Also keep in mind that the median rent the City likes to quote is based on Dupre and Scott's work - which is skewed toward newer and larger buildings because that is who they survey. Lots and lots of units go for less, at least until they are torn down because subsidies like this make it a lot more profitable to do so (as does allowing all kinds of projects that are dubious under the existing land use code, but that's a separate problem).

If you mean people like me who make as a single person (with one son) more than the median family of four ... sure.

Otherwise, you effectively accelerate the forcing out of truly middle class families and let people like me get subsidized rent.

Thanks!

I'd like to point out something that the "sensationalists" don't want you to understand...this is ONE of MANY incentive programs the government can use to encourage affordable development. ONLY ONE. Tailoring this toward middle income folks will not be the end of the world for very low income folks, who MOST ALL the government programs are REQUIRED to serve by State and Federal law.

This is one measley program with very little fiscal impact to the Seattle citizen that we could TRY, just TRY, to use to help middle income folks who are currently fleeing from the city because they cannot afford a home on their pretty damn decent salary. And that's sad.

the problem is also that the number of politicians who will stand up to this trend is getting smaller. Most of the projects are workforce housing, just like the new one that is going up by the stadium. It is the trend thats the problem. housing authorities are moving away from their commitments to the poor by taking on new hope 6 plans which studies show due cause a loss of units. seattle has lost thousands of units with the convention center and all the goofy glitz that went up. those units were never replaced.

make no mistake, this is the way of the future, build housing for those future voters and let the poor live on the margins, the days of subsidies for people that dont vote are coming to an end, and it makes it easier for them to put the poor in the back burner, because lets face it, most voters here-or anywhere- do not want to subsidize low income housing, they just will not admit it. the pronlem with this is that your councils become more and more spineless and next thing you know they will sell historic buildings to developers to build 5 star hotels.

fox and the ever shrinking housing cadres are fighting a losing battle, but we are all lucky that they are out there fighting.

Look in the newspaper classifieds or on Craigslist - there is NO crisis for people looking at finding rentals "affordable" to those at 80% and above of median income. None, nada, zip.

I make a lot less than $48k/year but consider myself to be reasonably well off, and have no expectation that the City ought to subsidize me. However, it would be nice if they didn't actively subsidize the demolition of the remaining places that I and people like me can actually afford without government assistance.

I entirely agree with your points, but Mr. X brings up a useful point in the other thread:

Doesn't this potentially subsidize the destruction of low-income housing to make way for middle-class housing? I would be more comfortable with this proposal if it specifically omitted that kind of project.

The Mayor is misfocusing his efforts. Is he doing so intentionally?

Subsidize only "defenseless populations."

The problem seems to be that Seattle is just too damn popular. If we would just cut back on transit and bike lanes, leave the viaduct up, tear down popular bars, build condos without balconies and have a bad attitude towards nightlife maybe people wouldn't want to live here.

The Mayor's program and its expansion turns the tax code into swiss cheese. It is actually a tax shift from the developers of targeted housing to all other property owners in Seattle. The various levies are targeted to raise the same amount.

Who pays the property taxes not paid by the targeted developers? The rest of use, both owners and renters alike. Renters pay higher property taxes through higher rents. The tax shift is silent and helps the targeted developers and a few members of the select housing type.

Many poor unsubsidized households would pay higher rents because the tax was shifted to their units from the Mayor's favored new developments.

The program is not very fair, as so few benefit at the expense of many and the integrity of the property tax. How are those tenants or new owners selected? There are many low income or moderate income households facing rising rents and prices in Seattle.

The program is not very efficient and gets little affordable housing bang for its buck because much of the development would have occurred anyway (economists would term this the consumer (or in this case, developer) surplus).

Newness is an expensive characteristic in housing. This is appreciated by John Fox. He pushes this to the extreme is asking that all affordable sticks be preserved.

The most powerful tool for affordable housing that Seattle city government has is the zoning code. They used it last year: the allowed tall skinny building downtown and allowed new multifamily structures in urban centers with less parking. That was good. They could do more. More than 70 percent of Seattle is zoned single family. It could be more dense by allowing cottage housing and detached accessory dwelling units. Any single-family zoned land on 15-minute headway bus routes could be upzoned to low rise multifamily. Most multifamily and commercial zones could be upzoned. Northgate, Roosevelt, U District, Capitol Hill, and MLK Jr. Way South could be upzoned around LRT stations.

The SHA is discussing Yesler Terrace. It should be significantly upzoned to be similar to downtown or First Hill. The SHA would gain significant value and it could use its returns to subsidize housing throughout the city. Yesler Terrace would be a great place for tall multifamily housing: next to downtown and the hospitals with good transport. SHA could afford to provide more subsidies on less costly land elsewhere.