This is my single family detached home (circa 1935) which makes me part of the problem, not the solution.
I’ve recently been drawn into a Twitter feud with a self-proclaimed “urbanist” who insists that the only solution to Seattle’s affordable housing crisis is to free up developers to build whatever they want wherever they want. Really. I don’t want to mention him by name—because why drive attention to his extremist libertarian views?—so for the purposes of this post, I’ll just call him “Ben.”
When I asked Ben if it would be okay to build 30 stories on my 6,800 sq ft single family lot, he said, “Of course!” When I elaborated, “How about an office tower, or a Hooters … or a rendering plant?” he countered that a rendering plant wouldn’t pencil out with our land values, but “sure.”
And when I pressed on, “So you’d argue for no zoning and no Growth Management Act …?” Ben was unequivocal: “It is very likely that today we would get better enviro and affordability outcomes with no zoning, including no GMA,” Ben replied.
Okay.
I largely share Ben’s vision of a taller, denser, more walkable, bikeable, and transit-rich Seattle, and to this end I support substantial up-zoning and other regulatory changes. But anybody who argues that the market alone can solve all our problems is simplifying Seattle’s housing crisis to the point of absurdity. In fact, I’d argue that we actually have three distinct housing crises, each requiring its own set of solutions: homelessness, workforce housing, and middle class housing.
Homelessness is at once the easiest and most difficult crisis to address. The most obvious solution is to just give these people homes—problem solved, and most likely at a price well below the real financial, human, and societal cost of allowing the problem to fester. Yet housing alone cannot address the mental illness, addiction, and domestic abuse that leads many people to the streets.
Even those who find themselves homeless due to mere misfortune are almost by definition destitute to the point of being outside the ability of a rational housing market to serve. Thus, one thing we should all be able to agree on is that homelessness is not a problem that can be solved by the market: there is simply no way to profit from building safe housing affordable enough for people who have reached such a level of desperation. How and how much we address homelessness is mostly a matter of how much taxpayers are willing to spend.
Likewise, our workforce housing crisis also cannot be solved by the market, as given the fixed costs of land and construction, there is no way for developers to make a sufficient profit building units within Seattle aimed at renters and buyers earning substantially below Area Median Income (AMI). In fact, the market is busy exacerbating our workforce housing affordability crisis by renovating or tearing down older buildings that have served lower-income Seattleites for decades.
Yeah sure, low-income Seattleites could always double and triple or even quadruple up with roommates in order to pay ever rising rents, and many already do. But as Hanna Brooks Olsen explained on Seattlish a couple years back, the math is truly awful. Add a child or two to the equation and awful becomes impossible.
Free-marketeers like Ben argue that eventually all this new upscale housing becomes affordable when, you know, it becomes old and rundown. Maybe. Or maybe Seattle’s ever-rising land values dictate an accelerated cycle of renovation and renewal? But even if true, eventually doesn’t help people living in the here and now. In the meanwhile, show me the private developer going to bankers with plans to build to 50 percent of AMI. Betcha you can’t.
It’s hard to see how any amount of deregulation can entice developers to build to this market without substantial public subsidies; and subsidies cost money. Whether that money comes from linkage fees or a property tax levy or a citywide income tax, it has to come from somewhere if we’re going to make an honest effort to address this crisis.
Of course, our growing middle class housing crisis is something that the market can chip away at (depending on your definition of middle class)—but that doesn’t mean we’re better off leaving it to the market alone.
We need to change our zoning to allow Seattle to grow taller and denser. We need to allow (even encourage!) accessory dwelling units throughout the city, relax costly car-centric requirements that new developments provide off-street parking, and yes, we need to substantially reduce the amount of land in Seattle that is restricted to detached single family housing. Seattle needs townhouses, row houses, triplexes, micro-housing, and many more two and three bedroom apartments suitable for families with children. And much of it needs to be built on land currently restricted toward low density use.
