Presumably one of the reasons people move to Seattle, and Cap Hill is to be around young, vibrant, up-and-coming folk. You know, people who struggle to afford a $600 /mo apartment, let alone a $750k condo.

I wonder if "affordable apartments downstairs" could be turned into a selling point for multi-million dollar condos upstairs. "Live with the next great _____." If a developer could charge a bit more for this selling point, perhaps they could subsudize some apartments, and have an interview process like rent controlled buildings in NYC...

Uh.. wow, this is idealistic and naive, even for me. ;p

The money thing is about property values, not people. They're worried about maintaining the value of a $1.5 million unit, which is I suppose a legit concern if you're dropping $1.5 million on some rooms in the sky. This is not a problem I am likely to encounter in my own life.

In the paper you cite this as an example of the "downside of densification". I fail to see any connection. If anything, it is because we don't have enough density (supply) that developers are able to charge $1.5 million for a condo on Cap Hill.

By the by, there won't be any drunks or vagrants, you NIMBYs pushed them off into Wallingford, Ravenna, Fremont, and Ballard.

What?

Nonsense. Manhattan's about as dense as an American city can get, and condos in affluent neighborhoods there go for a whole lot more than 1.5 million...

So, density causes higher prices?

I am curious to see the floor plans. How do you divide a church into livable units and also not ruin the exterior appearance? Neat trick if they can pull it off.

A dense urban environment means vibrant nightlife and great restaurants. Building more condos downtown and on Capital Hill will bring more people and that's always a good thing. The more people living here, the cheaper the rents will be.

Remember, never say "young" without saying "vibrant," and never say "density" without saying "vibrant."

It always must be "vibrant." Never "teeming," no, no, no. "Vibrant," after all, is this decade's trendoid word, just as the odious "burgeoning" used to be.

WHAT? Wrote:
"So, density causes higher prices?"

No it doesn't...as you well understand. Demand and it's relation to supply causes higher or lower prices.

It is possible that Seattle could soon become saturated with excess condos on the market? There sure is a tremendous amount of building going on in all parts of the city at this moment.

---Jensen

"The more people living here, the cheaper the rents will be."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Demolishing low income housing to produce denser pockets of middle and high income housing does not reduce rents.

Skyrocketing property values driving property taxes through the roof, forcing middle income people to sell their homes to wealthier people and forcing landlords to increase rents, does not reduce rents.

Building gluts may stall or slow rent increases. But nowhere on the west coast in the last 30 years has increased density caused rents to go down for a sustained period of time. The only thing that can do that is a recession, which stops new construction and can even result in decreased density as people leave town looking for new jobs.

This whole idea that you're doing poor renters a favor by building condoplexes is a totally irresponsible fairy tale.

Exactly how many units of low income housing was demolished for this project?

Your sounnd bite regurgitation about affordable units being torn down for new condos sounds good - but it simply isn't true. One of your cohorts linked to a map last week claiming that 681 units had been torn down in the last year. However, if you bothered to look at the map the vast majority of those units were single family homes (which were likely torn down to make way for more afordable townhomes). There were a grand total of 13 buildings of greater than 10 units - 13! And none of those buildings had more than 10 units. So at the absolute maximum a total of 130 units of affordable housing within apatrment buildings was lost. Hardly the apocolyptic scenario that you'd like the general public to believe.

During the same period, over 1,300 units were created by the 10-year plan alone. Add in the units funded by the housing levy, tax credits and other low income developers and you have a reality of a net GAIN of THOUSANDS of affordable units.

So why is Seattle still so unaffordable? Who is saying that it is? I'd be the first to admit that it's very expense to BUY housing here - but the facts show that it's not expensive to LIVE here. Maybe you missed the PI article last week that showed that the average rent for a 1-bedroom in Seattle is $861.

$861 per month divided by two people (yes, it should be 2 people for a 1-bed. If you can't afford the rent and don't want a roommate than you should rent a studio) is $430 per month. If you assume that a person should be allocating 30% of their gross income for rent, a person would need to make $1,433 per month (that's $17,200 per year). so, the AVERAGE (not the cheapest) apartment in Seattle is affordable to someone making $17,200 per year!

Congratulations to the affordable housing providers in this city. You've done a great job (and I mean that sincerely)! You've done such a good job that we can now focus our attention on more important issues such as public safety, schools, transportation, open space, sustainability, libraries, public health, etc, etc.

