I don't think comparing the first 2 weeks of this year to last year is all that accurate.

Mastro may be really good at what he does, but what developers aren't realizing is that the entire credit/housing situation that we're entering is unprecedented. (I live in a Mastro building and it's shit, btw.)

Check out seattlebubble.com. All the "Seattle is Special" arguments have been shot down time and time again. We will not be saved.

I think a lot of these developers don't have a choice but to continue with their projects. What they DO have a choice over is whether they're condos or apartments. We're already seeing conversions that were in development revert back to apartments, and I think that very soon we'll start seeing developments go apartments that were originally slated to be condos.

...or I could just a bitter stinking renter.

The Belltown canyons of Western/Elliott Ave condo-overbuilding loom ominously as we repeat the boom/bust cycle of 8 years ago. Given that most of those butt-ugly buildings replaced put-money-in-the-slot parking lots, I guess the landscape is no worse for them. But it has all the community feel of some post-Armageddon wasteland.

This post may have been ghosted by C Mudede.

Actually, I think the developers might be onto something -- though they may not be entirely aware of what they're onto.

Inflation for 2007 was the highest it's been since 1990 and we're about to cut interest rates again, which will push inflation even further. And if the federal government ends up addressing the immigration debate in an substantive way, pretty much every politically feasible solution will result in massive across-the-board inflation. All of which means that development projects financed into the uphill slope of the inflationary curve are likely to be moneymakers, regardless of what happens in the short-term market. This is particularly true for rentals, where the project is financed at 4% and paid for in 2008 dollars, then rented out in 2009 dollars that are going to be much more plentiful, worth less relative to the CPI, but still just as useful for paying down that 2008 debt.

Really, anyone who doesn't get gobbled up by this wave of foreclosures is likely to do extremely well with equity investments over the next 10 years.

Not just "that or they're nuts," though. Another driver for the anomalous groundbreakings: development accounting logic requires that they get it off their balance sheets and into cash flow. In a downturn, building for a cash-flowable loss beats letting unused property sit. Lucky Seattle.

i love economics!

I don't get why people think there's some kind of law of supply and demand at work here that will rescue renters from the market and somehow undo the damage done by displacement. It's more than just the number of people who want to live in Seattle that drives rents up. It's also the number of rich who want to live in the city again. Demand for rental units has gone up, while total supply has gone DOWN, causing rental units to become even more expensive for those who are not displaced outside the city limits altogether. Why? Because the entire market for new development is skewed toward condos, and condo conversion and the demolition of rentals is happening faster than newer rental units are being built.

In reality, supply and demand means the needs of low-income people matter less than the preferences of upper income people who have more. Condo prices might drop in the near future, but even if some are converted to rentals the odds that rents will go down significantly in Seattle following all this displacement is low. Hope your friend enjoys the south end.

One line of thinking holds that it makes sense to invest in property development, if you can afford to, during housing downturns because the cost of construction tends to be lower and because it takes so long to build high-rises that, by the time they're finished, the housing market has shifted to an upward trend again.

all i have is anecdotal evidence of the bubble bursting: there's a 2 million dollar POS across the street from my house that's been sitting on the market for 6 months.

they blocked my view of Mt. Index, so fuck them.

Tearing down those cheap apartments in the picture to build expensive new ones is going to help keep rental prices down? When - in 20 years?

This supply-side mythology - and the City's active encouragement of it through the winks and nods of a DPD bent on approving every new project no matter how dubious - is driving the affordability crisis in Seattle.

I don't get why people think there's some kind of law of supply and demand at work here that will rescue renters from the market and somehow undo the damage done by displacement.

Because there is a law of supply and demand at work here that will rescue renters: there are only so many rich people who want to move to Seattle; only so many people who can afford to buy condos; only so many people who can afford to buy single family houses. And all indications are that those markets are saturated and will correct themselves. New projects are likely to be targeted to renters.

As far as "the damage done by displacement": whatever. Renters can opt out of their arrangement with a landlord anytime they want. Landlords should obviously have the same privilege.