We don’t need to eliminate zoning the way Ben advocates, but we do need to zone smarter. And we all need to give up this fantasy that every middle class family can own a bungalow and a yard. Our population (demand) is growing while our land mass (supply) cannot. Barring an economic collapse (or a dramatic shift in housing tastes), single family detached housing will increasingly become a luxury that fewer and fewer Seattleites will be able to afford. Nothing can change that. Not the council, not socialism, and certainly not the market.
To be clear, I’m not anti-market or anti-developer. But this idea that the market, free from zoning and other regulations, will fix our entire housing crisis, is magical thinking. The market cannot touch homelessness. The market cannot come close to addressing our shortage of workforce housing. And while a unfettered market might well build a lot more housing than it’s building now, it will build it in a chaotic way that will surely piss off a lot of Seattleites—and because we are in competition with much higher priced cities like San Francisco, the market would still have a helluva time keeping up with demand.
The real decision facing Seattleites is whether we have the vision, the empathy, and the will to really address these problems? Are we willing to spend the money necessary to address homelessness by building more shelters and temporary housing, and by providing the costly wrap around services necessary to get the homeless off the street and back on their feet? Or are we comfortable enjoying the benefits of our economic boom even as homeless encampments sprout beneath our city’s freeways?
Are we willing to spend the money necessary to fund, build, and maintain the subsidized housing necessary to sustain a culturally diverse city—the culture that made neighborhoods like Capitol Hill so desirable in the first place? Are we willing to even consider a modest program of rent stabilization as a short term solution? Or do we want to become a culturally sterile city of haves by virtue of driving out the have-lesses and have-nots for want of affordable housing?
And do we want to broadly slow skyrocketing housing costs for the middle class, but only to the extent that the market delivers? Or are we willing to use the bonding capacity at our disposal to build thousands of publicly owned, non-subsidized middle class housing units a year that would grow more affordable over time by keeping them outside the rent seeking impulses of the for-profit market?
At the very minimum we have three separate housing crises, at least two of which require public money, and all of which require public will. Solving them won’t come easy or cheap. But if we choose to solve these crises they can be largely solved.
The Bens of this world insist that we only have one choice: To let the market do its magic, and live with the Seattle the market begets. But that’s not really a choice at all. It’s an excuse for failing to make the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to build a more humane, more diverse, and more affordable city for today’s Seattleites and for generations to come.
[Cross-posted to Civic Skunkworks.]
Are there existing cities that are examples of where there are no accommodations for the low and middle class?
If nothing changed Seattle will be like …. (insert name here)
@2,
I think it’s more about accommodating choice than about accommodating class.
It seems to me we have patterns of demand and patterns of supply. These patterns change over time. Many factors influence these patterns. And many factors confound market mechanisms that would otherwise coordinate the patterns. And no, probably most of those confounding factors are not the result of governmental interference, at least not directly.
Certainly one good example of such a confounding factor would be transportation planning and development. Another would be mortgage financing. Another would be local construction labor costs. Are current patterns fixed? Are they trending? If trending what predictions can we make about future patterns? And what mix of policies can we implement to shape the pattern trends.
So some argue that current trends in the patterns of supply and demand are pitting various populations against one another leaving some with diminishing options over time. Land values (driven by demand) are rising rapidly in all zones. But the mix of permissible uses and permissible intensity of development remains relatively fixed. That doesn’t mean that the market doesn’t accommodate certain uses or certain intensities of development. It just means that some uses and some levels of development will probably become less representative over time. In other words some will grow more slowly or even stop growing, while others grow more rapidly. And these differences often align with household economics. Some homeowners might be willing to trade long and difficult commutes for amenities and home features priced out of their reach in high demand areas. Others might choose to trade amenities and features to avoid commuting. But if they don’t have that option, they can’t make that choice.
A residential rendering plant? Neat! Will it work with compostable materials too? Just think of all the money you make converting that yard material into protein and yellow grease, choice white grease, or bleachable fancy tallow you could produce for sale!
Wasn’t this a conversation topic months ago? Didn’t you libtards solve this housing problem back then?
I am in agreement. There is no magic silver bullet when addressing the housing crisis. Leaving solutions alone to the market is arcane thinking. The three separate areas have to be addressed individually.