ProgLady,

You sound a lot like a politician (or a city employee) staying on message when you insist on answering the question you want to answer rather than the one that was posed.

No one said this project displaced any units - just that building uber-luxury condos that sell for $1.5 million each has NO positive effect on housing affordability.

The 1300 units you cite were publicly funded by the last housing levy, which is great, but still is a drop in the bucket in terms of the overall housing market.

WF is right on - and if you spent more time with the blue collar workers, artists, musicians, and other longtime Seattle renters who are being forced out of this city, you'd understand that given the choice between believing your happy talk/party line/spin and their own eyes, they'll choose the latter every time.

ProgressiveLady - that unit would be affordable to a household income of $37,850 or TWO people making about $18,925K a year.

Here's the chart (again) - http://www.seattle.gov/housing/12-IncomesandRents/2006_Incomes_and_Rents.xls

Also, why do you assume the SF homes that were torn down were less affordable than what was built to replace it? They were either rentals to a number of people renting rooms in a common house (paying under $500/mo each) or they were homeowners who probably had paid off their mortgages and were paying a lower monthly nut that new construction rentals would rent or sell for.

Finally - do the math anyway you want, there has been a net DECREASE in rental unit construction in a 3 county area per the PI last week. The Office of Housing Director, Adrienne Quinn, confirmend for me this week that this is the picture for Seattle alone as well. The only net increase in housing is when you count ALL residential units (as opposed to just rental construction) built, and that doesn't address the problem I care about addressing - which is preserving/constructing the same number of affordable rental units for the same income people that are being displaced by all of this development.

LH Wrote:
"The only net increase in housing is when you count ALL residential units (as opposed to just rental construction) built...."

LH, did your source cite how many new construction townhomes or condos were turned into rentals? I am curious. I suspect some percentage are investment purchases.

---Jensen

Is this the best you can do? You people really are desperate to keep the money flowing into your organizations! WF brought up the lie about housing unit being demolished - you might try reading more than simply the last comment.

Bottom line: THE AVERAGE APARTMENT IN SEATTLE IS AFFORDABLE TO SOMEONE MAKING $17,200.

What was the Upton Sinclair quote in Al Gore's movie, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it."

ProgLady,

You have math problems - or are you suggesting that everyone who makes $18k per year has to live in a studio or one-bedroom apartment with a roommate (because that's how you get to 400/month per person)?

What if you don't have a significant other you can share that one-bedroom with? According to the income chart, at that income, you would need to find a studio that rents at about $450/month or a one bedroom at about $500. There are still some units out there at that price - IN OLDER UNRENOVATED BUILDINGS. You know, like those 13 smaller apartment buildings that were knocked down to make room for upscale new housing (and, yeah, in my world, an "average" one bedroom apt at over $800/month is pretty upscale.)

WF was obviously talking about the overall trend that is eliminating unsubsidized lower income rentals - not this project. Spin it all you'd like, real-world renters see the elephant in the room, and you're busy trying to gussy it up by painting its toenails pink.

Do YOU rent or own? When was the last time you pulled down less than 20k/year?

Are you a City of Seattle employee? Because if you are, I fear for my city if your spin on how good things are for renters is now the official party line.

And, no, I don't work as a low-income developer.

Another question, how long have you lived in Seattle?

Excellent question! If you haven't been here at least 20 years, you have no right to tell us how our city should be run!

Jensen - re: "how many new construction townhomes or condos were turned into rentals?"

I don't know. I'd like to. That's what I'm arguing we need to get a better handle on...number of new units and serving what income renter?

The number of condo units that are rental properties is a dynamic number...people who buy an investment property might start off using it as a "getaway" home, then later decide to rent it. Or a building that was converted to condo may revert back to rental when units don't sell.

Indeed, you are correct though - nationally the trend is for a percentage of condo units to be rented out by owners. There's no reason to believe Seattle's any different.

ProgLady - My income is in no way linked to the development of low income housing. You also don't know how to read a chart, do math or write a sentence that conveys your comprehension of these basic concepts:

You write that "THE AVERAGE APARTMENT IN SEATTLE IS AFFORDABLE TO SOMEONE MAKING $17,200." As Mr. X points out, an apartment affordable to a person making $17K/year is a ~400/month studio. Look at the chart. There's another DIFFERENT column for 2 person households, you can't just say - "I mean the average apartment in Seattle is affordable to someone making $17,200, *if* there are TWO people making $17,200.