Judah - I suppose some of those new projects will be targeted at renters: renters who can afford $1300 and up for a one-bedroom apartment. The vast majority of the renters I know can't begin to afford that (and those who can are more likely to go out and rent an older house for that price).

You density boosters remind me of Republicans getting all weepy over Laffer Curves....

I'm sorry, but how exactly does adding thousands of obscenely priced condos and apartments to the market keep living costs down for everyone? Please explain that one to me as I have this pesky common sense thing going on here.

I suppose some of those new projects will be targeted at renters: renters who can afford $1300 and up for a one-bedroom apartment.

Okay. So I'm wondering why the fuck would anyone rent a one bedroom apartment for $1300 a month when they could just as easily buy a one bedroom condo for that amount, but we'll skip past that and return to the point I made earlier:

There are a limited number of people who can afford to pay large sums of money for housing. The market will eventually equalize based on the supply of housing and the demand for that housing. The demand for extremely expensive housing is declining sharply.

But more broadly, what's your complaint here? That there are people in the world who have more money than you and that they use that money to buy stuff you think you're entitled to? Guess what: you're not actually at the bottom of the food chain. You're about half-way up, and there are plenty of people beneath you who are having resources taken away from them by your purchasing power. That's how it works.

Suck it up.

Oh, and Judah, most renters have these pesky things called "leases" that prevent them from opting out of their apartments "any time they want."

I repeat - once you tear down the 500-800/month one bedroom apartments that most of the people I know live in, they are gone forever. PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but how exactly does adding thousands of obscenely priced condos and apartments to the market keep living costs down for everyone?

Where did anyone claim that the condo market was going to "keep living costs down for everyone"?

Mr. X, where do they go?

why should the cost of living be kept down for everyone?

@16 -

White Center, Kent, Tukwila, Lynnwood, Mt Lk Terrace, Everett, etc etc etc...

So much for fighting sprawl!

what are rents like in those places?

judah @13, you rock

"But more broadly, what's your complaint here? That there are people in the world who have more money than you and that they use that money to buy stuff you think you're entitled to? Guess what: you're not actually at the bottom of the food chain. You're about half-way up, and there are plenty of people beneath you who are having resources taken away from them by your purchasing power. That's how it works."

this is the truth. why does someone willing to pay a higher amount have less of a right to rent an apartment? because you were there first? also, the fact you're willing to pay 800 dollars for a 1 bedroom is keeping out someone only willing to pay 400 dollars for a 1 bedroom.

#10 - completely wrong, but your ignorance is funny, so thanks for the laffs! As long as most other places in the country suck (true), and the ones that don't remain more expensive than Seattle (true), then people will move here, driving up rents and home prices. Your options: move to one of those places that suck, or STFU.

@21,

poor people should live in places that suck if they can't afford places that don't suck. poor people aren't entitled to stay in a certain place because they grew up there.

Seattlebubble.com has been forecasting doom and gloom since their inception... in fact just yesterday someone posted on there that they haven't purchased because of the blowhards on that site... three times they thought they were going to buy only to be convinced otherwise by a bunch of non-industry blowhards who like to predict gloom and doom. My guess would be this guy is regretting ever reading that stupid blog.

Tim provides solid data, but skews it to his liking. These are facts and they are undisputable:

1. There is a positive Net Migration to Seattle/Washington
2. Rents are rising
3. Interest rates remain low
4. Companies are hiring and continue to produce well paying jobs
5. Condos have not been in the mindset of Seattle. For the longest period of time, Condo's were what you bought if you couldn't afford a house. We now have people who are looking at condos instead of homes because there is a mental shift in thinking that condos are better than homes in many ways (i.e. NY, SF, LA).
6. Baby Boomers are tired of the maintenance a house accompanies. They want to get rid of their large home with their large lot and the day to day overbearing maintenance. Baby boomers are still all about themselves... and can't wait to shed themselves of responsibility and focus on their traveling, their leisure and their lifestyle.
7. Some condos are being converted into apartments (expo 62)
8. Seattle is a destination city.
9. Real Estate in Seattle is still the hottest in the nation, and there is no evidence that we are a trailing economy as of recent years (otherwise we would have climbed out of our recession a few years back MUCH sooner)
10. People need places to live.

