This guest post is by Dennis Saxman, an activist and blogger with concerns about microhousing (aka, aPodments) who we invited to sound off on Slog since we've been big, pro-microhousing zealots — Eds

The contrast is glaring between the neighborhood activists demanding consistent and competent regulation of microhousing projects, city departments, and the proponents of the latest fad of urban closets for living. The neighborhoods have deeply researched and assembled factual arguments while the departments either plead ignorance, or go silent at meetings, developers engage in marketing campaigns that fail to discuss or address the meaningful issues, and proponents engage in the personal attacks, name-calling and smears that are the typical tactics in Seattle for dealing with individuals who are not part of the Growth Machine, or whose factual arguments cannot be confronted successfully because the facts simply do not support the arguments of the Growth Machine and their elected servants. Resolving the issues has been made more difficult by media that have failed to provide reliable information, choosing to rely instead on the arguments and facts of financially-interested developers and city partisans. I present the following information in the interest of bringing more light to relevant issues.

Facts about just how tiny microhousing units are

Upon examining the available drawings for microhousing projects, which provide the square footage for 887 of 1,852 planned units (47.8 percent), I found the following. Contrary to the widespread 250-300 square foot average cited by a subservient media [The Stranger has cited a figure of 150 to 250 square feet — Eds] that appears to believe the developers of these projects can be relied on to report objective figures, here are the facts about the size of units in microhousing: 3.83 percent of the units are 72-100 square feet; 20.4 percent are 103 to 150 square feet; 44.75 percent are 151 to 202 square feet; 22 percent are 204 to 250 square feet; only 7.21 percent are 258.9 to 300 square feet; and only 1.8 percent are 304-351 square feet. How did 7.4 percent of units come to represent the average?

How Average is the Average Rent?

In response to neighborhood activists’ statements that microhousing units, have a significantly higher cost per square foot than conventional units, smart growthers and densinistas reply that tenants don’t rent units by the square foot. The same critics then turn around and cite average rent figures when no tenant rents units by the average rent figure, which densinistas and their media flacks usually give as $500-$600.

Information provided to the Seattle Office of Housing by microhousing developers seeking to qualify for the multifamily tax exemption, which lists the actual rents for each unit, gives a much different view. For one building, rents range from $425 to $850, with an average of $642.71. However, 54 percent of actual unit rents are either $650, $665, $675, $685, $695, $700, $710, $725, $750, $760, $775, $800, or $850. For another building, the rents range from $575 to $850, with an average of $687.93. However, 39 percent of actual units rents are either $695, $700, $710, $720, $725, $775, $795, $800, $820, $825, or $850. For the next building, the rents range from $400 to $725, with an average of $606.39. However, 55.5 percent of actual rents are either $610, $625, $640, $650, $660, $665, $675, $685, $700 or $725. For the fourth building, the rents range from $525 to $790, with an average of $626.65. However, 30.3 percent of actual units rent for either $640, $650, $675, $685, $700, $725, $750, $785, or $790. For the last building, rents range from $600 to $1250. In all cases there are a significant number of units that rent above $500-$600 a month.

In anticipation of critics’ response that any of these figures is lower than the average rent on Capitol Hill for a studio or one bedroom, I have two responses: (1) that is not true in all cases, and (2) these units are far smaller than the average studio or one bedroom on Capitol Hill. To qualify for the Multi-Family Tax Exemption, a developer need only rent units at a level affordable to a displaced tenant making 50% of area median income (currently $30,350) if certain existing rental housing is demolished, and, in other cases, need only rent 20 percent of units at a level affordable to tenants whose income is 65% (currently $36, 652) or below of area median income. Despite these “low” rents, these projects are phenomenally profitable. The pro forma for one project gave an annual net operating income of over $252,000. These units benefit a number of tenants whose income is far in excess of 65 percent of area median income: for example, one tenant earns $75,500 a year.

The market’s primary motivation is to make money, not provide affordable housing. Affordable housing is simply being used as a cloak for greed, and to take advantage of individuals seeking more affordable living in a tight market. The market has never provided and never will provide adequate affordable housing for all of those who need it. Seattle is a prime example of that. Ask yourself this question: despite the phenomenal growth of multifamily housing in Seattle over the last 16 years, have rents become more affordable? The only honest answer is a resounding “No!”