...and that doesn't apply at all to single parents - who have 2 (or 3, or 4, or...) people in their household and only one wage earner.

You don't have anything to do with affordable housing, yet you just happened to be talking with the Director of the Office of Affordable Housing earlier this week - yeah, you're believable.

Curious that you would state that I don't know how to "do" math when the limit of your ability appears to be looking up numbers on a chart. Unfortunately for you, people in the real world make decisions based upon what they feel they can afford and what is available - not a number that shows up on some abstract chart.

The FACT is that the AVERAGE (again, not even the cheapest) 1-bedroom apartment is $861 per month.

My husband and I are both social workers and last year enjoyed a combined gross income of $47,000. We've both seen program after program struggle for funding. We've both witnessed how affordable housing advocates have hi-jacked public discourse (through twisted statistics like the 861 units demolished) and turned their agenda into a crisis that does not exist in the real world.

The people of Seattle need to tell our leaders that there are HUNDREDS of societal problems that need to be addressed and funded. There is no question that affordable housing is an issue that we need to keep funding at a certain level - but we need to wake up to the fact that it is no longer our #1 priority.

ProgLady,

There is indeed a crisis in the real world for renters - and it's sort of sad that you are pretty much the ONLY person I've ever seen who can't/won't acknowledge it.

If I were one of your funders, I would take a long, hard look at your ability to analyze figures - as it is sorely lacking (your ability to rationalize your own flawed analysis after it has been pointed out to you seems to be limitless, however).

Seattle renters - take note - ProgLady has spoken, and you don't have a problem. Move along (to Tacoma, if necessary), as there's nothing to see here!

"THE AVERAGE APARTMENT IN SEATTLE IS AFFORDABLE TO SOMEONE MAKING $17,200."

Upon reflection, ProgLady's idiocy really does speak for itself - the average apartment is $861/month. How is that affordable to someone pulling down $17,200 (note - she didn't say to two people making $17,200 - she said to "someone" making $17,200).

This is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, only more depressing (of course, this is the same person who "couldn't imagine" 100 units of housing
being demolished, than had to acknowledge that is was well over 600 last year alone).

X -

You clearly are a troll - you this is the last response you'll receive from me - but just to clear the record.

You claimed that it was "over 2,000" units being demolished.

I challenged that by saying that I couldn't imagine that it was over 100.

Your split personally chimed in that the actual number was 681.

I looked at the map and realized that THE ACTUAL NUMBER WAS 13. Does the number 13 look familiar - have you perchance seen it in any of my other comments?

Again, I'm done wasting my time with you. You've proven pretty clearly that you don't have a grip on the real world.

But also for the record, these artists and students that you claim are being forced out of Seattle - I work with them EVERYDAY. Yes, it can be a challenge to find an apartment that you LIKE. It might not be in the right neighborhood or be as big as they'd like, but EVERY SINGLE ONE has found a place that they can afford. Sure, there have been some that have moved to Tacoma or Portland - but it was because they had better opoprtunities or felt that they could get more for their money - most definately NOT becasue they couldn't find anything here in Seattle. Get a clue and check out Craigslist.

Why don't you also ask these imaginary blue collar friends of yours what their REAL concerns are. While I'm sure they'd love to save $50/month on rent, the ones I talk with everyday are far more concerned with health care, good schools for their kids, realiable bus service, the ability to walk down a street in Belltown after dark without being accosted by drunks or drug dealers - all things that we as a City have been fooled into thinking are of lesser importance.

As I wrote above, the affordable housing community has done a wonderful job and performed a valuable service. However, we're now at a point where more important things need the attention that they still insist on commanding. It's time to MOVE ON!

Alright, let's try again.

1) I never said that 2k units per year were being demolished - I said that I wouldn't be surprised if close to 1k were in a given year. What I did say was that DPD said that, if current trends continue, they would receive 2000 applications for condo conversions this year. You disputed this, and misread their chart (and the plain language I just cited) to try and say that that figure was for the last 3 years. Score one big demerit there for your reading comprehension and understanding of basic english. Condo conversions take rental units off of the market - period.

