Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Where Are You Right Now? | Cantwell's PAC Pledge Hedge »

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Renters being routed?

Posted by on July 12 at 11:58 AM

The Seattle Displacement Coalition fired off a press release today, timed to this Seattle Times story about how the downtown condo boom might be coming in small part at the expense of rentals, especially low-income rentals.

I have to dash off for an interview, which by coincidence, deals with one case of rentals converting to condos. But let’s start the debate now. Press release after the jump.

Over 2000 rental units lost to condominium conversion and 681 units demolished in Seattle last year - displacement of low income households reaching record levels!

While some councilmembers have raised concerns, our mayor and key department heads seemed to think it's perfectly alright to lose 2 percent of our low income stock every year the vast majority of lost units are larger rentals for low income families - seniors also hit especially hard!

Two weeks ago, the City's Department of Planning (DPD) quietly released to Councilmember Tom Rasmussen numbers showing a staggering loss of low income units last year due to condominium conversion and demolition. In all, over 2000 housing units have been lost from June '05 thru May '06 to conversion while another 681 units were lost to demolition. The great majority of these units are low income rental units. In the case of condo conversions, historically, this phenomenon has disproportionately displaced seniors citizens. With respect to demolitions, the units that are lost for office buildings, condos and other uses tend to be larger older duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and single-family low cost rentals serving families with kids. Given that the majority of families in Seattle with kids are renters who depend on a stock of these larger affordable units - any such loss in such high numbers hurts our school system and hampers our ability to deliver good education to the kids of these uprooted homes.

These dramatic housing losses were described by DPD's Director Diane Sigamura in a report released two weeks ago to Tom Rasmussen's Housing Committee but presented as if it was no big deal, as if this level of rental housing loss happens all the time in Seattle. When Councilmember Rasmussen expressed concern about the loss, Ms. Sigamura merely shrugged it off as if it was perfectly acceptable - just a natural outgrowth of market forces. She also offered no solutions to the problem and merely pointed to the fact that state law restricts our city's right to impose further restrictions on the process of condominum conversion beyond the current minimal requirements. (Note that when it happened at these levels over 25 years ago, then Mayor Royer slapped an immediate moratorium on developers filing for conversion).

Today under state law, tenants evicted due to conversion are given only $500 in relocation and a 90-day notice. They get first right to buy their unit but most our poor and are given no access to resources to help them do so. Owners must meet some nominal code requirements (which apparently they routinely ignore) when they ready the units for sale but tenants - even those who've lived years in a building - simply get the boot. With respect to housing demolitions, tenants today receive up to $2000 in relocation assistance but no first right to buy their units. (Twenty years ago in Seattle we had a demolition control law that also required developers to replace units they demolished and at comparable price. It was a significant deterrent for nearly a decade in Seattle to demolition and guarantee replacement units provided at developer expense not taxpayer expense. The courts later ruled that the ordinance violated state law and despite promises from previous City Councils and previous Mayors to replace that law with something similar and legally defensible, our current council and Mayor have taken no action). Hundreds of low income families are uprooted each year due to the Council's and Mayor's failure to live up to these past promises. Now even more families are losing their homes to demolition each year because the city has failed to act.

Historically in this city, the rate of demolitions and condo conversions has always increased during periods of high growth. When we add more new residential construction it correlates directly with more low income units lost to these trends. Simply letting the market do its thing, upzoning and adding density to areas of the City to accommodate more development as our Mayor and council have been prone to do, giving developers multi-family tax exemptions, rolling out the red carpet for developers - these strategies simply ain't working if the goal is more affordability. In fact, it's having precisely the opposite effect.

Despite record levels of new residential construction and the mantra of "density density density" - county-wide, we've seen an actual net loss in the rental housing supply!
Here's a quote from a April Seattle Times article by Virginia Rhode's explaining why rents are rising county-wide despite all the new construction (she's drawing from Dupres and Scott's analysis and April report):
Scott says several factors are fueling the change. Foremost is the improving economy. The addition of 50,000 jobs to the area last year, and potentially as many again this year, give a big boost to apartment demand. Second is the condominium-conversion trend. Some 9,200 apartments in the region have become condos since 2000, according to Scott's calculations. Last year saw the biggest change — about 4,000 units converted — and resulted in a net loss of rental units because it exceeded the number of apartments built. Conversions are "certainly affecting the supply of apartments, and so from that standpoint it's putting pressure on rents," observed Scott Hanson, president of SeaMark Properties, an apartment and condominium developer.
Allowing these losses makes a mockery of efforts occurring city and county-wide to stem the tide of homelessness.
These housing losses translate directly into more homelessness in our city and county. For every one hundred units of low income housing built in our city or county, we lose 3-4 times that amount each year due to forces of demolition, condo converstion, speculative sale, and increased rents. Allowing these losses makes a mockery of efforts occurring city and county-wide to stem the tide of homelessness. The current plan to end homeless for example is nothing but a cruel hoax so long as this committee and all the electeds and other big shots serving on it, continue to ignore housing losses due to these forces of redevelopment. As long as they continue to do absolutely nothing, propose absolutely nothing to address these losses.

