http://www.zipcon.net/~jvf4119/futurewise%20bill.htm

In the chart he claims to correct Futurewise’s calcs by using the buildable lands figures, but that metric is irrelevant — the bill makes it very clear that it is based on current zoning. He was corrected on this in a public meeting about a week ago, but it’s still up on his web site.

Further down the page he shows a photo of a NYC high-rise neighborhood and quotes a density number that is the wrong metric — gross density rather than net density. That development has a deceivingly low gross density because it has tons of open space between the towers. In previous docs he acknowledged that the Futurewise bill refers to net, not gross density, but he’s still putting up scary images with incorrect data.

The reason John Fox is ignored is not because of what he looks like. It’s because he has a habit destroying his own credibility. And like I said, that’s too bad because Seattle needs effective affordable housing advocates.

Although I am in agreement about building in high density we still need to review our current housing stock and not neglect it as well. While we still have an enormous number of Single Family zoning (not likely to change any time soon) with below average housing sucking our natural resources dry we should, ALSO, focus on making those housing units better and more efficient. That, combined with improving education and a healthy balance of wealth and power, our population should come under control making growth and density more likely to happen.

“(d) Require one-for-one replacement of demolished or converted housing units that are affordable to the income level of the displaced residents. The replacement units are in addition to other affordable units required by this section. This subsection (d) applies if the following are demolished or converted: (i) Rental housing units that are affordable to households earning sixty percent or less of the adjusted county median income;”

It’s ambiguous about where the one-to-one replacement will happen. Fox is responding to the historic record of Seattle’s replacement of low-income housing.

I also drove past the Mt. Baker Station the other day. Seeing all the established and national chain businesses makes think that the development we think will occur there likely won’t happen for sometime. I also think the High School is within that 1/2 mile of the station too and not likely to be redeveloped any time soon.

Spencer.

Just, that this is a choice an advanced society shouldn’t ever oblige its members to make. Everyone should have access to decent housing. Full stop.

Providing decent housing, in populous urban agglomerations, and particularly when it is intended for people without the means to pay for it at market rates, is most efficiently done by building to high densities – densities higher than those presently found in Seattle.

—

New required section in the GMA related to transit-oriented development

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (6) and (7) of this section, comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under this chapter must authorize transit oriented development within one-half mile of a major transit station. The allowed net density for these transit oriented development areas must average fifty dwelling units per acre. The adopted plans and regulations also must:

(a) Include standards for streets, sidewalks, and buildings that encourage walking and bicycling, and a process to ensure that these standards are met;

(b) Prioritize safe walking and bicycling connections to proximate major transit stations and transit centers;

(c) Provide for a net gain in housing units that are affordable to low and moderate-income households;

(d) Require one-for-one replacement of demolished or converted housing units that are affordable to the income level of the displaced residents. The replacement units are in addition to other affordable units required by this section. This subsection (d) applies if the following are demolished or converted: (i) Rental housing units that are affordable to households earning sixty percent or less of the adjusted county median income; and (ii) ownership housing that is affordable to households earning eighty percent of the adjusted county median income;

(e) Require that all new housing or mixed-use developments provide housing that is affordable to the income groups in (f) of this subsection and receive density bonuses equal to the number of housing units produced under this subsection (e), or provide for master planned zoning that identifies locations and incentives sufficient to provide housing that is affordable to the income groups in (f) of this subsection. The housing units required by this subsection must be constructed within one-half mile of a major transit station and most be comparable to the associated market rate development. Affordable units required by this subsection (e) must be affordable for a minimum of fifty years, but counties and cities should consider employing tools to permanently maintain affordability;

(f) Require that: (i) Twenty five percent of rental units be affordable to people earning less than eighty percent of the adjusted median county income, with ten percent of the rental units being affordable to people earning less than sixty percent of the adjusted median county income; and (ii) Twenty five percent of ownership units be affordable to people earning less than one hundred twenty percent of the adjusted median county income, with ten percent of the ownership units being affordable to people earning less than one hundred percent of the adjusted median county income. Affordable units required by this subsection (f) must be affordable for a minimum of fifty years, but counties and cities should consider employing tools to permanently maintain affordability;

(g) Authorize the waiving of minimum parking space requirements for any land use; and

(h) Require developers to provide the following to renters earning less than eighty percent of the adjusted median income who will be displaced by development: (i) No fewer than ninety days notice of an order to vacate the affected premises; and (ii) relocation assistance in an amount determined by the applicable county or city. Relocation assistance provided under this subsection (ii) may not exceed an amount equaling three months rent for an affected tenant.

(2) A major transit station includes any of the following within an urban growth area:

(a) Stations on a high capacity transportation service approved by the voters and funded or expanded under chapter 81.104 RCW. For purposes of this subsection (2), streetcars are not considered a high capacity transportation service;

(b) Commuter rail stations;

(c) Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways, but excluding stops in a streetcar system; and

(d) Stations on bus rapid transit routes that operate on designated rights-of-way for sixty five percent or more of a route.

