Our Response to Proposed Housing Strategy Committee
August 6, 2014
Dear Councilmember Clark,
Thank you for proposing a resolution to create a Comprehensive Housing Strategy Advisory Committee. We think this is a step in the right direction since we have called for the City Council to develop a comprehensive housing plan[1]. Attached you will the find the names of the many people who signed our petition.
They want a comprehensive plan using an array of tools to create housing for people at all levels of income in our city and coming to our city in future years. For it to comprehensive, any strategy must address more than just “affordable housing,” a problematic term (see below). Has the Council discussed this committee effort with the Mayor’s office or does this take the place of his committee?
We’ve also attached our Ideas for Change: Seattle’s Housing Future, a document that catalogs the many ideas for how we can improve housing availability, choice, and price in our city.
We have some specific thoughts about the resolution.
What does “affordable” mean?
First, and probably most important, we urge you to review current literature and best practice on the definition of affordable housing[2]. The history of the term will show you that the idea that housing is affordable when a household spends 30 percent of less of its income on housing is entirely arbitrary, starting as a 19th century prescription of “one weeks wages” per month for housing and then being changed in the early 1980s to 30 percent.
We need a better measure of what we mean by “affordable,” and until we come up with one, we should be careful how we use the term. That word, affordable, is a qualitative measure that is about a household or person’s relationship to price. All housing is affordable to someone.
Notwithstanding the iron clad HUD standard, what does the City of Seattle see as a prescriptive, normative standard for measuring when a person needs help with housing or other residual costs of living[3]. Seattle could lead the country in proposing a new baseline measurement of what we mean when we say, “affordable housing.[4]”
Remove the assumptions about need.
The resolution should remove all quantitative assumptions about where there is “the greatest need for assistance.” We have found that data from King County and the City do not support the statement that there is scarcity in the housing market for housing priced so a household earning 60 to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). On the contrary, today, the market is doing pretty well producing housing at that price
The problem appears to be a scarcity of housing for households at lower levels of income, 50, 40, 30 percent and lower of AMI[5]. By putting this assumption in the resolution you will have already created a fundamental disagreement between stakeholders and validated a gross misreading of housing need in the City. Instead, please make the current measure of affordability and identifying the greatest need, a topic for the Committee to discuss and examine using all available data.
Many existing policies are working, especially MFTE[6]
We disagree with the implications of lines 17 through 23 that “existing policies are unlikely to provide the number of affordable units that will be required.” We oppose this language because, first, we need to decide what we think affordable is, and second, some of the programs like the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) actually can work very effectively; but this program has come under sustained attack as a giveaway. It is a giveaway: to renters who get lower rents.
Please complete a plan before imposing more rules, fees, and taxes on housing.
Lastly, we would ask that you and Councilmember O’Brien take no action on adjusting the Incentive Zoning fee, changing the code as it affects microhousing, and changing design standards in the city’s low-rise zones until the work of the Committee is done. It simply makes no sense to make decisions that remove options, or lock in specific approaches to the challenges we face accommodating growth, before the Committee has a chance to tackle housing issues. If the Council is genuine in its desire to come up with a plan, it ought to really plan, not try to change a bike tire while still riding the bike.
Of utmost importance, also, is inclusion of builders and developers of all housing types (i.e. single-family, multifamily, microhousing, mid and highrise) and building managers and landlords on the Committee.
Thank you for asking us to be part of this and we look forward to having representation on the committee and being an active participant in its work. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss the proposal further with you.
Sincerely,
Roger Valdez
[1] Smart Growth Seattle. Petition: More Housing Now
[2] There are at least two alternative measures for housing affordability. One is a residual income model that considers all of a households expenses taken together, then determines whether there is enough left over to cover housing costs. If a household can’t pay housing costs they may need a housing subsidy; or they might need a subsidy for day care. This measure better and more comprehensively considers the costs of living in the City. Similarly, the Center for Neighborhood Technology has developed a measure that accounts for the reduced transportation costs of living in the city.