It's time to act now! Regarding:
1. Condo Conversions: The City should immediately implement a moratorium on the conversion of apartments to condominiums. If state law bars the City from imposing such a moratorium immediately, then plans should be immediately announced by our Mayor and City Council to go down to Olympia in the next session and get this state law changed. The city should be given back its discretion to bar condo conversions in the short term until a new city law is adopted which strictly limits total number of units that can be converted each year and guarantees replacement units and adequate relocation to tenants who are displaced. At a minimum lets see some real concern and urgency expressed by our leaders and a willingness to make this a number one city priority down in Olympia next session.

2. Housing Demolitions: It's time to fulfill promises from past elected leaders of this city and come up with a effective local tool to either prevent housing demolitions from occurring at all or at least ensuring 100 percent replacement of units that are lost and at comparable price. There are numerous ways the City can address this problem and immediately. They don't have to wait for legislative changes down in Olympia. It just take political guts and a willingness to act!

3. The long run: We need to reassess our city's commitment to unbridled growth and density at all costs. The drive to upzone neighborhoods without first attempting to mitigate or even understand the impact of increased density on our existing housing stock is a tragedy and the single most significant cause of homelessness and growing inequality in our City. From here on out, lets measure first and before we act how a change in land use, housing policy, or all other city policies affects the distribution of wealth and resources in our city.


CommentsRSS icon

Why didn't you start the discussion years ago? This has been going on for years and years.

Oh the humanity… this can only mean that more and more people will be forced to live where they can afford instead of where they want. I fear that I shall always be stuck in a small house in Magnolia (which I can afford) and never acquire a lakeside mansion in Medina (which I want)… Unless of course I get off my lazy ass and earn some real money…

Those are three great points... I would vote them in... is there a petition drive yet to get them on the ballot, or is this all just talk right now?


I am far from 'official' low income status; I and my sig-ot pay $1300 to live and park in Seattle. That figure doesn't even come close to paying an in-city mortgage on anything but a 700 sqft studio, with an in-building laundry room to boot. Out of the city, with a quick and painless bus commute (I couldn't stand a car commute, for all the time and environmental reasons, so I don't), is pretty much a stretch too... not when house values have been increasing double digit for the last several years. And news reports say the Puget Sound housing market won't cool down in the near future, so buying and paying more in taxes is not a current option.

Market-forces, shmarket-forces. Stone-headed and stone-hearted developers and city officials could give a flying-fuck about anyone who earns less then the, what is it at now, $44,000 Seattle median income level.

Sure, my neighborhood has $400,000 condos and cheap places to live if you have a roommate or can qualify for Housing Authority assistance (the waiting list is usually frozen to applications most of the past years, btw). Anyone such as myself who makes good money, just not great money at this point in their lives, are being squeezed as well by the “market”(greed) forces of a Republican run county.

Shit, even fucking LA regards this as a problem and is starting to limit condo conversions.

Suck on that, free market fanatics!

BUT BUT... MR X, IT'S *SMART GROWTH*! You don't hate SMART GROWTH, do you?!?!?!?! (/sarcasm)

The real problem with these "conversions" is that they're driven by an irrational market.

Right now, home prices in Seattle are well beyond what is reasonable. Poorly-qualified applicants can get hundreds of thousands of dollars in suicide loans, and they're using this cheap capital to over-pay for property. This drives up prices on real estate, and landlords can hardly be blamed for converting market-rate apartments into cracker-box "condominiums" to sell to suckers at 2 or 3 times what they're actually worth.

The city needs the authority to correct for market forces when the market becomes irrational -- and when the mortgage payments on a property exceed the rent it could earn by two hundred percent, we know that the market has lost its mind.

That read more like an internet screed than a press release. They even used the word "ain't."

Today under state law, tenants evicted due to conversion are given only $500 in relocation and a 90-day notice

"Only" $500 and a 90-day notice? How much does the Seattle Displace Coalition think they should get? If landlords evict tenants for any other reason, they only have to give a 30-day notice and no monetary compensation (at least those are the terms of my lease). $500 is more than enough to move the contents of an apartment to another neighborhood or nearby city. If poor tenants rent a U-Haul, then they can use the money for a deposit on a new place.

Twenty years ago in Seattle we had a demolition control law that also required developers to replace units they demolished and at comparable price. It was a significant deterrent for nearly a decade in Seattle to demolition and guarantee replacement units provided at developer expense not taxpayer expense.

What a horrible law. Thank God it's gone. Where's the incentive for development if developers are forbidden from making a profit? Are they supposed to be satisfied with charging the same amount for rent even after laying out millions to construct a new building? Bullshit. Demand for housing and condos doesn't decrease when there's less supply. Imagine the effect on rents when more and more people want to move into a neighborhood that has no development.

This insane market is driven by overspeculation, but impeding development is not going to solve those problems. It'll only make them worse.

More mindless supply side drivel. Tear down all the places poor people can afford to live, and poor people won't be able to live in Seattle anymore - simple as that.

Even LA has rent control!

