“A coalition of local organizations” is, as the Seattle Times reported this weekend, making plans to use the state’s environmental review process to halt the proposed upzoning of 27 areas of Seattle under the Mandatory Housing Affordability plan. But you won’t find a group representing most of Capitol Hill in the mix.
“These upzones are not needed to accommodate the growth that’s planned,” the statement released Friday from the Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity reads. “The city already has more than twice the capacity in multi-family zoning to accommodate all the growth that’s coming, so who’s driving this land-grab?”
Development-focused conspiracy theories aside, the group appears to have what it takes — lawyers, money, and time — to gum up the effort to increase building heights in core areas around the city’s transit systems and help drive down Seattle’s soaring rents. The group said its lawyers would file an appeal against the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the plan to the Seattle Hearing Examiner on Monday.
None of the groups signing on with the coalition directly represent core areas of the Hill like Broadway or Pike/Pine or neighboring population centers like First Hill. Nearby supporters included the Eastlake and Cherry Hill community councils, the Save Madison Valley group that grew out of the fight to stop a PCC-centered development along E Madison, and the Jackson Place Community Council. The Madison-Miller Park Community group is the only organization currently signed-on to the coalition from an area of the Hill. The absence of larger, more influential Central Seattle groups like the Capitol Hill Community Council, the First Hill Improvement Association, or the Central Area Land Use Review Committee is notable.
Capitol Hill’s core is among the areas likely to see the greatest changes under the proposed upzonings. The MHA proposal released last month includes transitioning Broadway from around Cal Anderson Park all the way north to beyond Roy to 75-foot height limits and “neighborhood commercial” zoning that would allow seven-story buildings with commercial use throughout. Some of the bigger changes would come around the Miller Community Center where planners already backed off a more aggressive upzone.
75 feet up and down Broadway — Seattle ‘Preferred Alternative Zoning’ plan released
Under the MHA framework, affordability requirements chained to the upzoning vary by “scale” and developers can choose to pay fees instead of including rent-restricted units.
Meanwhile, use of the State Environmental Policy Act to hinder and possibly halt the affordability upzones will further rile urbanists and developers who increasingly see challenges under the process as NIMBY posturing to sabotage development.
The coalition’s members claim the groups behind the legal challenge are also dedicated to increasing affordability in Seattle. “We share the City’s goal of affordable housing for those earning less than 60% of Area Median Income, but it is simply not achieved by these upzones,” a ”Lake City homeowner and affordable housing advocate” quoted in the coalition announcement said. “That’s why we are filing an appeal,” said Sarajane Siegfriedt. ”The real impacts that destroy and gentrify our low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are loss of affordability, community and livability.”
CORRECTION: The city’s goal is the creation of 50,000 units, “including preservation and production of 20,000 net new affordable homes.” Those who qualify for affordable housing include someone making less than $40,320 a year, paying no more than $1,008 for a one bedroom, or a family of four making less than $57,000 a year, paying no more than $1,296 for a two bedroom. MHA is hoped to drive creation of about 12% of the housing the city says is needed.
You can view the upzoning proposals here and navigate to specific addresses. Hashed areas indicate proposed zoning changes. The proposals came after months of public feedback after the framework for MHA was first set last fall.
Find the full statement from the Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity, below.
Twenty-four Community Groups Join to Appeal the MHA Grand Bargain Environmental Impact Statement
Neighborhood, housing and homeless advocacy, small business and environmental groups from around Seattle are holding a press conference at 12:15 Monday in the City Hall foyer to announce that they have formed an MHA EIS appeal coalition. Also Monday they are filing an appeal to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to the Seattle Hearing Examiner for citywide upzones known as the Grand Bargain.
The coalition is called Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity.
Jon Lisbin, small business owner and president of Seattle Fair Growth said, “We are worried about affordability and displacement. Our neighborhoods are so different that one-size-fits-all upzones don’t work well for residents or small businesses. The Final EIS completely neglects the differences between neighborhoods that are ripe for multifamily development such as Lake City and Northgate, and other racially diverse neighborhoods, such as South Park and Beacon Hill, that are mainly of older single-family homes owned or rented by lower-income families. The city is leaving low- and middle-income families with no place to go.”
