Today at 4:30 the first meeting of the microhousing working group will convene at the Seattle Municipal Tower. Smart Growth Seattle members will be represented on the committee. I’ll be watching from the sidelines, and in fact, I have to leave early. But below are my answers to three questions that will be the topic of conversation in the committee this afternoon. Microhousing will be in good hands being represented by our builders, and they will be open minded about ideas that will make microhousing in our city better.

My own view is pretty guarded. As I’ve pointed out before, most of the opposition to microhousing is based entirely on red herrings, objections that are simply made up stuff to make a really good product go away. What’s the motivation for the loaded rhetoric and code language from opponents? I have no idea, but if the legislation proposed by the Department of Planning and Development was implemented a very important product that is the envy of other cities across the country would be lost.

During my recent visit to the Twin Cities I spoke with leading non-profit agencies trying to figure out to use microhousing as a solution to the growing demand for housing there. They want what we already have and what some neighborhood people are fighting, often because they don’t like the “transient” nature of the people who would live in microhousing. The ugly rhetoric coming largely these days from Eastlake is an embarrassment for our city that prides itself on its progressivism.

But I’ll hold my fire and let the leadership of Councilmember Mike O’Brien do its work. I truly hope some solutions emerge out of the workgroup that will result in broader acceptance of microhousing and limit legislative interference in what’s already working well.

Meanwhile here is how I’d answer the questions that will be discussed this afternoon.

• What role do you think microhousing is currently playing in our housing market? What role do you think it should play?

Currently meeting the demand from people who want to live in some of Seattle’s best neighborhoods (places with lots of transit, amenities, jobs, and people) but who don’t need or want lots of space or parking. These customers are consciously exchanging paying for extra space in their apartment for the benefit of living in a neighborhood that suits them. Not everyone wants to own or pay for an Escalade; some people are happy with a Smart Car.

Microhousing should continue to meet this demand.

• What form(s) do you think Micro-housing units should take in Seattle? And why?

Sleeping rooms with some kitchen amenities clustered around a full common kitchen.

This is the most buildable option and it’s the one that customers want. If customers wanted full kitchens or other amenities developers would build them that way because customers would be willing to pay for those extras. These units serve the customers we have and they aren’t demanding anything else. It’s kind of like a Costco nightmare where a person goes into a grocery store to buy a single can of Diet Coke, but is forced to pay for and consume an entire case. If the time ever comes when people who actually live in microhousing demand two sinks and a stove in their units, they’ll find another place to live and the price of microhousing will drop even lower.

Very small, self-contained studio units (with complete bathrooms and kitchens).

These can already be built but they are more expensive to build. If the intention is abolish microhousing then the council can certainly do that. The legislation concocted by DPD would have accomplished this by incenvitizing the building of studio apartments.  Abolishing microhousing and forcing the building of larger apartments isn’t going to phase developers or hurt their feelings; they’ll build what the code allows. But it’s the people looking for housing that will suffer when they have to buy bigger apartments than they need or want, and they might just choose to live in another city.

Congregate residences or dorms – sleeping rooms with some kitchen amenities and access to one or more full common kitchen spaces.

Someone at DPD must have decided that only college students should live in microhousing. This is one of the more strange outcomes of a DPD staff that seems to be just making things up as they go. It’s confusing why the authors of the legislation felt that microhousing units should only be lived in by college students. Certainly some people living in microhousing are students, but not all and certainly that shouldn’t be a requirement. It’s another example of the paucity of leadership at DPD (Diane Sugimura hasn’t attended a single meeting of the PLUS Committee since the beginning of this year, hasn’t attended other meetings with community members, and hasn’t even returned phone calls). Let’s hope this idea is thrown out by the work group.

• Based on this discussion, should the city require all congregate residence projects to either be associated with an institutional use or provide supportive housing? Why or why not?

Some forms of microhousing had their origins in congregate living arrangements intended to be supportive for people in recovery or recently released from prison. This is a great use for microhousing, and many agencies already use this kind of housing option to create privacy but the also the support that comes from living together with other people in transition or recovery.

One group of people that faces the steepest housing challenge in our community is felons; they may have overcome their demons, secured a good job, and sustained recovery but can’t find a place to live at any price because of their record. I love the idea of transitional housing for people exiting the prison system that uses the microhousing model to make living more affordable especially for felons who are working their way back into a regular life. Something tells me that wouldn’t be embraced by most neighborhoods around here.

I think all sides are hopeful for what the work group might accomplish, and we’ll keep a close eye on their work and report on it here.