Consider Using $149 Million for Housing on City Owned Land, Not Precinct
Hello Counclmember O’Brien and Sawant,
Thank you for your vote, Councilmember O’Brien, against the $149 million dollar precinct building.
I find it bewildering that the City is about to spend that kind of money on that kind of project. It is one building.
Not that long ago, City staff found that Councilmember Sawant’s proposal to build housing on City owned land using it’s bonding authority would have an annual operating deficit of about $1.3 million. While most of us familiar with affordable housing financing found the staff work somewhat incurious and desultory (i.e. there was no effort to conceive of a Low Income Housing Tax Credits and lower AMI. And yes, I know that was not the explicit direction of the SLI) here’s the numbers on a 100 unit project.
Also from the report (you can look at the report here):
A summary of the key assumptions underlying this analysis follows:
- 100 units (20 studios, 30 1-bedrooms, 30 2-bedrooms, 20 3-bedrooms)
- 34 units restricted at 80% AMI; 33 units restricted at 60% AMI; 33 units restricted at 50% AMI (distributed proportionally by size)
- Vacancy rate: 5%
- Annual Operating expense: $5,000 per unit (assumes property tax exemption)
- Per unit development cost: $231,400 to $330,750 depending on unit size
- Land cost: $0
I find it unconscionable that at a time when we have people living under bridges and in their cars that the City is moving ahead with such a gigantic capital expenditure. I can’t think of who or what the constituency would be for doing this. Furthermore, the City is proposing and passing what I consider to be horrible legislation to wring money out of for profit development, the MHA -R, a move that will only make housing prices worse.
Meanwhile we have a proposal with wide support in the community to build housing on City owned land. As you can see, if you do the math, the $149,000,000 would build over 500 units of housing based on the City’s unleveraged pro forma. That would include currently scarce 2 and 3 bedroom units. Imagine how many we could build if we added in LIHTC, Housing Trust Fund (HTF) dollars, levy dollars and, while we’re at it, in lieu funds from Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning.
Your colleagues are behaving irresponsibly.
I would ask that you:
- Redirect staff to complete a more thorough analysis of the use of bonding authority to build on City owned land that includes scenarios serving households earning less than 50 percent AMI;
- Determine whether any of the resources being used for the North Precinct could be used to back bonds or in some other way be used to support building housing on City owned land;
- Consider how any of these resources could be use for rapid response housing solutions like paying parking fines for people who’s home is their car, or solving other short term housing crises;
- Reduce the size and scope of the precinct project and consider including housing as part of the project; and
- Whatever resources are used for the precinct that they be conditioned on the completion of the completion of the items above by a third party not City staff.
Many people are unhappy about this decision to spend so much money on the precinct especially at a time when a judge is criticizing the actions of the Seattle Police Department. I understand that the funds being used may not be fungible. However, such a massive expenditure at this time should not be taken lightly when our city is in the middle of what people are calling a housing crisis.
Safety is part of being great city, but I don’t think your colleagues have made a very good case to the people of this city that this expenditure will help make us safer.
Again, thanks for your important vote “No” on this project. I hope you’ll consider some of these ideas.
Roger–