So does it suprise me that developers are still building? Not at all...

Are we due for a correction? Yes...

Will we see depreciation? Maybe, but if we look at a historical perspective, the worst we have ever dealt with as far as property values declining has been 2% Year to Year.

Jason H.

when was the inception of seattlebubble? 2005? 2 years of doom and gloom? looking at the home prices, credit crunch, etc etc. seems like they started at the exact right time.

also, an influx of people into puget sound isn't like some mythical horn of plenty. things will fluctuate and what is currently happening in regards to migration here won't always be true, not even 10 years from now.

2. anecdotally?
3. interest rates are low but lenders are the ones that pull the trigger and they arent pulling the trigger so readily anymore.
4. and when a recession hits which it is, will that be the case?
7. and some condos are converting back to apartments
8. subjective
9. still hottest in the nation? that is quite a mark of distinction when other markets are experiencing double digit losses.
10. at prices they can afford.

More evidence that the condo conversion bill is way too late.

We're still seeing conversions, but this time from condos into apartments:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347684_expo16.html

Oh, and Judah, most renters have these pesky things called "leases" that prevent them from opting out of their apartments "any time they want."

And renters with leases can't be displaced; landlords are required to honor those leases even when they sell the property. Insofar as I was addressing your point about displacement, renters with leases are outside the scope of the discussion.

#10 - completely wrong, but your ignorance is funny, so thanks for the laffs!

Always fun to be accused of ignorance by someone who can't spell "laughs." But thanks for the incisive commentary.

Boy, thanks to all the Republicans and Libertarians who wrote in to remind us that $$$ (sorry, I mean property rights) is value #1 of all. If you don't have $$$, well, "suck it up." Which means get the hell out of our fun "urban" playground! Lovely city that'll be.

BTW, I may be a Liberal Economic Ignoramus, but I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how building a bunch of 1-bedroom apartments starting at $1,300 a month is going to make things peachy for all renters. Aren't these developers building these projects counting on there being enough people in (or moving to) Seattle who can afford $1,300+ a month for apartments? If that's false, the developer "is nuts." If that's true, where's the benefit to non-millionaires?

Which means get the hell out of our fun "urban" playground! Lovely city that'll be.

Just as a point of order, I've lived on Capitol Hill since I was 7 years old, in 1979. After about 1990, pretty much everyone I knew growing up was forced out to the suburbs by the "hip" element that is currently bitching about being forced off the hill.

This is my point about where you guys live on the food chain: you got access to the urban core by pricing out the group that preceded you. Climb the fuck down off your high horse.

BTW, I may be a Liberal Economic Ignoramus, but I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how building a bunch of 1-bedroom apartments starting at $1,300 a month is going to make things peachy for all renters.

And again I ask: show me where anyone said that.

maddog, why does there need to be a solution that is "peachy" for all renters. there just needs to be a solution that is peachy for the people that are renting them out and the people that can afford to rent them. why is someone who has less money more entitled to keep the apartment, and screw not only the landlord, but also a potential renter?

rent control doesnt work. it causes shortages of apartments and makes the game of getting an apartment one based on bias towards people you know and people you like.

also, any city, whose nightlife/culture etc that can't handle the gentrification of a single neighborhood probably doesnt have that good of a nightlife/culture.

Judah @ 28,

Dominic Holden essentially said exactly that in the last sentence of the post that started this thread, and others here (including you) have echoed the same trickle-down BS in numerous posts.

@29 - there are a whole lot of folks who are still able to live in NYC and Santa Monica who would beg to differ about rent control.

I would MUCH rather read a blog by a "non-industry blowhard" than the garbage that is spewed by realtors and "industry experts" whose incomes DEPEND on duping you into buying a house as quickly as possible and at any cost.

Look how many times the NAR has 'called the bottom' of the housing downturn in the past couple years.

29: Because a city thrives on a diversity of people from various backgrounds, interests, and income groups. Unless you're one of those people who would just as soon not have to deal with low-class, scruffy blue collar types. I'm not saying you're one of them, but there are plenty of them around.