2) You don't know me or my friends. In fact, I do have lots of blue collar friends, and like most of the working poor, they will never see a social worker and/or apply for subsidized housing. Notwithstanding your opinion of what they think, they do indeed worry about rising rents in Seattle (and most of them wouldn't go to Belltown now on a bet, at least since the Frontier Room was turned into yet another generic yuppie hangout). Shifting the topic to the need for universal health care (which I support - I'm all for socialized medicine) doesn't change the FACT that working people do indeed worry a lot about housing costs - and for good reason.

3) The 600+ single family houses that were demolished to make room for new townhouses/condos were in fact units - and a good number were probably shared rentals that the people I know could afford. On our block (and this is a stone cold fact), they are tearing down SF houses that go for about $220,000 or so (or are being rented out at about $1200/month for a 3 bedroom house) and putting up condos that go for over $350,000. This may mean a neat profit for someone who sells and develops, but does not lower the price of housing on that lot by one iota.

4) While there are indeed still some apartments in Seattle that the people I am talking about would consider affordable - say in the 500-650 range for a 1-bedroom - what is being built now rents for a lot more than that. Not everyone wants to share a small one or two bedroom apartment with a friend, and they ought to be able to find a place in Seattle, too (they used to share houses, but of course those don't count as units in your bizarre and somewhat elitist view)

Of course, you are right and pretty much everyone else who has looked at the problem is wrong, and the situation for renters in Seattle is just ducky, so I'm just wasting my breath. But when I hear trickle-down density advocates like you talk about how building units that rent for well over $800/month (and most of the new ones go for considerably more than that) is great for working folks, I just can't resist. It's even funnier when you make the argument - apparently with a straight face - that an $800+/month apartment is affordable to someone pulling down less than 20k a year.

ProgLady - I am an aide for an elected official. My job security has absolutely nothing to do with whether low income housing gets built or not. Sharon Lee and John Fox don't contribute oodles of money to campaign coffers...

Your post last week said the: "city admits that 70% of the rental units downtown are affordable at 60% of the median income."

You then produced an OH press release that contradicted your point and said: "70% of downtown units are affordable to incomes up to $41,700."

I am one of those that you claim is responsible for turning an "agenda into a crisis that does not exist in the real world." When you say one minute 70% of rental housing is affordable to 60% median income (or ~$800 for a single earner HH/one bedroom) when in FACT 70% of rental housing is affordable to 80% median income (or ~$1000 for a single earner HH/one bedroom) you provide just another example showing that you are misinformed, yet even when we try and give you accurate information it doesn’t alter your world view. That’s troubling. I’ve justified spending as much time on this topic with you in the hopes that informing you that 2000 units HAVE been lost from the housing market and a lesser number built to replace them would influence the way you think about this issue and the people who care about it.

Let me try one last time.

Turn the numbers above on their head and you find that only 30% of all rental housing downtown is affordable to people making less than 80% median income. So if you have only ONE income and make less than $41,700/year, only 30% of the housing available downtown will be affordable to you.

The percentage of income that people pay for their rent is larger the poorer you are. (Read the Consolidated Plan report on housing needs I linked to earlier). There are a couple ways to explain the impact of this. One way is: the likelihood that one pays more than 30% of their income increases the less income they have. Another way is: the likelihood that you can find affordable housing - costing no more than 30% of your income - decreases the less income you have.

Because the number of affordable units available on the market decreases the lower income one is and because the rental housing market's ability to meet the need is most insufficient at the lower income levels the concept of subsidized housing was born.

Sadly, the need is so great that we CAN'T subsidize enough units to meet the ever growing need created by the redevelopment of rental housing.
The point is that the conversion of rental housing to condos and the demolition of housing are not being mitigated by the new development of housing. I don’t know how your argument that the 681 units of demolished housing is in buildings containing 10 units or less does anything at all to answer the question being asked of whether or not the city has enough NEW units to house the more than 681 people – many of the demoed houses were group rentals - who lived in the demoed units and the people who lived in the 1000 units of rental units that were converted to condos (thus far in 2006 DPD has received inspection applications for 1162 units. 1162 + 681 = more or less 2,000 lost units) at a rate that is at least as affordable as what they were paying before the redevelopment that displaced them.

