Mayor Durkan unveils biggest low-income housing increase in Seattle history (sales, 2015)

[Ruth4Truth]

OP, has this been in the local news? I checked with a couple of friends in Seattle, and they've never heard of this initiative. One claimed that this isn't generally known around Seattle. Has it been covered by local media?

[CharlesRamon]

Originally Posted by rjshae

Google: seattle chinese purchase homes

Then read.

Please come back when you're feeling less ignorant.

I’ve read these types of articles. Very little in the way of actual numbers of people involved or how it’s contributing directly to issues Seattle is facing with homelessness and rents. Reminds me of the 1980s when there was a bunch of hysteria about the Japanese taking over the world and buying up real estate. So let me know if you have NUMBERS which is what I said the first time. No need for the childish name calling and patronizing tone.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

OP, has this been in the local news? I checked with a couple of friends in Seattle, and they've never heard of this initiative. One claimed that this isn't generally known around Seattle. Has it been covered by local media?

Mandatory Housing Affordability program?

Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) - HALA | seattle.gov

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Why can't they do like Vancouver, BC, did, and pas a tax on housing bought by foreign nationals? I don't know the details, but it worked.

I'm not sure, but I don't think local or state governments in the U.S. have the authority to levy taxes exclusively on foreign nationals. That might be regarded as a foreign policy decision, over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction.

Regarding Vancouver's tax, perhaps it was imposed by Canada's federal government. Or if was imposed by Vancouver or BC, then it means that Canada's laws allow cities or provinces to impose such a tax. But I don't think that's the case in the U.S.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Mandatory Housing Affordability program?

Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) - HALA | seattle.gov

Thank you. I'm just wondering, how did you hear about this? Or have you been making an effort to follow the issue personally? Or has there been media play on this before? It looks like (from your link) the initiative was introduced earlier, and has been under review. So maybe it's only been in the news sporadically? IDK.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Thank you. I'm just wondering, how did you hear about this? Or have you been making an effort to follow the issue personally? Or has there been media play on this before? It looks like (from your link) the initiative was introduced earlier, and has been under review. So maybe it's only been in the news sporadically? IDK.

There was lots of attention here in Seattle, where it applies. But everything was put on hold due to lawsuits by neighborhood groups challenging the EIS. It is already in effect for Downtown-SLU, Uptown, International District, University District, and selected nodes in the Central District. This ruling clears the way for a vote to extend it to the rest of Seattle's urban villages:

http://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.co...91307a41a639e5

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Developers provide affordable units or pay a fee in return for an economic benefit, the relaxing of the height limit, allowing them to build more units, bringing down their per unit cost. They are under no compulsion to build those units if there is insufficient demand for them. Removing the requirement would not result in those units magically becoming "affordable", not just at the bottom of the market, but also in the middle of the market ("workforce" housing).

I believe it's clear that the aggregate effect is we get fewer units, and higher rents.

It's almost(?) like the law was written by landlords.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mhays25

I believe it's clear that the aggregate effect is we get fewer units, and higher rents.

It's almost(?) like the law was written by landlords.

How so? Allowing higher residential heights (and thus densities) should lead to more units, not fewer. Being able to build more units on the same piece of land should lower per unit costs below what they otherwise would have been, even if some are required to be "affordable" or a fee is to be paid.

Someone earning $15/hr should be able to afford to pay $780/mo in rent (30% of income). The number of unsubsidized apartments currently available at or below that rent in Seattle is exactly ZERO.

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

How so? Allowing higher residential heights (and thus densities) should lead to more units, not fewer. Being able to build more units on the same piece of land should lower per unit costs below what they otherwise would have been, even if some are required to be "affordable" or a fee is to be paid.

Reasons why this isn't always the case:

Above four stories the cost per square foot of construction shoots way up owing to more stringent codes (steel v. wood framing, higher fire and seismic standards, etc.) as well as higher site preparation costs, higher costs for utilities, elevator and other internal costs, much higher soft costs, etc. Land value really doesn't have much to do with it.

But the main reason is that units in newer high-density structures have to be priced to pay off the construction costs and debt as well as operating costs, and still turn a profit to the owners. And remember that the owners are seldom the same entities as the developers. The developers go through all the yoga of building and (initially) marketing the project, but usually sell the properties to a long term ownership entity - a limited partnership, LLC, REIT... - right after the "initial occupancy period," i.e. rentup.

Those rental prices - set to pay debt service, operations and maintenance, taxes, return on investment - compete with rents from existing structures that were usually built long before the new ones, and which are carrying less debt per unit, pay lower property taxes, have lower marketing costs and usually lower operating costs PUM (per unit month.)

The new units can't reduce their rents to compete with the existing stock (which of course outnumbers the new units by orders of magnitude) because their expenses are too high. However, there's nothing stopping the owners of the existing inventory to raise their rents to levels nearly matching the new units'. And that's exactly what's happening.

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Someone earning $15/hr should be able to afford to pay $780/mo in rent (30% of income). The number of unsubsidized apartments currently available at or below that rent in Seattle is exactly ZERO.

The "affordable" definition used by the City for privately owned "affordable" housing is 60% of area median income adjusted by household size. In 2018, 60% of AMI for a single person is $42,150, and an "affordable" studio apartment would carry a rent of $1053 per month ($1128 for a 1-bedroom unit.) See https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/De...e%20Limits.pdf

[CrazyDonkey]

Except, in many cases, we're talking about bumping up allowed heights by 70-90%:

The most dramatic changes would be in already dense areas, like First Hill, and near transit centers. In Northgate, for example, the height restrictions on some blocks would change from 85 feet to 145 feet and from 125 feet to 240 feet.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ayors-adviser/

With added heights, more "view" apartments, commanding luxury rents, can be built. The impact of land prices depends on the value of the land. Mid-rise to high-rise properties are being built where land values are highest, not lowest.