How can we as a city (seattle) keep affordable apartment rents in the city for non tech workers?? (appliances, townhouses)

[mhays25]

The fact that Seattle had some decades that vagely followed a pattern doesn't suggest any other decade will. In fact we broke that pattern 11 years ago by having an early downturn and continued with an early recovery.

Lots of cities have had very different patterns or no "typical" cycle at all. We might not either. Much will depend on national and global trends, and much will be how our specific companies do within their markets. Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, the military, and overflow from San Francisco will continue to have huge effects. So will interest rates, investment markets, trade vs. protectionism, tourism, and other macro issues. Watch that stuff, not the calendar.

[margaretBartle]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The City is entirely within its rights to insist that, within an upzone, developers build for more than just the top of the market. Building cheaper, but still profitable, units does not make building other units more expensive.

I'm just talking out of my hat here, I don't have any first-hand, or professional knowledge of this area, but I've looked at some of the developer websites, and they all seem to be big, out-of-town, billionaire investor type firms. Seattle for many years had local contractors who were very content to make a few hundred thousand dollar profits on their condos, but it seems like the developers these days are from LA, Chicago, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, and they want to make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Local developers, I think, would be willing to build for the middle-income market, as they have done for decades, but can't compete with the Big Boys, who elbow them out of the way with complicated, convoluted, slick productions. Have you been to any of the community meetings? They are very costly productions with full-color glossies and expensive presentations, put on by professional organizers from all over the country.

I went to a neighborhood meeting where there was a presentation by the local P-patch person, who had a $20,000 budget for outreach for a P-patch, when there was already a HUGE subscriber list of people who wanted a P-Patch, and all they needed was maybe 10 hours of time from a minimum -wage teenager to send out emails describing what was available, and how to sign up.

I see this all over the city, and it HAS to have a HUGE impact on the cost of doing business in Seattle.

[leastprime]

City could "encourage" single techies who make too much money, to cohabitate or even to get married. Far too many singles living in a studio/1brm, that could be occupied by a couple.
I got a DS living in a townhouse all by himself except for visiting friends, classmates, relatives, and Airbnb guests

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Show me where they can't do it.

Pretty much all of the state Constitution and RCW chapters 35 and 36. If cities had the power to require certain kinds of development, rather than regulate that development, don't you think Seattle would have long ago mandated affordable housing all over the place? They can't; it would instantly be declared ultra vires in the courts. City powers are delegated from the state constitution, but it's not like the US-State "reservation of powers" clause (i.e., those powers not specifically reserved to the federal government are reserved to the States) - it's the opposite. Anything not delegated to cities is reserved to the State.

Instead, cities are forced into using "incentives" to achieve these aims - FAR bonuses being the most common trick (more floor area on a given site than the underlying code allows.) And even those incentives have to be constructed VERY carefully to avoid being tossed by the courts as favoring one sort of development or developer over another; this happened some years ago in Seattle when one of the city's attempts at promoting affordable housing was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. RCW 36.70A.540 is quite specific on this matter.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

Instead, cities are forced into using "incentives" to achieve these aims - FAR bonuses being the most common trick (more floor area on a given site than the underlying code allows.) And even those incentives have to be constructed VERY carefully to avoid being tossed by the courts as favoring one sort of development or developer over another; this happened some years ago in Seattle when one of the city's attempts at promoting affordable housing was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. RCW 36.70A.540 is quite specific on this matter.

DS makes too much money from Airbnb for less than 90days/yr occupancy vs having a rent paying housemate of 365days/yr.

[fillmore241]

Originally Posted by leastprime

City could "encourage" single techies who make too much money, to cohabitate or even to get married. Far too many singles living in a studio/1brm, that could be occupied by a couple.
I got a DS living in a townhouse all by himself except for visiting friends, classmates, relatives, and Airbnb guests

This made me laugh -- that means you'll have to find women for the single techies! Good luck

(FWIW, I probably fall in this category so this is self-deprecating / a cry for help more than anything )

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by fillmore241

This made me laugh -- that means you'll have to find women for the single techies! Good luck

(FWIW, I probably fall in this category so this is self-deprecating / a cry for help more than anything )

seems to be an excess of women in NYC. Give each women a free RT on JetBlue, couple of nights at Marriott and Westin in the winter months (40% off during these months anyway), mixers at MOHAI, SAM, Chihuly, & MoPop, For the guys classes in manners and grooming. And of course a showing of, Sleepless in Seattle or When Harry Met Sally.
Incent Bezos-AMZN/Rascoff-Zillow, to encourage marriage, and hire married couples rather than single men/women.

[fillmore241]

Originally Posted by leastprime

seems to be an excess of women in NYC. Give each women a free RT on JetBlue, couple of nights at Marriott and Westin in the winter months (40% off during these months anyway), mixers at MOHAI, SAM, Chihuly, & MoPop, For the guys classes in manners and grooming. And of course a showing of, Sleepless in Seattle or When Harry Met Sally.
Incent Bezos-AMZN/Rascoff-Zillow, to encourage marriage, and hire married couples rather than single men/women.

Didn't a Seattle-ite in years past already try the "ship women from the east coast" strategy once before ?

Shh, hopefully they haven't caught on yet!

I think you're more likely to trick someone into singing a 12-month lease if you bring them out in the summer :-)

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

Pretty much all of the state Constitution and RCW chapters 35 and 36. If cities had the power to require certain kinds of development, rather than regulate that development, don't you think Seattle would have long ago mandated affordable housing all over the place? They can't; it would instantly be declared ultra vires in the courts. City powers are delegated from the state constitution, but it's not like the US-State "reservation of powers" clause (i.e., those powers not specifically reserved to the federal government are reserved to the States) - it's the opposite. Anything not delegated to cities is reserved to the State.

Instead, cities are forced into using "incentives" to achieve these aims - FAR bonuses being the most common trick (more floor area on a given site than the underlying code allows.) And even those incentives have to be constructed VERY carefully to avoid being tossed by the courts as favoring one sort Thedevelopment or developer over another; this happened some years ago in Seattle when one of the city's attempts at promoting affordable housing was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. RCW 36.70A.540 is quite specific on this matter.

We're doing it for low-income housing, so there is nothing unconstitutional about it. I'm just saying do the same for "work-force" housing, in any up-zone. No one is forcing them to take advantage of an up-zone - they can increase heights, but only if they include "work-force" units, for instance. "Affordable" means for "households with an income of fifty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size," according to your own link above. The top end of that range (25-50%) would be "work-force" housing, while the low-end (25% or below) would be "low-income" housing. There should be a mix.

[mhays25]

....So at best, market-rate housing continues along the same trajectory. That's at best. I'd rather have market-rate housing get cheaper. That means upzones without equivalent added costs. (At least the part of me that's not thinking about my home equity wants this)