http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/29/we-should-pass-most-of-the-housing-levy Comments On: We Should Pass (Most of) the Housing Levy by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Problem is this: which is cheaper in the long run does not address issues of scarcity--plenty of people who get rent subsidies in Seattle TURN THEM BACK! Not able to find a unit on the private market to rent within the rent limits imposed by the rent subsidy program (believe me the rent levels are high, but just now high enough!). So this notion that demand and supply equal out is an economist's dream: we have a shortage of units affordable for working people; the levy as proposed promises to support a range of what I think are good ideas: construction of new units, rehab of dilapidated ones, energy efficiency upgrades, short-term emergency rental assistance for people struck by tragedy/job loss/mishap to avoid losing their apts/homes as they regroup, down payment loan/assistance (45,000 max per household) for families entering home ownership (this money revolves back to the city for relending). While I have experienced this year job loss and my property value has gone up 10 x since I bought I know I'm lucky), I still would pay $7 per month, or about $80 per year to be part of a solution for instability and fears of families trying to get by, work, live close to their jobs and make a healthy life.
Posted by Robin]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 07:26:39 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by Mud Baby]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:03:10 -0700 The Stranger Posted by 2l2q]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:50:34 -0700 The Stranger
Drop, meet bucket. This kind of feel-good explanation for subsidizing people's speculation in the housing market doesn't wash. If you want to promote racial justice, you'd get more bang for your buck to build more affordable rental housing for people of color who would otherwise be further displaced out of the city.

@sgiffy: Yesler Terrace may be "prime land" now, but it was a predominantly Japanese American neighborhood in the 1930s, hit hard by the depression, with a lot of dilapidated mansions that were serving as brothels. SHA kicked the Japanese off the land, prevented most from moving back, and built what was at the time considered model, well-designed, racially integrated affordable housing rather than shoddy, segregated towers of despair. At that time, Seattle was mainly a working class city, and views of the water and proximity to downtown were not seen as the exclusive province of the wealthy.

As an aside, do I understand correctly that Nickels is saying that there's been a 61% increase in the cost of construction in the last 7 years? That sounds fishy.
Posted by Trevor]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:24:07 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by Covington, O, Covington...I Can Hear Those...]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:52:50 -0700 The Stranger
And yes the danger of rapid rent increases is a risk, but if it means more people served then it might be worth it. The end goal is to get the most people into affordable quality housing possible.

I never said the middle of nowhere I said by the light rail stations in Rainier Valley for example. A place with lots of stores, jobs, services, ect, where many people manage to live just fine. For stuff further away I would imagine they would ride the train or take advantage of Metro's Access service like they do now as even in the city they are likely a mile or two away for at least something they need.

Sure ideally everyone lives right by everything they need, but if its the difference between being able to build 500 units downtown or 1500 by the Othello Street station, I am going to go with the 1500 as that is a thousand more families with a place to live. Yesler Terrace for example(I only keep bringing it up as I used to walk by it every day) is not very dense and does not make great use of the land (it was built in the 40's). If that could be sold and as part of the deal we get two or three times the housing if not more, located on a light rail line I think everyone wins. Especially if the housing for low income people is built along with market rate housing, retail, commercial, ect.
Posted by sgiffy]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:39:29 -0700 The Stranger
Your dismissing the levy out of hand because of the per-person cost sure doesn't support your goodwill. It costs $50k per person because the initial cost is high. Also, oversight and bureaucracy to make sure landlords aren't taking advantage of their tenants and the government aren't cheap. That will easily raise costs well above a "few thousand" per person.

The wisdom of the market is beside the point. If rents start increasing more than 10 percent/year again and all affordable units are subsidized, rather than owned by affordable housing organizations, the government will either have to raise taxes to keep up (not a popular proposition) or cut back on affordable units and make a bunch of people homeless.

Lastly, your notion that these people would be better off in cheaper locales is really, really shitty, frankly. How are disabled or elderly people supposed to get to the doctor's office or to access services if they're located in the middle of nowhere? Placing affordable housing throughout the city is smart, period.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:28:31 -0700 The Stranger
Saying rents will continue to go up at that rate is like saying housing would continue to go up at 20% a year. Market forces work in rents to and unsustainable increases just that.

Sure there are problems in places. There are problems with non-profit housing in many places too. Good regulation and oversight is essential in both.

And the notion that all landlords don't care about keeping their places up is silly. I've rented and I've known many people who have rented perfectly nice places. Some landlords don't but then some non-profit places are pretty shitty too.

I would just like to see some actual research on what works better and what serves the most people for the lowest cost.


Posted by sgiffy]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:18:25 -0700 The Stranger Also private landlords have an incentive to keep their places up to. Saying hey your poor, here's a few thousand to help with rent, might be better.

Are you kidding? No, they don't.

First, up until recently, rents had been going up 14 percent a year. You think the city constantly having to increase rent subsidies by 14 percent/year is efficient?

Second, there are documented cases in other cities of landlords renting shithole apartments to subsidized renters and doing nothing to maintain those properties.

Third, do you even rent? Because based on my experience and the experiences of my friends and coworkers, your supposition that landlords give a fuck about maintaining their properties is laughable. They'll maintain their properties as much as the law tells them to (and that's not much) and frequently they don't even do that.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:57:47 -0700 The Stranger Posted by tapped-out]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:57:10 -0700 The Stranger Posted by mdb]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:50:56 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Again I say NO EFFING WAY!]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:43:27 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sr. ARECENA]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:37:14 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Get your own damn bailout!]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:34:49 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sgiffy]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:23:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by rm]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:18:14 -0700 The Stranger
These community-oriented developments that are permanently affordable, like many others across the City in every neighborhood, will not be built if the Levy does not pass.

The Housing Levy is about putting a roof over everyone's head and about revitalizing neighborhoods so that everyone has access to decent, safe, affordable housing.
Posted by k.stineback]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:17:00 -0700 The Stranger Posted by amysee]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:16:48 -0700 The Stranger
In that sense, investing in homeownership actually gives you two homes for the price of one. It's a good deal.
Posted by amysee]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:13:31 -0700 The Stranger
Again though, how much sense does it make to build these things on prime land. I am not saying I don't support the levy. Hell I don't think 150 million is enough, but I am just wondering about the efficiency of how we are doing it.

Also private landlords have an incentive to keep their places up to. Saying hey your poor, here's a few thousand to help with rent, might be better.
Posted by sgiffy]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:10:05 -0700 The Stranger
The Housing Levy produces places like Broadway Crossing across from Seattle Central and the Pantages on Denny near Broadway.

These groups are dedicated to helping people, not making money so they maintain the buildings in good shape and keep the rent low for the long haul.
Posted by Anna Markee]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:05:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:54:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sfdasfd]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:47:43 -0700 The Stranger
Since we're only talking about roughtly 920 units, is it safe to say that the 55% provision is targeted solely at the elderly and disabled?
Posted by Hernandez]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:46:14 -0700 The Stranger
But, say the low-income housing advocates, we need low-wage jobholders to make the city run! That's true, but it's not an argment for low-income housing programs. If there aren't enough low-wage jobholders in the city to do the work that people are willing to pay for, their wages will go up until there are. I'll be paying more because I was willing to cover the cost of the services I chose to buy, not because some central planner decided that the distribution of housing stock wasn't what he wanted it to be.
Posted by David Wright]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:45:55 -0700 The Stranger