to create legislation that would clarify existing code so that infill development in single-family neighborhoods could continue. The legislation passed yesterday afternoon by the PLUS Committee didn’t make huge strides in making the code easier to understand, but it did resolve the historic lot issue and create the basis for building of new single-family homes to continue. You can read a great summary of the legislation by Erica Barnett at Publicola.
Unfortunately, the legislation did not include the passage of the 80 Percent Rule, something we’ve been making a case for since early 2013. We always believed–and still do–that the 80 Percent Rule would have made the code easier to understand for everyone, including builders and neighbors. The 80 Percent Rule would have allowed development on lots 80 percent of the average of all the lots on a block. We supported a height limit of 22 feet for flat roofs and 27 for pitched roofs with a minimum developable lot size of 2500 square feet. Our proposal included set backs as well.
What passed the committee instead is an exception for lots 100 percent of the block face with the same conditions. This proposal made it through the committee but with the noticeable objection of Councilmember Tim Burgess who wasn’t quite clear on what his concerns about the 100 exemption are. He did say the proposal wouldn’t create that many new lots, maybe up to 250 new developable lots. And he also expressed concern about a new exemption being added to the code.
But here’s the thing about both of those points.
First, if the number of new lots created is small then why opposed the new exception. Clearly this is a modest exception that won’t create thousands of new issues all over the city. Instead, the 100 percent rule is a compromise that allows some new homes to be created. And these new homes would have all the limits we suggested in the 80 Percent Rule, height limits, set backs, and a minimum lot size of 2500 feet. This was noted in the meeting by Councilmember Clark who pointed out the minimum lot size to Councilmember Burgess. Also, if Councilmember Burgess wants more housing he should amend the legislation to support an 80 percent exception like we proposed: that would add as many as 700 more new homes. But the current legislation is a compromise, from 80 percent to 100 percent.
The second concern raised by Councilmember Burgess had to do with creating a new exception. But the Councilmember didn’t seem to understand he already supported an exception in the code when he voted for the maintenance of the 75/80 rule, which allows development on lots that are 75 percent of the zone and 80 percent of the block face. Councilmember Clark also pointed this out to him. But that didn’t stop Burgess from saying he’d try to amend the legislation in full Council to eliminate the 100 percent rule.
And keep in mind that this new exception includes limits that anyone using it would have to meet including the heigh limits, set backs, and minimum lot size. Even with the 100 rule, this legislation limits lot sizes for the exception to 2500 square feet. Since the size of the lot tracks to other nearby lots and includes limits on size and only creates a couple hundred lots it’s a bit baffling why Councilmember Burgess would pursue a change at full council.
I have a call in to Burgess’ office to get an answer about that, and I’ll report back here what I learn.
One other piece of good news is that the noticing requirements pushed by Councilmember Gerry Pollet didn’t make the cut either. These requirements would just add costs and hassle to building new homes. However, the legislation calls for separate action or legislation to deal with that.
Left and Right Agree: $15 Should Mean More Housing Supply!
A recent article in the National Review about Seattle’s recent embrace of a $15 minimum wage (eventually) cites a housing study completed by the Wharton School of Business in 2007. The study conducted by economist Joseph Gyourko, includes an index based on the regulatory environment in cities across the United States. The higher the number, the harder it is to build housing.
| Seattle | 2.39 |
| Honolulu | 2.32 |
| Austin | 2.08 |
| Los Angeles | 2 |
| San Francisco | 1.96 |
| San Diego | 1.59 |
| Phoenix | 1.24 |
| Raleigh | 1.02 |
| Atlanta | 0.7 |
| Denver | 0.49 |
| Miami | 0.36 |
| Charlotte | -0.08 |
| Dallas | -0.14 |
| Las Vegas | -0.34 |
| Chicago | -1.15 |
The author of the post, Reihan Salam, is writing for a right leaning journal and pointing out that even with the big boost in minimum wages in Seattle (eventually), with housing costs being so high much of the benefit will be consumed by housing costs. And those costs are sure to rise as long as we make it hard to build housing here.
As you can see, residential land-use regulation is very stringently regulated in Seattle, or rather it was when the index was constructed in the mid-2000s. Seattle’s local land-use regulations are actually more stringent than San Francisco’s. This contributes to high housing costs in Seattle. When the Census Bureau developed its cost-of-living index for U.S. cities, using a “mid-management standard of living” as its reference point, it found that housing costs 140.3 percent as much in Seattle as the nationwide average. This is far less than in San Francisco (281 percent), but it is quite high all the same.