And, more fundamentally, because (the point I was trying to make above) there _are_ values besides the absolute right to buy whatever you want and can afford--or to charge whatever amount you want and others can afford. That may be rich people's idea of an ironclad, inviolable principle of fairness. But for the rest of us it's a little lacking in those values (community, shared culture, diversity) that I thought drew people to cities in the first place.

#30: "One neighborhood"? Where have you been? Try "within the Seattle city limits."

So long as more people are moving to Seattle, and so long as people refuse to wake up and start building 40-100 story tall inexpensive residential rental apartment buildings, we'll keep seeing more 4 story condo buildings.

A smart city would upzone near transit hubs to create tall building with greenspace parks around them.

But no, we have to pretend single family housing in Seattle is affordable ...

@28 (again): Maybe "peachy for all renters" is an oversimplification, but I'm referring to this paragraph:

"There are a limited number of people who can afford to pay large sums of money for housing. The market will eventually equalize based on the supply of housing and the demand for that housing. The demand for extremely expensive housing is declining sharply."

I'm guessing that means "equalize" doesn't necessarily mean "equalize at a price most current residents can afford"--even though that's the basis arguments that the high-end building boom somehow benefits eveyone.

Damn, how I wish I could spell (type).

I think the food chain analogy is apt. I'm sad to think I'm displacing poorer folks just by living in this system, and frightened I'll be displaced in turn by richer if I don't make life choices that bring in ever-higher income.

Other bustling cities around the world have tried to help citizens relax and feel settled in their homes, no matter where they live, with some success. Even where they fail, they've acknowledged that there's a civic goal of voters not living in housing fear all the time.

The food chain thing's been the only game in this town for too long.

@31, there are a lot of people that live in NYC and Santa Monica but trying to move into a place that has rent control is harder. especially if you don't know people who can help you get in. Yes, people get in but there is a fundamental shortage of apartments due to rent control as anyone searching for one in NYC will tell you. this is basic macro economics with regards to floor and ceilings on prices. the people who differ on opinion are the ones paying below market rates for their apartment. it serves the interest of 1 person over 2 other people.

trickle down economics is b.s. to some degree (at least in regards to the aggregate of what happens) but what judah and dominic are talking about isn't trickle down.

@33, i live on cap hill because it is close to where i work. i value not driving or taking a bus. I don't care much for the culture of capitol hill because a. it isn't that great (almost all restaurants close too early) b. it is catering to a market segment that i'm not (I'm 24 and in a relationship, bars/night clubs don't have much appeal)

my reasons for living on cap hill are different than others. i'm willing to pay 1000 a month for that value. why aren't other people willing to pay a similar amount for what they value about cap hill? see, values are subjective, and the only way to really ensure i get to enjoy what i value is to pay more for it.

diversity? seattle doesnt have it with almost 3/4ths of people being white. shared culture? wtf does that mean?

for all this talk about diversity it sure is telling that when white people cant afford their hood anymore they complain about being pushed out, instead of embracing diversity and moving into a minority neighborhood and enjoying the cross cultural exchange that happens.

maddog, you just don't get equilibrium.

"poor people should live in places that suck if they can't afford places that don't suck. poor people aren't entitled to stay in a certain place because they grew up there."

You SUCK.

Seattle is making it impossible for the people who make the city run to live anywhere near it. This coupled with a lack of viable transit is a nightmare. When the people who take care of you at the hospital can't afford to live in the city and spend 3+ hours a day on the bus getting to and from crappy run down housing in outlieing areas because that is all they can afford YOUR care in the hospital suffers. That's the current situation and it is only getting worse.

look at this another way: even with apartments that are expensive, 350 units here at the expense of 22 is 350 units of apartments not lost to price increases in other buildings.

rent control also fails to give incentive to keep the building nice and fix problems quickly.

k x one, those people will be displaced by higher rents anyway at some point. and what of new people who have said skills but because lack of units or increase prices due to lack of units they can't live there. the answer is to provide sufficient means for people to get to work. of course any kind of public improvement is somehow unseattle.

k x one, those people will be displaced by higher rents anyway at some point. and what of new people who have said skills but because lack of units or increase prices due to lack of units they can't live there. the answer is to provide sufficient means for people to get to work. of course any kind of public improvement is somehow unseattle.

i make 33k a year. i live on cap hill in a studio. do registered RN's make more money than me?