Said David Ward, a Ravenna renter and president of the coalition, ”It will make Seattle far more unaffordable and also make it more difficult to live here due to more traffic, not enough schools, more pollution, fewer trees, and a loss of the diversity of residents we currently have.” “I’m worried about moving out from my parents’ home because I know it’ll be hard to find an apartment I can afford,” said Beacon Hill Council Member and UW student Cacima Lee. “And the idea of buying a home in Seattle is almost a joke.”
“Instead of invalidating all neighborhood plans, the city needs to support and celebrate differences while maintaining intact communities,” Christy Tobin-Presser of the West Seattle Junction Neighborhood Coalition added. “These upzones are not needed to accommodate the growth that’s planned. The city already has the more than twice the capacity in multi-family zoning to accommodate all the growth that’s coming, so who’s driving this land-grab?” Wallingford resident Susanna Lin states: ”We have a school capacity crisis and the City is planning upzones without coordinating with the School District on a plan to build more schools. In addition, trees are disappearing at an alarming rate. What kind of future is this for our children?” 
The Grand Bargain, or Mandatory Housing Affordability-Residential (MHA-R), is a one-size-fits-all proposal by former Mayor Ed Murray and City planners that would give developers increased height limits and profitability in exchange for either building affordable units in their projects or contributing a fee in lieu of including them. In fact, according to the City, most developers have said they will decline to include rent-restricted units in their projects. They prefer to pay the fee.
According to Lake City homeowner and affordable housing advocate Sarajane Siegfriedt, the City Office of Housing then leverages the fees 3:1 mostly with federal, state and city tax funds to build low-income housing in other parts of Seattle. Most of the required affordable housing will be built in locations with cheap land, not in the neighborhoods where builders maximize profits by replacing older houses with costly new market-rate housing. Then there’s the delay. It takes four or so years for a nonprofit to receive City and state grants, assemble the rest of the funding, and construct a building, assuming they already have the land.”
“We share the City’s goal of affordable housing for those earning less than 60% of Area Median Income, but it is simply not achieved by these upzones,” Siegfriedt said. “That’s why we are filing an appeal. The real impacts that destroy and gentrify our low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are loss of affordability, community and livability.”
Said West Seattle’s Tobin-Presser, ”The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement, required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), is to provide two or more alternatives to the proposed changes, to analyze as thoroughly as possible the impacts of the alternatives and to propose mitigation for those impacts.
The FEIS appeal coalition asserts that the proposed upzones won’t provide affordability, that the alternatives studied in the FEIS are completely inadequate, and that the impacts and mitigation must be analyzed neighborhood by neighborhood.
Free Rent pic.twitter.com/0dRk8ortPS
— jseattle (@jseattle) November 27, 2017
I’m not opposed to SOME degree of upzoning, but I think it needs to be very selective so as not to impact quiet residential streets, of which there are many, even in the “urban villages.” The city needs to avoid extensive upzoning which only caters to developer interests. Development will continue no matter what, but I think it can be mitigated by the kind of efforts put forth by these community groups. I only wish Capitol Hill was more a part of this effort.
I don’t believe that upzoning “only caters to developer interests.” I think the developers’ customers are also happy that they have more housing options at more affordable prices than if there were less new housing supply being created. This article—from our last housing boom a decade ago—summaries the issue nicely: http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2004181704_eicher14.html
Fundamentally, this is a conflict between the interests of existing homeowners and new owners/renters. Developers just make a convenient boogeyman.
LOL – that article ScottH linked to calls out *Houston* as a great example of housing expansion that was meeting growth because few restrictions were in place.
Yeah – that turned out to be absolutely great for all of those people who’s houses were built in flood plains….
Yes, my CD neighbor, there are plenty of good reasons to have zoning restrictions, building codes, and other regulations, including environmental concerns, public health/safety, and arguably concepts that are more subjective like “livability” and “preserving neighborhood character.” But the fact is that they do tend to make housing more expensive than it would otherwise be, and this burden is mainly born by renters and new homeowners. Considering the rapid increase in housing costs and corresponding decrease in affordability, it’s not unreasonable to take a look at up-zoning to increase housing supply.