Yes, he is a skeptic writing for an outlet founded by William F. Buckley, so it must be suspect. But he’s pointing out what we’ve been saying all along, it might feel good to say you’ve raised the minimum wage, but without addressing the many rules and regulations that conspire to reduce housing supply, it may not be such a big win. In fact, pushing up wages with out addressing housing supply is a recipe for more inequity, with minimum wage earners forfeiting more of their new earnings toward scarce housing.
Just a few days later, though, the New York Times Magazine (an unassailable source for Seattle’s liberals) ran an article called Rent Asunder by Shaila Dewan, about housing economics. Here’s what the Times had to say about housing and housing price:
Today, cities that want to actually solve their housing problems will have to stomach . . . forms of psychic dislocation, not necessarily for those being housed, but those with strong ideas about their city should look and fell like. Many of the things that we cherish most about urban living are the very things that we cherish most about urban living are the very things that make housing more expensive.
The article goes on to quote recently elected New York Mayor Bill de Blasio saying that affordability is “going to take a willingness to use height and density to the maximum feasible extent.”
So while we might pat ourselves on the back about raising the minimum wage both right and left agree: we need to make room for growth in our cities. All the process, review, even if it isn’t motivated from people just trying to stop things from happening, won’t help lower prices. And if we resist new housing because it is different, dense, too tall, too small, or blocks our view of the winter light, we’re consigning more people to a struggle to find a place to live.
Microhousing Design Review: Exploding Sinks, Misallocated Mailboxes, and Ugly Rhetoric
- “exacerbating traffic and parking congestion and creating unmitigated population pressures upon local transit, area parks, and other public facilities;”
- dangers include “public health, fire, and explosion risk” because each living area only has one sink;
- “Public safety and neighborhood impacts from the transient nature of many of the proposed building’s residents. The City has erroneously accepted the proponents’ claim that all residents would be “non-transient;”and
- “Fails to analyze the negative impacts of locating the mail box lobby at the proposed building’s alley entrance, instead of taking the design review board’s recommendation that the mail box lobby be located at its Eastlake Avenue entrance.“
Oh, and the neighbors claim that the City got the number of rooms wrong: there are actually 115, not 113. That’s right, if they were right, the basis of the appeal is a difference of two rooms in the project.
The first point, parking, is irrelevant since no parking is required and again and again lease information from real tenants of microhousing show that two-thirds to three-quarters of residents don’t even own a car. And common sense would tell you that if a product doesn’t have parking it won’t attract buyers who own cars; they’d rent somewhere else.
The exploding sink canard is one that Councilmember Tom Rasmussen perpetuated in his microhousing memo last summer. As Scott Schapiro pointed out in his letter to Council, many living facilities already have only one sink; it’s a common practice all over the Earth and all over the city.
Criticism of code words and language publicly here and by Dominic Holden at The Stranger hasn’t stopped Chris Leman from making a bigoted and ugly characterization of future residents. Microhousing tenants generally stay in their homes for about 14 months, and that is data collected from real tenants. Besides, what difference does it make. The supposition that Leman makes in his letter is that because some one is “transient” they will commit senseless crimes and unleash havoc on the unsuspecting neighbors. Using this objection is more about stoking fear among residents than making any substantiated point against microhouisng.
And then there is the mail box lobby location. How anyone could argue that the location of the mail boxes will “adversely affect the lives, and livelihoods” of Eastlake residents is completely a mystery since there is not substantiation for what this means and why this “issue” should trigger a full environmental review. Leman’s appeal is mostly propaganda to stoke fear and anger among neighbors using a bogus appeal which will almost certainly fail. The only thing required to file such an appeal is a key board and a heart full of malice.
And speaking of malice, here’s a segment of an e-mail sent to Councilmember Sally Clark about a different microhousing project. It reads, in part:
To Sally Clark :These unnecessary, atrocious properties are moving forward without a design review and environmental impact study all over Capitol Hill is shameless. Are you spending time in the community to witness the increases in height allowances are disproportionate to the look and feel of entire blocks. Our lovely community is losing the appeal, charm and attraction for steady income, responsible, professional homeowners all for the ugly box and transient renter. Has there been a study to satisfy we have reached density capacity already? What are your facts and when do you define enough already? Why would you diminish the value the current homeowner and idea revenue infused in the community over the transient renters?I am one of the victims of support for a five story building on Harvard Avenue East and I am going to continue to be extremely vocal until my neighbors and I are fully heard. The fact that we continue to be ignored and the council fails to conduct an official review of building height and environmental study for the planned Harvard Avenue East is unconscionable. The amount of garbage that will accumulate, the contribution to the drug use already thriving on Capitol Hill.LeRoy LaneyHomeowner for 6 years