Aren’t there shovel ready jobs available for Seattle transportation planning and development? Since this city is becoming more and more car unfriendly what will the city libtard offer as replacement transportation? Puddy drives Mrs. Puddy’s little car into Seattle because they city is becoming more and more SUV unfriendly with tiny spaces and narrow rows. And taking the bus is inconvenient because during sporting events would they place more buses downtown for the people who live in the area wanting to use the buses to go from place to place? NOPE!
Portland has a better transpo system. At least the city fathers thought about it unlike the libtards of Seattle. So how will people in these “affordable housing projects” get to work since Seattle is becoming more car unfriendly every day!
Referring to homelessness… Puddy saw new encampments the last time Puddy drove through the Seattle environment. So what are the libtards doing about this? Seems libtard compassion has its limits eh?
City Council Candidate Michael Maddux has an excellent plan for affordability that doesn’t include taxing people out of their homes so downtown developers can buy it on the cheap and make mega profits off of your families house.
You should connect with him about it, if you ever see him.
Over at Zombie (u)SP, Kiwi wingnut immigrant poster Nicholas Kerr has advocated for the developer wetdream trifecta in order to solve the Seattle housing crisis, the elimination of Seattle’s zoning laws as well as all building and fire codes. That way Goldy not only gets a high-rise built next door to him, he also gets an occasional handful of bodies littering his yard from high-rise occupants leaping to their deaths to escape a fire.
@8,
now you know that’s an outrageous distortion.
In actuality consumers of units in that high rise would be free to shop and choose units with or without decent fire safeguards and the magical invisible hand would respond to that demand. In the event that they chose to live without them, Goldy is free to sue the dead people to enforce his property rights to be free from falling bodies. And in the event the developers mislead consumers about the safety of their buildings, the dead people are then free to sue the developers.
I’ve always said that Libertarianism would be a perfect make-work program for lawyers but for one problem: dead people.
Most renters don’t know fire codes or building codes and wouldn’t know how to even check for it. That’s why we need regulations and inspectors to enforce them.
@6 So we’re supposed to feel sorry for you because you can’t find parking for your land yacht?
Build a 300 mph bullet train to Moses Lake and your land problem is solved. And as a bonus, Grant County might elect some Democratic county commissioners!
@10,
some clues that my post at 9 was sarcastic:
implying that Goldy can sue dead people;
implying that dead people can sue developers;
implying that a Libertarian’s reliance on market mechanisms to regulate human affairs assumes supernatural phenomena.
Okay, that last bit wasn’t at all sarcastic.
@9 “I’ve always said that Libertarianism would be a perfect make-work program for lawyers but for one problem: dead people.”
The way righties see it, libertarian zoning laws and building codes would accomplish the same thing as the civil war they keep talking about without the trouble and expense.
@12,
then all you have to do is figure out how to trick people into living in Moses Hole.
@15,
I have people who can do it.
They’ve tricked people into living in Miami. They’ve tricked people into living in Las Vegas. They’ve tricked people into living in Orange County. They’ve tricked people into living in Huntsville.
It’s not very hard. A little stone veneer. One or two walk in closets. A “custom” tile backsplash. Third garage door. Plastic “french” patio doors. Done.
@15 Cheap housing and good fishing.
@16 It’s hard to find real quality these days, although rabbit holes are still made the same way they’ve always been made.
Quite a different real estate market in 2015 versus 2009!
They’ve tricked people into living in Huntsville.
NASA has a big installation there. So these workers were tricked?
So the Conservative answer is to turn the whole kit-n-kaboodle over to the Hugh Sisleys of the world.
That’ll work.
@17, @20 Shhhhhhhh….Don’t let the secret out.
Oh, wait….I thought you were referring to Huntsville.
FartyArt,
Puddy has worked at that NASA facility multiple times performing networking activities… Some really smart people. Butt to a DUMMOCRETIN such as yourself, anything for a laugh right?
FartyArt,
Puddy has worked at that NASA facility multiple times performing networking activities… Some really smart people. Butt to a DUMMOCRETIN such as yourself, anything for a laugh right?
