You’re going to hear a lot of hullabaloo (see my post about surplus City land) about the new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued by the City about Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. First of all, it is just the EIS for the legislation. Second of all, even the guy who sponsored it, Councilmemeber Mike O’Brien had this to say about the legislation yet to be passed:

“This isn’t going to transform our housing market,” O’Brien said Wednesday. “But it will be another tool in our toolbox to add new options for people, and we think we can do it in a way that helps preserve our housing stock.”

What? I thought it was about creating more housing, not preserving existing housing. What does he mean?

Also under O’Brien’s proposal, Seattle would move aggressively to limit the size of new single-family houses on properties with or without accessory units.

For example, on lots covering up to 6,000 square feet, the city would allow no more than 3,000 square feet of aboveground construction, excluding space devoted to mother-in-law apartments. Today, 9 percent of lots of at least 5,000 square feet have houses that would be considered too large, according to the city’s review.

So what’s being billed as a block against megahouses may will reduce the “amount of house” on a lot, including the DADU, something that adds yet another constraint on what an owner can build on the property. This is sure to kill many lots that could put more housing in service.

Finally, as I’ve pointed out before, the problem has never really been the existing code. Sure, it could be more friendly (and this new version isn’t a big improvement after all), but the only way to finance these is through a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC); this means essentially a second mortgage. As long as banks and other lenders won’t create a loan product built on the rental income, most families and owners just won’t take the risk and the hassle.

So as I always say, “How can you pick out a Seattle City Councilmember in a crowd? They have really, really long arms. Why? So they can pat themselves on the back.”

This new proposal probably won’t get any better no matter how glowing the EIS after O’Brien panders to cling to his shaky job security. And even if it did improve the code, we need a better way to pay for them so that property owners don’t have to be their own superintendent for a building project, landlord, and all while adding more debt to their bottom line.