#22 - Correct!

Judah and Bellevue ave are repeating two different points:

1) The market will resolve everything (Dominic's original point) and Seattle will become more affordable again to renters.

2) It's natural and just for the market to become increasingly unaffordable so shut up and stop complaining.

The first point flies in the face of all evidence from new economy cities around the world for the last thirty years-- it simply hasn't and won't happen absent a depression which would wipe out poor people's abilities to afford lower rents anyway.

The second flies in the face of very real experiences with historic preservation, affordable housing, and human service advocacy which show that there are ways to mitigate and slow gentrification and there might even be alternatives if we weren't too scared to try them.

For the life of me I can't understand why so many people on Slog seem to embrace social darwinism. Do you miss the enlightened leadership of 19th century robber barons? Do you get a pleasure from blaming poor people for their own suffering, calling their displacement and isolation from transportation options a consumer preference?

Bellevue,

You sound exactly like the kind of Chardonnay-sucking elitist assholes like Bill O'Reilly try and paint Democrats as.

Thanks a lot for proving him right ($33k annual income notwithstanding).

#22 - Correct!

B. Ave, a betting pool has sprung up for the number of comments in a row you'll manage to post in a single thread by end of January. Go for it! Big money on the line over here...

Judah - yer welcome, dood!

Wow, I make 33k and I drink Cabernet.

@46 The market will resolve the problem of housing prices but not to the social end that makes people feel warm and fuzzy. it wont resolve the problem of people wanting something they can't afford and want other people to pay for. it wont solve the problem of feeling entitled to living in a neighborhood.

the 350 units being built saves 350 units in other buildings from having their tenants priced out by people willing to pay more. that's why it works. the demand just doesnt go away because of limited supply, the demand increases the price when there is a limited supply and until it meets the supply.

Poor people arent poor by their own doing, but they arent helped by many meausres that make us feel like we are helping them.
limiting development of new buildings doesnt help reduce prices or prevent people from being displaced by those willing to pay more.

Putting a ceiling on rent doesnt allow people to move to a new neighborhood any more than no price ceiling. it creates a shortage of apartments where bias towards personal connection and identification favors certain people over another for those scarce apartments. it creates corruption. it creates a degradation of the living space.

I don't blame all poor people for being poor, but i don't feel sorry for the poor either. i'm poor compared to someone who makes 4 times the income i make. poor is a relative term.

also, historic preservation has its own value, but we arent talking about that are we? you're talking about saving a building from the 50's or 60's that is being replaced.

and seattle already is affordable to renters. if it wasn't people wouldnt live here. affordable is a subjective term. is affordable a condition where one doesnt have to make choices involving opportunity cost?

i can see it now; affordable means being able to do everything you want to do on 33k a year. own a car, live in an apartment on capitol hill, take trips, etc etc.

obviously poor people value housing but there is a point where they value other things more than the place they live and then they move, unintended consequences and all. how much is a 3 hour commute worth to someone? the savings in rent by moving? is it worth an extra 300 a month to have an easier commute? what do you value and what are you sacrificing to get what you value most. basic economic question!

"i make 33k a year. i live on cap hill in a studio. do registered RN's make more money than me?"

RN's aren't the only people that work in hospitals.

do i make more than most of the people that work at a hospital full time?

@51 - regardless of your income, you certainly wear that attitude on your sleeve in a big way. If you're gonna be an elitist pro-capitalist prick, you may as well own it.

Petite bourgeoisie by any other name, I suppose....

I just have a better concept of what it means to earn what I have and a better concept of value. should I be sorry that my skills and ability are rewarded while those without are poor? should I feel bad about making an investment in education because it yields results when other people don't make the same investment.

if being an apologist for being ambitious and desire to be rewarded makes me a prick, so be it. ill be happier in the long run.

@33: Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.

"people get in but there is a fundamental shortage of apartments due to rent control as anyone searching for one in NYC will tell you."

So where was I advocating rent control as a solution?

"...what judah and dominic are talking about isn't trickle down"

No, more like trickle-down without the trickling.