Is this article just fabrication of a crisis too?:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/282566_rentals25.html

Every social worker I know (I’m sitting right next to a homeless shelter manager) believes firmly that affordable housing is the greatest challenge to the low income people they work with. The larger percentage of your income that you pay in rent, because of the lack of affordable units (note: you can go on and on all day about what the average rent is – that says nothing at all about the number of those units that are available) available on the market – the less money you have for food, child care, etc.

Re: your very last post – 1) WHAT was thirteen? 681 units were demolished – who cares how many buildings (I’m guessing that’s what the 13 number is) that represents? Do you know what a unit of housing is? And 2) You write: “affordable housing community has done a wonderful job and performed a valuable service.” That’s funny last week you wrote: that all they are doing is “lining the pockets of ‘non-profit’ housing providers like Sharon Lee.”

Ding, ding, ding, we finally have the answer! Our good friend X/LH is a City employee. Our tax dollars at work funding the super-efficient bureaucracy where she struggles under the heavy load of forms, reports and handbooks (and charts).

You got a cush gig sister (low, but guaranteed, pay with no work) - your 2.3 GPA from Central Washington came in handy, eh (or were you a drop-out with a purdy mouth, like our Mayor)?

If you were going to sell your soul for no money, why not go to work for an organization that does REAL WORK and at least has a chance to make a REAL CHANGE? Perhaps it was because you couldn't "do" math or "do" writing or "do" talking well enough for any non-profit to hire you...

To claim that the bureaucracy has no interest in maintaining the status quo is perhaps the dumbest thing that you've written on this or any thread. To believe that you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. If you're young and naive - shut-up, listen and THINK and you might be able to get out before it's too late. If you're not young and naive - well, that's the problem with our bureaucracy...

And by the way - if you want to continue this debate with someone else ('cause I'm outta here), you'll want to learn the difference between the issue of homelessness and the issue of affordable housing. It's as basic as it gets - any affordable housing advocate could explain it to you (maybe you should talk with one).

Oh, and X/LH, I'm going to leave the last word to you - because it's clear how important that is to you...

See ya!

Ah, the hallmark of a really keen mind - when the facts aren't on your side, go with the ad hominem attack (and one that particularly displays your ignorance, I would add).

I feel sorry for the people you do case management for - misinformed and mean-spirited is no way to go through life as a social worker.

I do make a good living. I agree it's "cush." Telling you that I'd never made more than $20K a year before the job I have now (I'm pushing forty with a grown daughter that I raised myself) probably wouldn't matter much to you at all.

Those $20K and under jobs have been 1) tenant organizer for the Tenants Union, 2) low-income neighborhood organizer for ACORN, 3) shelter staff, 4) working for a low-income housing developer, and 5) low-income neighborhood organizer for an east coast organization called Syracuse Unitied Neighbors.

Yow write: "To claim that the bureaucracy has no interest in maintaining the status quo is perhaps the dumbest thing that you've written on this or any thread."

When have I EVER written that? Now I know you can't read either. (by the way the sentence "You don’t know how to do math." is not gramatically incorrect in any way.)

I work for an ELECTED...not the bureaucracy. Whether I have a job depends on whether my boss gets re-elected. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the bureaucracy has an interest in maintaining the status quo - that's precisely why I've been convinced that you work for the Office of Housing or DPD. YOU are advocating to maintain the status quo...the status quo city policies of tearing down existing housing and hoping that the natural forces of supply and demand take care of the resulting displacement of poor people.

Mr X and I (as well as a lot of others not torturing themselves here on this thread) are the ones challenging the status quo by looking for some analysis of the problem (don't you remember the Real Change flyer you got last week? they're *activists* - they are looking for change. They are fighting to get the City to do something different)and policy/legislative/regulatory changes to address the problems.

YOU are the one saying there's no problem - THAT is maintaining the status quo. Post a mailing address next time and I'd be happy to send you a dictionary.

Housing affordability is a continuum - meeting the housing needs of homeless people is on one end. Meeting the housing needs of low-income people is on that same continuum. I talk to both housing and shelter advocates every single day - both professionally and socially - I am very well aware of the differences and similarities.

...had a great rehearsal tonite with four of my non-existent blue collar friends (an auto mechanic, UPS fork lift driver, construction worker, and a sound guy/road manager/tech for low-rent but successful enough to tour but not successful enough to pay well indie bands).

This topic (which started, I should add, with $1.5 million condos) didn't come up, but I thought folks should know, lest they believe I've been posting on behalf of the working poor from the Rainier Club or something...