City P-I Credulous on Conversions
posted by on November 14 at 15:44 PM
Today’s Seattle P-I has a gushing piece praising condo conversions as a way of “keeping old buildings alive,” on the premise that if old, run-down, affordable apartment buildings aren’t converted into condos pronto, they’ll be torn down for new development.
Bonus: Condo conversions “bring needed investment in an old building and create many owners,” making future demolition less likely.
Ben Rankin, a principal at the company that’s converting the Pittsburgh Apartments on Queen Anne, justifies kicking out the building’s tenants by pointing out that “there are still a lot of buildings out there for rent.” And, the P-I notes, he paid the low-income tenants the legally mandated $500 relocation fee. The token “opposition” quote comes at the very bottom of the story, from Tenants Union advocate Michelle Thomas: “I’m not sure that preserving a building at the cost of preserving apartments that are affordable is that much of a priority.”
I don’t think it should be a priority at all; and, as far as I know, neither does the Tenants Union. I’m not sure what else Thomas told the reporter, but the tenants’ side of this story goes much farther. Seattle is seeing unprecedented rates of condo conversions (with at least eight new conversions announced in the past month alone); and with each conversion comes a building full of displaced tenants. Since most tenants can’t afford to buy the apartments they rented (the Queen Anne condos cited in the P-I story will sell for $239,000 to $370,000), they have to leave, often with minimal notice. Relocation assistance, while a nice gesture, doesn’t really help people without savings; try paying first and last month’s rent on a new place, plus moving costs, with $500 and whatever’s in your checking account (assuming you have one). If you’re not making less than 50 percent of the Seattle median (that is, if you’re not making less than $27,250 for a household of one), you can scratch that $500 from your ledger.
It just warms the very bottom of my renter-hating scrooge-loving DSA-worshipping monorail-hating heart ...
Oh, wait, no, that's bizarro Will in Seattle speaking.
You get $2,000 of you are on the poverty line, but you get NOTHING if you don't speak up for your rights as a tenant. Condo developers will keep mum about the cash unless you know your rights.
Jesus people... Who can really live on 27, 250? I know trying to move on THAT kind of salary will leave you with nothing, if that.
Good luck my fellow poor people.
Um, grad students. You don't think we pay them much more than that, do you?
It's more like developers ripping off residents to the tune of $250K a head for outdated, glorified apartments. Meanwhile, apartments are disappearing, no affordable ones are popping up to replace them, the prices keep going up and up, and no one cares.
I'm glad you're at least addressing this issue, ECB. And yes, it's a serious problem.
Give me a break. Preserving nice buildings should be a much higher priority than ensuring we have cheap rentable apartments. If you want zillions of cheap, ugly buildings with low rent and no character, then move to Kent.
Hey guys, Ben is an old friend of mine. He is really the kindest and most generous guy you could ever hope to meet.
This reads more like a Nicole Brodeur column than a Slog post. Yes, the set of circumstances is not ideal for everyone, and yes, the reason it's still happening is because the alternatives - rent control, negative population growth, house value depreciation - are much, much worse.
As with a Brodeur column, after suitable hand-wringing, by the end we realize there's still no practical solution.
One reason that condo conversions are popular is that it allows developers to avoid the near inevitable lawsuits that come with building new condominiums. Condominium associations often sue developers, builders and architects over construction flaws. It is so common that many developers can't get insurance or financing for new condominium construction. However, there is a seven year statute of limitations on lawsuits related to construction flaws. Many developers build new apartments, rent them for seven years and then convert to condominiums. It's planned from the beginning. I wouldn't have a problem with this practice if developers were up front about it - if they explained to new tenants that they were planning to convert to condominiums in the future.
Defend your point with some reasoning, Sean, or your statement comes across as nothing more than a troll. What does 'preserving nice buildings' matter enough to deprive renters of affordable housing?
House value depreciation is coming, Troy, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with population, jobs or rent control.
In case you haven't bothered to think about it, Seattle is very obviously in the middle of a credit-fueled housing bubble. In a market with historical annual increases of less than 3%, it doesn't take a genius to realize that year-over-year gains of 15% are irrational and unsustainable.
I don't blame developers for leaping at the chance to make some easy money -- I blame the city for not stopping their blatantly greedy behavior in order to protect the public interest.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).