"the 350 units being built saves 350 units in other buildings from having their tenants priced out by people willing to pay more. that's why it works"

But what if the 350 units are units the people living in them could afford, and those units are torn down for units they can't? So for folks who've been paying the rent and living as good tenants for years and years, we just say, "suck it up"? Call it "warm and fuzzy"--I call it "rewarding good behavior" vs. "rewarding greed."

"why aren't other people willing to pay a similar amount for what they value about cap hill? see, values are subjective, and the only way to really ensure i get to enjoy what i value is to pay more for it."

Man, that's a great, community-oriented attitude. Our city could do with a lot more citizens like you in our neighborhoods. "I bought it. You can't afford it. IT'S MINE."

"diversity? seattle doesnt have it with almost 3/4ths of people being white. shared culture? wtf does that mean?"

Yeah, and when we price out everyone making

"for all this talk about diversity it sure is telling that when white people cant afford their hood anymore they complain about being pushed out, instead of embracing diversity and moving into a minority neighborhood and enjoying the cross cultural exchange that happens."

Maybe you think The Stranger is talking about white people. I'm not. I'm talking about people who work low-paying jobs who take care of sick people, keep our schools and offices clean, wait the tables at our fancy restaurants, and work in department stores who have to drive 40-50 miles to work so that people like you can enjoy your "lifestyle choices." I believe that attitude is better known as, "I got mine."

i did get mine, because i sacrifice in other regards. i don't have a car. i got to school and work full time. i sleep 5 hours a night most nights.

as for the units, the net benefit is total units being built minus those lost. so what, 350-20 something? yeah, this is still a net benefit. are you purposely being stupid?

@51 Please. You're blinding us with your hard work and thrift and virtue and grasp of economics. No point worrying about those with less opportunities, education, or job status than you. (And we all know all Americans have equal opportunities to succeed--Horatio Alger said so.)

@61
actually you can worry about those with less opportunities. don't use my time, money or opportunity to do it.

also, if you really care about helping the poor why arent you doing things above and beyond what you are now to help people get into college, help them find housing and transportation they can afford, teach them how to cook at home? because you want to enforce something you value at the cost to everyone at minimal cost to yourself.

I just have a better concept of what it means to earn what I have and a better concept of value. should I be sorry that my skills and ability are rewarded while those without are poor? should I feel bad about making an investment in education because it yields results when other people don't make the same investment.

if being an apologist for being ambitious and desire to be rewarded makes me a prick, so be it. ill be happier in the long run.

@ 58 and 64

I know lots of well-educated people who know the value of a buck quite well who are being priced out of Seattle after being displaced to make room for new construction projects, you smug self-satisfied prick. (and for that matter, lots of not-so-well educated people ought to be able to live in the City where they were raised, paid taxes, and invested their time and money, too).

Who knows, at $33k/year the same thing could well happen to you before long.

Normally, this would bother me, but in your case I think I can make an exception.

They're gonna love your attitude in Tacoma, really.

they didn't pay any taxes except sales tax if they rented. investing time and money? so what? why should i be denied the same opportunity to do that if i'm willing to pay more.

i make no apologies for living in a studio on cap hill that i pay less than 600 for. I make no apologies for being skilled enough to make 33k without a college degree. i make no apologies for doing without a car, doing without a dishwasher, doing without sleep.

also, your spiteful attitude is pathetic. if something happens to my living situation, then i will adjust and not complain about adjusting.

Talk about missing the point.

Humorless.

Self-righteous.

Prick.

again, if having success means being a prick then i can live with that.

also, why are you tearing into someone who is actually working instead of helping the poor?

I just have a better concept of what it means to earn what I have and a better concept of value. should I be sorry that my skills and ability are rewarded while those without are poor? should I feel bad about making an investment in education because it yields results when other people don't make the same investment.

if being an apologist for being ambitious and desire to be rewarded makes me a prick, so be it. ill be happier in the long run.

Jesus fucking Christ, what a bunch of whiny ignorant little bitches.