So the poor leave downtown… and the rich move in… I firmly believe that the elimination of poverty globally would be good for the global community. Why wouldn’t the elimination of poverty locally (even if through redistributing it to more affordable localities) be just as good for the local community?

As to renting… only a fool does it in a market where property values are rising at a greater rate than the interest rate on a mortgage, home owners (even condo owners) are literally being paid money to own property and that payment is in direct relation to the price of the property. I was able to sell my first condo, a shoe box size rat hole on capitol hill, for twice what I bought it for in less than 5 years (and my mortgage payment was equal to what I was paying in rent, plus there are significant tax write-offs available).

You do no favors to the poor to encourage them to live where they can’t afford, and pay rent to do it, when they could be living where they can afford and own property (and build value).

A couple of ways to nudge the market without being so heavy handed:

1) Change the way rental properties are valued. Base the assessed value on actual rental income, not on best-use market value. That would lower the cost of ownership for rental properties relative to condos and make more rental units comparatively profitable.

2) Prohibit any conversions in the sort of tenancy that would result in a significant increase in automobile use in the area. It seems a legitimate concern to me because that impacts the character of the neighborhood, and it's likely that the sorts of demographic shifts that are creating the anxiety would in most cases replace transit commuters with car commuters (and pedestrian shoppers with folks who do insane things like driving five blocks to pick up two bags of heavily processed industrial food products).

Heavier handed restrictions probably do more harm then good, making development possible only where there is a lot to be gained, and creating a bi-polar demographic (e.g. an older lower class rental neighborhood with a couple of very high end luxury condos), and that can't be sustained in the long run.

Shorter kidding

"FUCK THE POOR"

I'm sure your concern that we aren't doing the poor any favors just warms the heart of everyone who is losing their home (and, no, they don't all live downtown).

On behalf of the poor and working class folks who are being forced out of their longtime (or recent) homes - fuck you!

"only a fool [rents] in a market where property values are rising at a greater rate than the interest rate on a mortgage, home owners (even condo owners) are literally being paid money to own property and that payment is in direct relation to the price of the property."

...until the other shoe drops, and property values are worth a fraction of their speculative peak value. It may not happen today, or even next year, but it will happen, and it will hurt.

In fact, it's moronic, short-term thinking like yours that drives the speculative increase in home prices. After all, people were saying the same things about stock prices in 1998 -- 20-something "investors" were being "paid money" to own shares of eMerengue.com, and the amount they were paid was "in proportion" to the amount that they owned. That's why a lot of foolish people lost a lot of real money on margin purchases of speculative stocks.

The only difference between then and now is that today, people are playing with much larger amounts of debt. It's one thing to get a margin call on 20 grand...it's quite another to default on a half-million dollar mortgage.

Now that I think of it, there's another important difference: in 1999, it didn't affect me when some arrogant asshole lost a lot of money speculating on dot.com stocks.

Housing bubble assholes, on the other hand, directly affect how much it costs me to live.

Speaking as someone whose apartment was converted to a condo 2 months ago, but is not low income...

Complaining that density isn't lowering prices is kind of a lame argument, because the density increase has been limited to a few very small areas. The vast majority of Seattle is limited to single-family houses only, and even the densest areas have fairly low height limits.

There are clearly a lot more people that want to live in Seattle than we have space for at the moment. From what I have seen, the reason for not having the space is mostly due to the inane zoning requirements. Outside of downtown and neighborhoods adjacent to it, there is no density to speak of, and I doubt there ever will be.

Plus it takes too long to get a new project approved, which makes financing more difficult - you have to secure the loan and then sit on the money for an unpredictable length of time while the city figures out what you're allowed to do. The longer it takes, the riskier any project becomes. You know what the market is like right now, but 2-3 years from now - who knows whether you can sell what you're building?

That might be why condo conversions are so popular. You can build the apartments, and rent them out until the condo market heats up (like right now, apparently), and then convert them to condos (which can be done pretty quickly and cheaply) and get a higher profit than building them at a random time. In that sense, the slow construction permit process might be encouraging condo conversion.

That said, relying on private developers to provide housing for poor people has never really worked. But I don't know what you can do about it, other than complain and move to the suburbs.

Christopher,

That's not what's going on. According to the city's own numbers, Seattle's population has been pretty much constant since 2001. Rents have been constant (or down) since then as well -- demand isn't driving the boom in home prices.

The reason that apartments are being converted to condominiums is because we're in a bubble. Traditionally, it's cheaper to own a property than to rent one, and landlords use this fact to make money off of their renters.

At the moment, however, it's much cheaper to rent than to buy, and landlords are exploiting this anomaly by converting apartments to condominiums. They know that they can cash in now, gain liquidity, and wait for the home price bubble to pop. When it does, they'll be ideally situated to buy back into a rising rental market.

It should tell you something that experienced property investors (read: landlords) are selling their properties. They know very well that this party isn't going to last for much longer....

Of course. Screw social responsibility!

Poor me! I was too stupid to buy a condo and rented instead. Whaaa! Whaaa! Whaa! I expect the government to help me.

bridal shoe

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).