[3] Seattle’s own Diana Pierce, a professor at the University of Washington, has been a leader in exploding the categories of how we measure poverty and affordability. She has created a self-sufficiency measure that should be part of this discussion.
[4] For a brief history of the 30 percent “rule of thumb,” see, Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey, Mary Schwartz and Ellen Wilson; US Census Bureau.
[5] Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment (Appendix A), see especially pages 70 and following.
[6] “As of the end of 2013, OH had approved MFTE applications for projects comprising 4,369 affordable for-rent units and 108 affordable for-sale units, for a total of 4,477 affordable units,” City of Seattle Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Program 2013 Status Report to City Council – April 21, 2014, page 3.
More Housing Now Petition
Seattle is a growing city. In fact, Seattle was the fastest growing major city in the nation last year. And Seattle’s prosperous job market, along with our city’s cultural and natural amenities, is expected to bring another 120,000 residents and 115,000 jobs over the next 20 years. If we do not adequately accommodate this growth, Seattle will be much less affordable than it is even today and only the most affluent will be able to live in the city.
The City of Seattle needs a housing plan to ensure that the city is encouraging enough housing to be built to accommodate current and future demand. An inadequate supply of housing in the city makes housing much more expensive and displaces working class households to suburbs – placing additional stress on our already burdened transportation infrastructure and increasing sprawl.
While we appreciate that the Seattle City Council has attempted to address affordable housing, it has focused too much of its efforts on housing policies that have produced very few affordable units and actually decrease the availability of housing and increase the cost of most new housing through per square foot fees, zoning and other regulatory restrictions. In this case, good intentions have produced unintended consequences.
Taxing new housing to pay for new housing is not working. Making housing more expensive is not making it more affordable. In addition to the development of a citywide housing plan, we encourage the Seattle City Council to seriously consider strategies that other cities have used to success, such as:
- Utilize publicly-owned land for the provision of affordable housing;
- Establish a fund to acquire, or to encourage preservation of, older housing stock for affordable housing;
- Review and consider changes to zoning and land use regulations to ensure that the City is encouraging an adequate supply of housing to accommodate future growth; and
- Eliminate or reduce City policies that limit housing availability and add to the cost of new housing.
Rather than continuing to rely on policies that have clearly not improved Seattle’s affordability (and may have contributed to the problem), we ask that you try more effective approaches and adequately plan for the future. Read more about ideas and tools that can help in our Ideas for Change: Seattle’s Housing Future.
Signed by,
1 A-P Hurd
2 Aaron Buxbaum
3 Aaron Laing
4 Abdullazize Alhammad
5 Adam Brown
6 Adam Peterson
7 Adrien Renaud
8 Al Clark
9 Albert Clark
10 Alessandra Allen
