How can we as a city (seattle) keep affordable apartment rents in the city for non tech workers?? (Kent: hardwood floors, renters)

[annonymous0381]

Originally Posted by DutchessCottonPuff

Right On !!!! This ^^ I had a bigger flat in Holland for about 850eu's less than I have now and they aren't known for space but was bigger and arranged differently, like they had attics you could easily make into a room .( also no wooden construction ) Right now we have three in either 850 or 900sf , I cannot remember.






Since my apt complex has lost it's mind and we are on very strict rations for the time being I subscribed to one of the many locator lists out there and with this one I get a list every day in my inbox based on everything from income to area to amenities. Here recently I have noticed apts all around me going down anywhere from $45.00 to $300 at this time, A few will go up but only slightly then go back down again.

In my area of Seattle I also have seen apartment rents go down.

[mhays25]

This is all as predicted...tons of apartments are opening, so that's keeping rents in check. Every developer (and people in construction like me) knew this would happen whenever supply caught up with demand.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mhays25

What kind of incentives?

We already have tax credits and tax abatements, both of which could be expanded.

Seattle has cracked down on micros, which are the only way the private sector can build at low rents without subsidy. We need to fix that, as part of the solution.

We could streamline entitlements.

And we need to upzone. Why aren't highrises allowed in at least a few more places? And why is 3/4 of the residential land in the city (within city limits) off limits to anything other than houses? Just opening that up to mother-in-law units would be helpful, and so would expanding the urban village districts a bit so buildable sites would be cheaper.

Sometimes when people say "incentive" what they mean is "make market-rate housing more expensive so we can subsidize the relative few." That's what a lot of our policy does.

Upzones can be accompanied by requirements that developers include a percentage of "workforce" units (studios, 1bd, 2bd) priced in the middle of the market. Right now, units are being added at the top and bottom of the market, but little or none in the middle.

[mhays25]

That makes market-rate units more expensive, or is basically a wash if you're lucky. If you want market-rate units to be cheaper, it needs to cost less to build them.

We need mechanisms that support the bottom end while not making market rate housing more expensive. The levy does this, but development fees are counterproductive.

Not only that, but it's not just the new units they make more expensive...it's the existing inventory. They do this because they reduce new supply. I forget the number...something like 130,000 rentals within Seattle city limits...all more expensive because of development fees that will only help create hundreds of subsidized units.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mhays25

That makes market-rate units more expensive, or is basically a wash if you're lucky. If you want market-rate units to be cheaper, it needs to cost less to build them.

We need mechanisms that support the bottom end while not making market rate housing more expensive. The levy does this, but development fees are counterproductive.

Not only that, but it's not just the new units they make more expensive...it's the existing inventory. They do this because they reduce new supply. I forget the number...something like 130,000 rentals within Seattle city limits...all more expensive because of development fees that will only help create hundreds of subsidized units.

You're assuming a zero sum game. The reality is that they are only building luxury apartments because they are very profitable. As long as there is continuing demand, why build anything else? There is no reason they can't build 1-bed and studio apts renting for >$1.5k and >$1k, and make a profit. If you don't incentivize them to do it, however, why should they?

[harrishawke]

Well most Seattle people voted for liberal representatives that support mass immigration and H1b Visas programs. This means your now going to get global talent, and with that means global competition for Real Estate. The other issue is all the recruiters that are hiring out of state workers. They are cashing in on their local Real Estate (many times higher than in Seattle Region), and contribute to demand outstripping supply.

[Rombus]

A lot of higher income workers come here because of the lack of a state income tax.

Thus, more people bidding on a limited supply of housing.

My advice is that if you are not one of the higher income earners, look East towards Flyer Over country, where you can still buy a very nice home for well under $250,000 and sometimes under $200,000. Or rent a nice apartment for well under $1000 a month.

The lattè slurping high income people will just have to pay more to whoever is left to cook their meals, clean their houses, watch their children and generally make life pleasant.

[Minntoaz]

It's all about priorities. If Seattle is where you intend to live and die by all means save that cash and pour it into this crazy housing market. I've got my opinions and priorities and you've got yours.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

You're assuming a zero sum game. The reality is that they are only building luxury apartments because they are very profitable. As long as there is continuing demand, why build anything else? There is no reason they can't build 1-bed and studio apts renting for >$1.5k and >$1k, and make a profit. If you don't incentivize them to do it, however, why should they?

That's not true. If they could make a profit building cheap units (enough to attract investors) they'd do so. The only way they can is with micros, which the city has cut way back on for sketchy reasons.

Rents are fairly closely tied to development costs, despite short-term swings. If development costs were lower, developers would flood the market and rents could easily fall.

But development costs are high. Just the land can get well into the high five-figures per apartment, a multiple of the last boom when available sites weren't so scarce. Construction costs have been rising 5% per year during the upturn. Interest rates have been rising and financing has been getting tougher.

[Hemlock140]

I wait for a bus at 2nd and Stewart in Belltown every day, and for tha last year+ have been watching the construction of a 40 story building across the street. They are now renting, so I looked them up and was surprised, almost shocked at the reasonable rent. This is advertised as luxury apartments, with high end finishes, washer and dryer in unit. Starting prices for lower floor (no views) are studio $1,800, 1 BR $2,300, 2 BR $2,800. Not low income by any means, but for brand new downtown a lot less than I would have expected.
Of course, upper floors with city and water views are not listed, you have to call, and if you have to ask probably can't afford it.