Tonight’s hearing on microhousing is likely to be a free for all of microhousing hate and hopefully some microhousing love. But what are the basics on the issue to take with you to the meeting if you support the product as a solution? Let’s use the City’s own assumptions. Here’s what the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) says about microhousing:

We’re using the following guiding principles to shape our recommendations:

• Preserve affordability — continue to support micro-housing and congregate residences as a housing option in Seattle
• Ensure basic health and safety of all housing
• Provide consistent treatment and classification of micro-housing and congregate residences across all City departments and programs
• Improve tracking and awareness of micro-housing development
• Regulate micro-housing and congregate residences in a way that correlates to that of other types of new development

On the face of it, these are pretty good principles. The truth is that microhousing is doing a great job of providing housing options for people in the city who want less space in neighborhoods that have lots of transit access and walkability. Keeping microhousing costs low, ensuring safety, and providing more certainty when it comes to how the product is regulated all are good things.

But how does DPD plan to fulfill these principles?

Some highlights of the proposed new rules include:

• Establishing a definition of micro-housing
• Requiring Design Review for micro-housing and congregate residences based on square footage rather than number of dwelling units
• Setting a minimum size for common areas in micro-housing and congregate residences
• Increasing bicycle and car parking requirements for micro-housing
• Clarifying affordable housing program requirements for micro-housing and congregate residences

Establishing a Defintion: Keep it simple with no size limits! 

Establishing a definition of microhousing isn’t a terrible idea, and it could actually help everyone have a common language when we use the term. However, the definition should capture what is rather than trying to limit microhousing. Much of what DPD proposes in the details ends up imposing commons space requirements and other limits and requirements that would add costs; something they say, as a principle, they don’t want to do. The more requirements on how microhousing buildings are programed just means fewer potential units. More common space ends up getting absorbed in the rent structure. Remember, microhousing customers are buying a smaller unit because they want less space; why make them buy more. As I’ve suggested, it’s like making people shop at Costco for toothpaste when all they want is one tube of toothpaste, not a six pack. 

Design review will make microhousing more expensive and add to rent costs 

Requiring design review is probably the biggest item on the list that is completely antithetical to DPDs stated principles. As we’ve pointed out, design review is a process nobody in the city is really happy with right now, including neighborhoods. Why subject microhousing to something that needs reform. The process is complicated and can often devolve into an unprofessional, unhelpful, and time consuming process that just costs more time and money; and there is no place to recover those costs except from rent. We’ve figured on a 40 unit project rents could go up as much as $100 a month, so much for keeping the product affordable.

Read My Lips: No new parking!

This is the most nettlesome of the arguments against microhousing. First of all, microhousing residents self select: why would a person with a car move into a building with no assigned parking? It doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but part of the charm and advantage of microhousing for customers is that parking isn’t an issue for them and that’s one reason why microhousing is less expensive. Why rent an apartment with a parking spot you wouldn’t use, and why rent a unit with no parking when that’s something you really want and need? Adding more parking will really add more costs to microhousing, in fact it would cost tens of thousands per space. Angry neighbors know this is a deal breaker and that the City has already determined that the zones where microhousing can be built are not going to require parking because transit and other modes will be favored. That’s not about microhouisng, that’s about a broad agenda the City is already pursuing. Why remake that decision because neighbors are angry.

Multifamily Tax Exemption: Level the Playing Field 

The Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) was already changed last year because angry neighbors were claiming, bizarrely, that the program was being used as a “free lunch” for developers. What the MFTE program does is lower operating costs by granting a tax break to a building if it restricts rents to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) or less. The program makes keeping the units lower priced more feasible. The whole point of the program is about keeping rents low, exactly the principle espoused by DPD. But what the Office of Housing did last year was limit the MFTE program to units not rooms. This means less MFTE benefit for microhousing, and oddly, a step back from subsidizing “workforce” housing. That makes no sense and if the City defines microhousing then the MFTE ought to reset to cover all living spaces in the projects.

The hearing is tonight at 5:30 at City Hall. You can find all the details in a previous post.