@ ScottH: You are pretty naive if you don’t think developers are playing a major role in the HALA changes. I would agree with you IF the new recommendations actually resulted in a significant number of affordable units in more expensive neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, but the fact is that there will be very few of these (the minimum required, around 5-7% of new units, which is a laughable requirement) because developers make more money with market-rate apartments. Many of them will choose to pay into the fund instead of providing any affordable units, and that fund will undoubtedly be used to build apartments only in outlying areas. Renters will continue to be pushed out of Capitol Hill as rents continue to rise, and the developers will laugh all the way to the bank.
Kudos to Capitol Hill for not joining the city’s fight against housing.
“Affordability, Livability and Equity” occur in the name of the coalition opposing housing. Let’s unpack what these words mean.
“Affordability” means that the residents of low-density neighborhoods want their homes to keep rising in price. New multi-family housing would allow for small condos that would sell for less than existing single-family homes in northern neighborhoods command today, but in the interest of “Affordability,” these neighborhoods oppose housing.
“Livability” means “I demand the right to park in front of my house.”
“Equity” means a desire to excessively favor the housing-rich owners already in high-income neighborhoods by excluding people of lower socioeconomic strata who would like to live throughout the city. Some of the homeowners in these neighborhoods signal virtues such as love for refugees and racial tolerance, but by freezing out new neighbors in their historically white and immigrant-resistant neighborhoods, they show their true intentions.
The hatred of “developers” is just a way for Seattle’s housing-rich homeowners, the most numerous opponents of affordability, of livability, and of equity to project their own hatred onto a class they feel is universally despised. Fortunately, most of the knowledgeable non-hateful neighbors of Seattle know that the solution to our housing crisis is to build more homes. In the anti-housing neighborhoods, this is happening already with thousands of encamped RVs on residential streets. In the pro-housing neighborhoods, developers are building new multi-family buildings. I know where I’d rather be.
Just because you would be a greedy, grasping person if you owned a home doesn’t mean that the rest of us are.
The dollar value of my house means nothing to me – the value of it as a *home* means everything. Livability means that sitting here right now, with light streaming through my windows and leaves blowing past from the trees on the street, the thought of becoming another Edith Macefield, is indeed horrifying.
Not to mention you are woefully misinformed if you think the new condos around existing houses are worth less than the houses… Every one of the new, small condos that have been built near my house has sold for at least $200,000 – $300,000 MORE than my house has ever been valued at. They make my property value (and my taxes) rise, not fall.
This neighborhood is still and always has been racially and economically diverse – but development has been eating into that as fast as it can – who do you think moves in when a family that’s been here probably since the 40’s sells because the taxes have become too onerous and their modest house gets knocked down to build 4 condos? Clue – it’s not a family that looks like the one that left…
Your hyperbole (as bad as it is, there are simply not 1,000s of RVs on residential streets….) and uninformed pious spew is what is hateful here, and simply wrong.
The CD continues to be populated with families “that [look] like the one[s] that left”. Historically the CD has been a Native American neighborhood, a Jewish neighborhood, and a significantly Japanese neighborhood before restrictive covenants mandated that it be a black neighborhood. Peoples of many colors have found it livable for over a hundred years. People will continue to find it livable even as it changes in the coming years. I respect that it serves a unique and diminishing place as Seattle’s black community hub today, and I also recognize that our laws don’t allow our city to preserve its historical racial distribution.
I apologize for my misstatement about the RV population count; it’s “more than a thousand” living on all our streets, not thousands living on residential streets alone. http://crosscut.com/2017/08/seattle-city-council-legislation-homeless-rv-vehicles/
Really…. seriously …… tell me you did not just *defend* that this neighborhood becoming less racially and economically diverse through development because it has had a changing population throughout it’s history…. really…..
Do you even see how that is hypocrisy of the highest order?
We [homeowners] are not allowed to oppose development because that means we must be anti economic and racial diversity, but when we point out that development has been reducing the diversity in our neighborhood – well there’s always been population change over time…
Check – no matter what if you are a homeowner you are a greedy, grasping, monster who is always wrong. I see clearly now…
What do you mean by “diversity” as a goal? Today the CD has significant white, black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.* All groups except white are more prevalent in the CD than they are in Seattle as a whole.