“In America, where the price per square foot is everything, people happily buy wood houses in fire and earthquake zones, and don’t give a moment’s consideration to whether there are hurricane roof tie-downs; it is the price that matters. Building codes, and their proper enforcement, are about the only thing protecting them.”
http://www.treehugger.com/sust.....lives.html
Should society protect individuals? I sayy yes
“Should society protect individuals?”
Images from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, New York City, 1911. No sprinklers. Locked exits from the factory floor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=triangle+shirtwaist+fire&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CEQQsARqFQoTCNXy19Gn_8YCFcGjiAodt0kJfg&biw=1680&bih=935
“146 employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company were dead the night of March 25, 1911. The horror of their deaths led to numerous changes in occupational safety standards that currently ensure the safety of workers today.”
“On lookers watched in horror as body after body fell to the earth. “Thud — dead; thud — dead; thud — dead; thud — dead. Sixty-two thud — deads. I call them that, because the sound and the thought of death came to me each time, at the same instant,” said United Press reporter William Shephard.”
Libertarians call it ‘freedom’.
@21,
Oh, I suppose its more than good enough for people like you. And really, that’s the important thing.
“At some point, it’s inevitable that a self-driving car will have to choose between killing you to save nearby pedestrians, or killing the pedestrians in order to save you. It’s also inevitable that a business will exist that will allow rich people to pay to ensure that the latter always happens.”
Found this gem on the internet
@ 29
Very astute.
Well that predicted big earthquake could happen. This would suddenly allow a substantial reworking of Seattle, Portland and a lot of the coastal areas. There could also be a substantial reduction of human beings for some reason. Other than that Seattle has a problem of being locked in. The surrounding area that aren’t incorporated don’t help the problem and contribute to it. As Goldy has pointed out the dream of the middle class living out in the suburbs comes with substantial costs. Of course there are people who like the status quo and have enough political power to keep it and not allow for more people living in those areas of suburban sprawl. Of course we Americans look down on having multiple generations of the same family in a single house.
The dream of suburbia and the actualizing of it changed our urban space. It used to be you could get a large comfortable urban apartment for a large family at a low rent. Sure you had to live in a large tenement building or have them as part of your neighborhood, but we all got to escape being urbanites and became suburbanites with the coming of the automobile. The core of Seattle should be surrounded by substantial tall buildings that are mainly residential, but include a mix of schools, shopping, park areas, urban agriculture, ect and none should be less than 12 stories and most should be substantially more. Forcing developers to develop urban building around the urban core and else where with substantial public funds will transform Seattle into the city it would be without the automobile. Into a much more walkable city with substantially more public transportation and a lot more bicycles. Maybe a subway…though that idea might not be popular with the tunnel boring project so up in the air.
Either plan now or wait for that big earthquake, and seize the opportunity to build a new Seattle out of the rubble. The city council won’t have a lot of choice but to do something radical. As even the rich folk might like a place to hang their hats and keep the Seattle rain from falling on them.
What Ben doesn’t want you all to know is that developers don’t always get it right. One need only look at the Empire State Building. It was started at a time when building skyscrapers was the rage. It was built during and finished during the depression. It was thought at the time to be a disaster as most of the building sat empty for a decade or more. It slowly filled up, and the dreams of its builders, designers achieved, but more than a few thought they had built a white elephant and thought they were going to loose their shirts. If they could have foreseen the depression (and they should have) or just did the math about all those skyscrapers adding office space capacity they would not possible be needed for a long time they never would have built the Empire State Building. And after the Empire State Building was completed it held the title of tallest building in the world and then in north America for decades until the Sears Tower was built and this was no accident. (And the Sears Tower took a long time to fill up). Yep the power of the market at its finest.
@31. There is no place for elementary or middle school kids to play downtown. It’s O.K. to be downtown when the children are babies or toddlers but past that, the area is a kid activity wasteland. Coupled with middle and elementary schools that don’t test well, family units move away.
http://www.zillow.com/seattle-.....ool-92380/
http://www.zillow.com/seattle-.....ool-92378/
Seattle Times reported this afternoon that Mayor Murray has withdrawn his proposal to allow greater density in single-family zones.