11 Alex Ratner
12 Alex Tiburcio
13 Alexander Broner
14 Amy Towillis
15 Andrew Donaldson
16 Andrew Hunt
17 Andrew Parise
18 Angela Kahler
19 Ann Chamberlin
20 Ann Schuessler
21 Anthony Maschmedt
22 Anton Babadjanov
23 Augustus Bukowski
24 Barb Wilson
25 Barry Margolese
26 Barry Swanson
27 Bassam Jurdi
28 Beau Granger
29 Ben Frost
30 Bill Hinkle
31 Bill Nyland
32 Bob Dedon
33 Brad Easton
34 Brad Kilcup
35 Brandon Ellis
36 Brett Youngstrom
37 Brian Robinson
38 Brittany Granger
39 Bryan Loe
40 Byron Oxford
41 Cal McAllister
42 Canuche Terranella
43 Carol Houston
44 Carrie Dedon
45 Cary Lynn Johnson
46 Casey Schuchart
47 Celine Swanson
48 Chad duncan
49 Charles Spaeth
50 Chris Bajuk
51 Chris Faulkner
52 Chris Rossman
53 Christopher T Benis
54 CJ Bowles
55 Coriann Presser
56 Dan Chhan
57 Dan Duffus
58 Dan Mundle
59 Dan Wick
60 Darrin Granger
61 dave Biddle
62 David Perlmutter
63 Derrick Codomo
64 Diane Undi-Haga
65 Donald Baptiste
66 Donald Marcy
67 Doug Branson
68 Dustin Van Wyck
69 Dylan Simon
70 edgar escandar
71 erich armbruster
72 Erik Ekstrom
73 Erwin Park
74 glenn amster
75 Gloria Arteaga
76 Greg Nelson
77 Greg Smith
78 Hubert Ellwein
79 Hugh Brannon
80 Ian Strader
81 Ila Dickenson
82 Isaac Patterson
83 Jack Rader
84 Jake Seliger
85 James Coombes
86 James Kahler
87 James Parker
88 James r Johnson
89 Jamin Glenn-Harrison
90 Janine Namgung
91 Jeff Curwen
92 Jeff Henderson
93 Jen Clement
94 Jennifer Daly
95 Jennifer Hackett
96 Jerrid Anderson
97 Jill McCormick
98 Jim Sykes
99 Joanne Lee
100 John Carter Woollen
101 John D Cowan
102 John S. Teutsch
103 Jon Coombes
104 jon hudson
105 Jonathan Winslow
106 Jonathon Morrison Winters
107 Julia K-P
108 Julie Merritt
109 Kabi Gishuru
110 Kara Boden
111 Karl Krispin
112 Katie Higgins
113 Keith Hammer
114 Kelly Foster
115 Kirk Gronvold
116 Kristin Jensen
117 Ksenya Lagutina
118 Laura Sullivan
119 Lin Gale
120 Linda Pruitt
121 Lisa Long
122 LP Nitkey
123 Macenzie Hadley
124 maggie capelle
125 Malcolm E. Jolly
126 Marc Rudd
127 Marjan Foruzani
128 Mark Dibble
129 Mark Haizlip
130 Mark Jackson
131 Mary Kathleen Dedon
132 Matt Gangemi
133 Meredith Everist
134 Mia Marshall
135 Michael Ravenscroft
136 Monica Smith
137 Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
138 natalie gualy
139 Nathan Jones
140 Nicholas Draney
141 Nicholas Lee
142 Nick Etheredge
143 Nicole Hernandez
144 Norma Jean Hanson
145 P Scott Cummins
146 Paige Nilsen
147 Patrick Cobb
148 Patrick J Kassin
149 Patrick J Kassin
150 Paul LaBellarte
151 Paul Mendes
152 Paul Poirier
153 Pearl Leung
154 Peter Leahy
155 Randall Olsen
156 Randall Spaan
157 Rich Wagner, FAIA
158 Rob Harrison AIA
159 Rob Stephenson
160 Roger Valdez
161 Ron Day
162 Ryan Fitzgibbon
163 Scott Anderson
164 Scott Dolfay
165 Scott E. Shapiro
166 Scott Erickson
167 Scott Jeffries
168 Scott Matthews
169 Scott McDonald
170 Scott Ulrich
171 Scott Whaley
172 Severin Hagen-Lillevik
173 Sharon Coleman
174 Sloan Ritchie
175 steele granger
176 Steele Johnson
177 Stephen Martineau
178 Steve Gough
179 Stuart Hand
180 Susan Stasik
181 Thomas Frye, Jr. AIA
182 Thomas L Reid
183 Tina Pappas
184 Todd Smith
185 Tony Pai
186 Tony Spinrad
187 Tony Stewart
188 Tracy Ann Michel
189 Ty Bennion
190 Tyler Abbott
191 Tyler Anderson
192 Tyler Smith
193 Veronica de Saram
194 Victor J. Meyer
195 Wende Miller
196 William R. Bannecker
197 Williams Jarvis
198 Winnie Lam
199 Zach Nostdal
200 Zachary Goodwin
