I guess it depends on whether you want to keep people in that income bracket in the city, or if "in King County" is good enough. Right now a lot of them are pushed out to Kent and points south.

not sure if i'm a fan of all this subsidizing. seems to me like supply and demand should be given a chance to kick in.

@2: Well, the market seems to have decided the only form of housing Seattle needs is luxury condos.

I pay about $800 per month in rent (as do most of the people I know who live alone), and there's no way in hell I should have to subsidize units that rent for close to 50% more than that.

Equity issues aside, this will help accelerate the destruction of the older units that renters actually find affordable, and is well worth opposing on that basis alone. Why the City is creating financial incentives to accelerate this process is beyond me.

what price are they saying is 'affordable' for median income?
If median income is 45,000 then, traditionally, 'affordable' is 3-4x that amount: 135,000-180,000

I highly doubt there are "100,000+" units on the market in king county that fall into that price range.

@5,

Rentals, not homes for purchase. In which case, "affordable" is $875-$1000 per month, which is actually pretty affordable, even to Mr. X who apparently isn't good at math.

Tom Rasmussen should also be taken to task for opposing the annexation of White Center to Seattle. His position is horrible. Anyone who has been to Burien and been to White Center knows it belongs in the City of Seattle.

Tom believes that the largest, richest city in the county should not annex one of the region's most affordable and diverse neighborhoods. He would rather see one of the smallest, poorest cities in the county (Burien) annex it instead.

Housing advocates should be similarly distressed by Tom's selfish position on White Center annexation.

If all new rental housing is this expensive, it's time to put an end to this tax break. There's simply very little public benefit left in Rasmussen's proposal (and none in Nickels').

According to the City of Seattle document I'm looking at, they consider "affordable" rent at 80% of median to be $1,090 for a studio and $1,169 for a one bedroom.

Most of the renters I know consider $875 to be way too much for a studio (and I have co-workers who have recently rented studios for well under $600/mo)

Just who has math problems here?

BTW - Tiptoe - White Center annexation to Seattle is opposed by lots of folks there. In summary, it's a great deal if you own property there and want to sell out after being annexed, not such a great deal if you're a renter of if you own property and know that your new Seattle property taxes are likely to rise a whole lot more quickly than your income (and spare me the BS argument that everyone who opposes annexation by Seattle is a racist, please).

I don't see why we can't let the market sort it out on its own. There is a glut of units for sale, which greatly reduces the incentive for developers to continue to build condo buildings and/or convert apartments. Instead they'll opt to build apartment buildings, and it's likely that we'll even see buildings that were slated for condos switch over to apartments. Developers aren't dumb; they'll go to where the demand is, and believe it or not: condos ain't it anymore.

My favorite city link to post:

http://www.seattle.gov/housing/incentives/Limits_HomesWithinReach.htm

click on "2007 limits"

The Mayor's proposal is to subsidize the development of studios that rent for $1,363 - or a 1 bedroom that rents for $1,460!

This is what the city guidelines define as affordable to a 100% median income person (who makes $54,500/year). Read the chart and weep.

@9,

The new tax breaks would also cover people who earn 70 percent of the median, that's where I'm getting the $875 number. As I've learned in my most recent apartment search, many studios are renting at that price or above. Besides, affordability is determined by percentage of income, not what individual people consider reasonable.

Keshmeshi - 70%, or a single person making $38,150/year, would be rents at $954 (studio) or $1022 (one bedroom.

Mad yet?

The rule of thumb I've always seen is that you shouldn't spend more than 1/3 of your income on housing, so those figures aren't complete budget busters for people with those incomes. There's no denying they're steep compared to the suburbs, though.

On Craigslist right now there are dozens and dozens of available unsubsidized apartments in Seattle that rent for far less than the units Nickels/Rasmussen/et al propose to subsidize.

And just you watch - if this program passes, you can bet your bottom dollar that Seattle electeds will try and use housing levy funds to subsidize market-rate development when that comes up for renewal.

@14

Don't forget taxes. $54000 becomes $44000 if I'm doing my math right.

So 44k / 12 * 33% = $1,222 vs. the city's 1,363 for a craptastic studio.

And the city's definition of affordable includes utilities, adding to the pain.

I make above median wage and pay $650/mo in rent. A jump to anywhere near $1,363 would really hurt.

The issue isn't that these rents are unreasonable rental rates.

The point is:

1. These are units that rent at rates that are market rent or exceed the rental market in Seattle.

2. There is a surplus of units available and affordable to people at 70% and higher. In other words, we don't need what we are subsidizing.

3. What we are subsidizing makes what we have less affordable...the tax burden that developers save gets passed on to other tax payers.

4. We aren't subsidizing what we do need - rental units affordable to people under 60% median income...for instance single people making less than $32,700/year who need $816-$886 a month apartments.

Are you sure you didn't mean Matt Fox?

I'm sure, exelizabeth. But I know Matt too.

Angry like FOXES!