@59

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. None. I worked service in Seattle for 12 years. Lived in the city the whole time, never had to travel more than 3 miles to get to work. One of my best friends works six hours a day, five days a week, at a coffee shop on Capitol Hill and rents a two-bedroom apartment, by herself, less than a block from her house.

@65, @61 and so on

I can't really get it together to take you morons seriously. I grew up on Capitol Hill, went to public school, worked in the service industry for more than a decade and now own an apartment about three blocks from the house where I lived when I went to high school. A lot of my old friends have been pushed out of the neighborhood, but they made choices that allowed that to happen -- it's not that they couldn't afford the city, they just chose not to spend all that money on housing -- and also, a lot of them got sick of the junkies and the dogshit and the noise. Me, I don't really care about most of that stuff, and I chose not to spend all that money on gas. Add it all up, we're probably about even, financially.

One of the many ironies of your whiny "champion of the poor" bullshit is that most of the people you think you're advocating for would actually tell you to get fucked if you pitched your anti-free-market spiel their way. Most people in the service industry don't plan on staying there -- and when they finally get out from behind the espresso machine, they don't want some fucking Art History major telling them they can't live where they want to live because they didn't grandfather their way into a rent-controlled apartment.

Christ. You guys are a joke.

...and guys like you are a reason assholes like Bill O'Reilly get traction when they call urban liberals elitists - because every word you've written indicates that you ARE.

who cares what you think?

you're supporting a populist and have no fundamental understanding of econ.

and im not an urban liberal. im socially liberal and fiscally conservative. you just can't get anything right.

@73,

Wow, that's a pretty witty riptose there...if you're a sixth grader.

Oh, the irony - trying to advocate for what's left of the $600/month apartments in Seattle with someone who lives in one and chooses to actively advocate for their own displacement.

I give up - you're right - if we just build 10,000 more $1300 per month units (and tear down the remaining places people like you and I live to do so) everything will be just peachy-keen for all of us renters. Is this the part where I click my heels three times, or do I do that when I wake up in my new apartment in Tacoma?

You might try asking your neighbors if they want to see your building torn down to make room for $1300/month apartments, or if they think that will benefit them.

And by the way, @74, a Democratic Party establishment bereft of concern for populist issues is exactly the situation I'm bemoaning. The DNC supply-side lite tripe you're echoing is a big part of why the Democrats could well LOSE the Presidential election.

Can we agree that that would be a VERY bad thing?

Oops, riposte...

the market wouldnt support 10k 1300 dollar a month apartments because there are simply not enough people willing to pay that amount with so many options. their prices would be reduced. if you can't understand why 300 apartments priced at $1300 prevents the displacement of 300 current residents at other apartment complexes then i can't help you.

i'd rather have that building demolished and expensive apartments made available then have my apartment become more expensive because someone is willing to pay more than me for it, as i bet 300 other people would.

If I asked other people in other buildings if they supported the demolition of my building to protect their own rental rates, then they probably would especially if it added 300 units to rental stock.

1. i don't want a republican but i also don't want Hillary for her retarded sub prime bailout plans, and I dont want edwards for his generally retarded protectionist policies.

2. and i asked who cares what you think because you have no grasp of econ and are a populist.

and regardless, democrats arent going to lose votes based on a economic populist message except from people like me (who are few and far between. I don't vote for circuses.). rather they will lose votes from their lack of populism in social issues.

republicans and democrats are both economic populists

republicans say "we will cut your taxes which will give you more money" and pay no mind to spending
democrats say "we will give you services to save you money" and pay no mind to revenue.

they are both populists who won't aknowledge their solutions to problems are short term and made in reaction to extreme times.

Sorry to rain on your parade Bellevue Ave. but at 33k a year you actually land on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. With the way things are going that next rung will be pretty hard to reach and you may find yourself slipping backwards.

signed,

an Economist living in a 1BR that is triple the price of your studio and thinks that current rents are unsustainable in addition to housing prices.

Sorry to rain on your parade Bellevue Ave. but at 33k a year you actually land on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. With the way things are going that next rung will be pretty hard to reach and you may find yourself slipping backwards.

signed,

an Economist living in a 1BR that is triple the price of your studio and thinks that current rents are unsustainable in addition to housing prices.