Christ, what an asshole.

That's not quite true, Goldy. The number of units for people at 30 percent of the area median income is increasing by nearly 20 percent. But then they are building 1,230 new units below market rate.

That's 338 brand new units at 60 percent of the AMI and another 892 totally new units at 80 percent AMI.

I agree, it would be great if the number of 30 percent AMI units had doubled, but the math just doesn't pan out. I think it's damn ambitious to undertake this project in this economy--in this financing climate--while creating a new mixed use neighborhood. Because the alternative is, what? Letting those old townhouses rot away and become untenable? Rebuilding it again as isolated housing projects?

Why yes. Our only alternatives are to simply give the entire thing to developers for nothing much and let them do as they please or let the whole thing rot away. No possibility of any other options.

@2 Pardon an entirely ignorant question, but my ears always perk up when I hear statistics being used for economic purposes. What is the basis for these AMI numbers? How are they determined in terms of timeframe and size of area? Is there anything about building this project and populating it with higher-income tenants that will change the numbers being used as the basis of rent determination? And, if so, over what time period?

Not that I don't trust private developers to be completely honest and altruistic, or anything, but... well... you know? I'm just hoping for the sake of the low-income tenants that something is codified that will protect them, at least for awhile.

I don't mind policies supporting low-income residents of the city and all, but when did that become the city's raison d'être? The low income units are staying the same you say? Great. Then what are you complaining about?

Neither liberal or conserevative groupthink is good, Goldy.

If Licata finally thinks it's time to act on this plan and stay vigilant as it progresses, rather than use the lack of a perfect plan as an excuse to continue shunting the responsibility forward until it's Goldy's daughter's generation's responsibility to act, that's good enough for me. I trust him on this.

I always wish there were an analysis of how HUD is letting housing authorities die on the vine. Does anyone realize that HUD's budget is currently a FRACTION of what it was when these communities were most robust, in the 60s and 70s. This should be part of the critical analysis of the situation. Because there is not new money for fixing the current units. So housing authorities are forced to look at things like land sales to create revenue to replace units. Why is this never, ever mentioned in the criticism of SHA?

There are people living in Yesler Terrace with p-patches, they're growing produce, carting it and selling it at the Little Saigon and Chinatown markets. How much more local can you get than First Hill? That's ambitious.

@3,

"Selling" it to developers. Not "giving." So that SHA can actually afford to do more projects.

But -- oh, noes -- someone, somewhere in Seattle might actually make a profit, and we absolutely cannot have that, even if it helps to meet our public goals of increasing density.

@8, yes, some people realize that HUD's budget is miniscule now. That's not a sudden happening; it's been going down steadily and steeply since the Reagan administration. Which, not coincidentally, has been the period of time during which homelessness has steadily risen. HUD's emphasis now is on vouchers, not public housing. Vouchers must be used in the market, and you can imagine how many market-rate rental owners want to rent to low-income people. What Paul Ryan has proposed for Medicare has been increasingly used in the housing market for years, with obvious results.

As far as AMI, 80% *IS* market rate housing, and 60% AMI is damn near market-rate housing. 30% AMI is low-income housing, including people who have two fulltime minimum-wage jobs.

the reports produced by SHA showing that the the rehab of the buildings were ginned up if ever there was a ginned-up report. show folks a couple of empty rotting units, and then multiply that by all units on site and it seems an impossible option.

SHA and their supporters are crooks.

and Dom, people at 80% of AMI are not having a problem finding housing. nor is that SHA's mission. nor will this happen "in this economy". it will happen over a couple of decades. so all those low income units are just talk at this point.

nothing more than pushing poor people off prime real estate...

@2, Maybe, Dom. But is the plan "ambitious"...?

Not as ambitious as supporting a hedge fund wall street guy so you can have a basketball team in spite of:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05…

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/201…