Herbold on MIZ: The Bargain Will Only Get Worse
I think there are some people who still think that somehow the Mayor’s Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) can be improved. I think there are even some in the building and development community that believe a compromise on MIZ is possible. Maybe. It depends on the principles held when a person or group walks through the door. I’ve outlined what, if I was asked to negotiate with the City, what I would start with.
I’d add two important things to keep in mind: whatever “deal” that might get struck with Mayoral staffers will be unlikely to hold together for long once the City Council gets involved. I’ve already pointed this out before, and it is rather elementary. For example, Mike O’Brien promised that upzones associated with MIZ might happen “over here” a little “over there,” and maybe none “way over there.” So even, hypothetically, bargaining for lower fees or more zoning or whatever might lead to a “deal,” but that agreement is likely to be the high water mark. The Council will start improvising almost immediately.
Clearly, that means worse policy. The most obvious thing Councilmembers will do, along with pulling back on upzones where neighbors scream the loudest, they’ll also likely dial up fees and inclusion requirements. Already word on the street is that the rates of inclusion and the fees are not nearly high enough. The rate of inclusion of rent restricted housing should be like San Franciscos, above 20 percent. If a 5, 6, or 7 percent rate of inclusion is too high and makes projects infeasible, just imagine what a 20 percent inclusion requirement would do to supply and overall price. In Councilmember Herbold’s response to our recent request for builders to speak up about MIZ, she responded with an e-mail I am posting below.
Her first amendment proposal, while more hortatory than prescriptive, is the opening shot at trying to push up rates of inclusion by trying to develop some kind of one for one replacement formula for existing “lost” affordable units. How will the City decide how much housing is “lost” and how much of a fee to charge is a mystery. And the idea that expensive housing is being built by flattening affordable housing is just as much a red herring as it has always been. But Herbold promised a crowd in the U District opposing upzones there that she’d find a way to stop or slow development of new housing if it displaced existing housing.
She said:
I am going to introduce a policy that will look at future proposed upzones and their displacement impacts on communities as a way to identify strategies to mitigate those displacement impacts; whether or not that means funding for additional services to make those neighborhoods more resilient; whether or not it is a way to disincentivize the development that causes the displacement or a way to replace the housing that is removed.
As I have said before, Herbold is perhaps the savviest and most determined and effective member the Council has. And as you’ll read below she also keeps her promises. But disincentivizing development of housing in the name keeping some housing cheap doesn’t make any sense economically even though it’s pablum for the angry people who don’t want anything to change.
I’ll just post this graph and say again that there is no displacement crisis in Seattle and older, less expensive units are being taken down they are being replaced by lots and lots more housing. If we want prices to be lower the best thing we can do is build lots more housing.
—————–
Dear Constituent,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Mandatory Housing Affordability framework legislation that is currently before the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee (PLUZ). I appreciate hearing from you about our efforts to develop a new tool to insure that all development in the City includes a contribution to affordable housing. I believe that this policy should strive to strike a balance between requiring onsite performance (resulting in affordable housing being included within the development) and in lieu fee payment (resulting in even more affordable housing being built offsite – in a diversity of neighborhoods – through the ability of the MHA-R fee to leverage additional funding).
This issue comes before the PLUZ Committee again on July 19. Amendments will be discussed at that meeting and they may be voted on as well. If not, then at the next PLUZ meeting on August 2. Materials about the proposal as well as video of previous meeting discussions on July 8th and June 21 can be found here:
Please sign up for agendas to continue to track this issue. To do so, you can use the following link:
http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/agenda-sign-up.
I intend to propose amendments to this legislation is as follows:
- “The Council intends to consider whether to include higher performance and payment amounts for those areas that have been identified as having a high displacement risk and high access to opportunity in Seattle 2035, Growth and Equity, Analyzing Impacts on Displacement and Opportunity Related to Seattle’s Growth Strategy, May 2016. For these areas, the Council will consider whether, subject to statutory limits, performance and payment amounts should be established that result in a total number of new affordable units that meet minimum program parameters contemplated by the July 13, 2015, Statement of Intent for Basic Framework for Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and Commercial Linkage Fee plus a number of units equal to those affordable units identified through planning processes as being at risk of displacement.”
- If a rental unit is provided through the performance option and it is converted to a condominium, the tenant should be offered the option to purchase the unit as an affordable homeownership option.
- Additional language to promote permanent affordability of homeownership units developed with MHA-R funds
Andra Kranzler is the staff person in my office who handles mandatory housing affordability. If you have further questions or concerns, she will be happy to follow up with you.
Again, thank you for writing to me regarding this important issue.
Sincerely,
Lisa Herbold
District 1 Councilmember, Chair Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development, and Arts Committee