* http://www.areavibes.com/seattle-wa/central+district/demographics/
Remember when this rush of 300 sq ft apodments were first touted as allowing “affordable” housing for people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to live somewhere like Capitol Hill? They promised reasonable rents that you wouldn’t have to be a TechBro to afford. Now those tiny hamster boxes are renting for $1100+ and they’re still full of highly compensated tech workers anyway. Upzoning isn’t making Capitol Hill any more affordable for non-tech workers, it’s just cramming more of those highly-paid people into the same space. Which, to be sure, was going to happen anyway. I’m not saying that’s necessariky bad, but I don’t think leaving Capitol Hill out of this “resist” movement loses much for “affordability”. It doesn’t work anyway.
I have no idea what you mean by – “diversity” as a goal – as I didn’t say that…. You were the one who said… “Some of the homeowners in these neighborhoods signal virtues such as love for refugees and racial tolerance, but by freezing out new neighbors in their historically white and immigrant-resistant neighborhoods, they show their true intentions.” Nice of you to say “some” at least I guess…
Look – you are accusing at least “some” (I hear it as all…) of us who simply don’t want our neighborhoods, our homes (yes home means more than just your own house), bulldozed of being racist and classist – but when I point out that very bulldozing is pushing out the people I’m supposed to not want here – you are turning around and saying well, that’s the way things go.
Linking to current demographics doesn’t mean anything…
nor does the make up of this neighborhood vs the rest of Seattle as to whether this neighborhood is becoming less diverse…
Seattle Central District demographics-
2000 – 41% White, 36% Black, 23% Asian, Hispanic, Other
2010 – 53% White, 53% Black, 24% Asian, Hispanic, Other
Now (your source) – 59% White, 17% Black, 12% Asian, 12% Other
@ Another CD neighbor – you are right, development isn’t the *only* reason people have left this neighborhood and I never said that or meant to insinuate it, but I definitely do not see the new apartments and condos here helping or stopping it from happening either, which pro development people want to claim. It’s just making happen faster – because of zoning changes the land a property sits on is now the real thing of value, an older home that may require attention no longer sells for a more reasonable price because the house is less important – and to a developer who can put 4 or 6 buildings in the place of your one – completely unimportant. Just look at your tax bill breakdown… the value of the land has increased about 10X – the value of the house on the land only about 3.5X.
CD neighbor, it is simply not true that development is responsible for the displacement of racial minorities in the CD. The Black population plummeted in the 90s and 2000s, well before significant development began in areas it’s taking place today.
You are wrong on the apodments – they are being turned into Airbnb units. They go at $80-120 night his making 2-3x the monthly rent. And so far Seattle has done nothing to stop it – indeed the cities current proposal is to allow it in urban villages such as cap hill, QA, lake Union, downtown etc. hard to believe..
Well, you just proved my point even more so. I’m not wrong, it’s just even worse than I stated it. Apodments are doing NOTHING for affordability. Nobody’s seeing $600/mo rents- which is the kind of nonsense they promised from them when they were being built.
Here you go
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/11913756?location=Seattle%20Sorento%20flats&adults=2&children=0&infants=0&guests=2&check_in=2017-12-08&check_out=2017-12-10&tier_override=0
They have maybe 4-6 apodment units going at $100+ on yesler.
So people are misusing environmental laws to halt up-zoning and thus contributing to unaffordable housing. I didn’t know there are so many Republicans in Seattle!
I own a house in Seattle, and I get wanting to preserve your neighborhood, but Seattle really needs to put in sky rises since there isn’t enough housing. 75 foot height limits are too short.
“Misusing environmental laws”?
Specifics, please?
This seems very, very complicated and likely cannot be reduced to right vs. wrong. Name calling those whose opinions differ from yours lowers the chances of a fruitful dialogue. Yes, Seattle has seen a huge and rapid spike in rent. And yes, many folks don’t want to see the neighborhood they’ve lived in for decades change rapidly. ‘Urban Village’ should mean the city mitigating the impacts–making sure people can walk,bike,drive and park near their homes. If there will be more density there should also be plans for more public green space. Seattle has been developing at a rapid pace but one that can’t keep up with the amount of new jobs–many of which are bringing people here with high wages and a need for housing. Displacement is real, and hurts. Here’s an article pointing out that trend: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-region-ranks-near-top-of-nation-for-new-housing-so-whats-with-the-soaring-prices/. Having not spent enough time in the weeds with this issue it’s difficult to come out strongly on either side. But I do think that if HALA will have so much long term impact, it should be looked at under a microscope. Who sits on the committee? Non-profit based housing advocates? Local residents? Developers with vested interest? What’s the balance?