(3) For purposes of this section, “transit oriented development” has the same meaning as defined in RCW 36.70A.108.

(4) Density determinations made in accordance with this section must be calculated by dividing the number of allowed dwelling units by the net acreage of the applicable area.

(5) Counties and cities must report the number of affordable housing units created in accordance with subsection (1) of this section to the department and the appropriate committees of the legislature by January 1, 2015. Subsequent reports to the department and the legislature must be completed according to the schedule established in RCW 36.70A.130(4).

(6) Nothing in this section modifies or otherwise affects planning or regulatory requirements for airports.

(7) This section does not apply to lands: (a) Designated for industrial or manufacturing uses in comprehensive plans or zoning regulations; or (b) upon which stadiums that seat twenty five thousand or more persons are located.

If you have followed John Fox’s career, this is exactly what he is fighting for. Far too often the public housing developments have not followed through on replacing low-income housing on the same site one-to-one. Much of their replacement housing relocates our city’s poor to locations further away from resources and jobs. The problem with Fox is that he comes across as a crack-pot and looks just as homeless as the people he advocates for. It is unfortunate that we still attribute knowledge and skill to physical appearance. Also, as I stated above, Fox also skews his facts and figures to make his point more compelling but I would bet anyone of us would do to make our argument more solid too (which I then pointed to inaccuracies in figures stated by the Futurewise/WLIH response).

Though our Tent-cities are a stepping stone to slums we are fortunate enough to have a great safety net for our city’s poor and homeless. In my first hand experience with Tent-cities I believe they empower people to improve their living conditions and reenter society in a productive manner. We have to remember we are working with people who have experienced the harshest conditions that our cities can impose on a human. They are beaten down to a place where man can no longer define as crisply as you and I the differences between right and wrong. Tent-city allows for a transition out from a harsh world to one that gives promise and hope. It is hard for me to begin to think Tent-city is a lose-lose situation when I think in these terms. Maybe you have another point of view?

Not everyone has the altruism gene; it’s unrealistic to expect that all people behave as if they did. But Seattle’s density NIMBYs might see their own belly buttons rather differently if they were to first take a closer look at what happens when urban agglomerations thumb their nose at the working class.

Secondly, it is exactly future riders and future residents who will pay for the transit systems. The transit is funded with bonds that get paid off over time. Most of the costs of building and running the systems will be paid by people who aren’t here yet.

As for the low-income housing, there are really only two kinds of low-income housing. The first kind is the free-enterprise kind, where you find a place that is cheap compared with the general prices, because it is old, poorly maintained, far from amenities, or has an owner who simply doesn’t raise rents. It’s not realistic to think this will go on forever. Sooner or later the property will be sold, or the neighborhood will become more valuable, or something, and the housing won’t be cheap anymore.

And, having been a landlord renting out housing for less than it cost me to provide it, I can tell you the quickest way to get rid of low-income housing is to start imposing rules on the landlord who is already losing money.

The second kind of low-income housing is of a public nature, either government or foundation, with tenants paying a part of the costs of the housing, the rest funded by non-profit corporation or government, and the tenants assured of tenancy as long as they fulfill their part of the agreement.

In general, the best way to keep most of the neighborhoods stable and underdeveloped is to supply massive amounts of housing in a few (i.e., highrise) neighborhoods. Expanding the supply of the housing reduces the price- this is not rocket science. Reducing the price that can be charged takes pressure off neighborhoods where the developer would have to tear down a perfectly good single family home to build condos or rentals. Again, not rocket science.

John Fox is simply the Tim Eyman of the Seattle land-use discussion.

Further along in my post I said that I feel considering our current economic situation our affordability structure will not follow the same path that we are currently seeing. That is, people in Seattle will not be getting richer, but poorer. More people who we fit into the “working class” will be falling out of the 80-100% median income. In my opinion, good foresight will put resources and development strategies toward building lower than 80-100% median income residential buildings. With our current change in economy the vision to build more 80-100% residential buildings is outdated and reactive to past housing information.

You are absolutely right that WA state law does not force developers to build low-income housing. It could be said that developers would do it create future clients out of the lower income home owners.

I am not sure how personal property taxes directly corresponds to low-income housing and I am not sure that if we build more low-income housing property taxes will increase. Even if taxes increase, why shouldn’t we be more responsible for taking care of each other? After all, we are on this planet to take care of (both the planet and) our each other. Social Darwinism is a dinosaur of a philosophy. It will take everyone making changes to redirect our culture and humanity to “safer ground.”

I guess I have a question for you. Are you concerned about helping someone else out who you think is lazy, unmotivated and unwilling to help them self?