A legal effort led by the Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity and a bevy of anti-growth neighborhood groups to upend Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability plan focusing increased development mostly in its already densest neighborhoods has been rejected by a state growth board.
The City of Seattle announced the victory Monday following its successful appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
“Seattle has spoken and made clear our vision for the future of our city,” Mayor Jenny Durkan said in a statement on the decision. “We want a city where people who work in Seattle can afford to live and raise a family in Seattle. Mandatory Housing Affordability is one of the most important strategies we have to build a more affordable and equitable future for all.”
Durkan went on to say developing affordable housing “in all corners of our city is the right thing to do” and called MHA “a critical part of our investments in affordable housing.”
The SCALE group began its legal fight this spring. “Issues include displacement of existing residents, preservation of trees, historic resources, and failure to consider alternative policies,” a statement from the group at the time read. The resulting filing (PDF) against the plan and upzoning focused on issues related to aesthetics and “bulk, height, and scale” that the group said it believed hadn’t been properly studied by the city. The North Capitol Hill Against Rezoning Misuse group supported the coalition’s efforts but was not listed among complainants.
“SCALE based its appeal on the City of Seattle’s lack of compliance with the Growth Management Act and its own Comprehensive Plan,” the group said in a statement on the decision. “MHA is the largest single zoning change in Seattle’s history, affecting residential zoning in all 26 Urban Village neighborhoods plus all multifamily and commercial zoning throughout the city. Issues included displacement of existing residents, preservation of trees, historic resources, and worsening utilities and services.”
The group has 30 days to appeal the decision and says it is weighing its options to create “a more livable and inclusive city.”
In addition to legal setback, anti-growth and slow growth proponents who opposed MHA were also likely disappointed in November’s election as most of the victorious candidates for Seattle City Council supported the affordability measures in the plan.
Beyond the Not In My Backyard pushback against it, MHA’s reshaping of Seattle’s housing is on a slow track. Some new projects in the pipeline like this planned 21-story apartment building on First Hill are now facing the choice of either providing a percentage of new units at affordable rates or paying into affordable housing funding. Meanwhile, the city wrapped up 2019 by announcing $110 million in funding for a roster of new District 3 affordable housing projects.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
This is great news, thanks for allowing the barista who makes your coffee to remain living in the neighborhood, along w the rest of the artists, queers and working class people who actually made this city the exciting place it once was.
The MHA legislation is a joke. Why? If developers choose the option of including affordable units in their buildings, they only have to do so at a rate of 5-8% of the total units. This is a drop in the bucket. And most will choose the option of paying into the housing fund anyway, because that is more profitable for them. Some affordable housing will be built in less desirable areas, while neighborhoods like Capitol Hill will continue to be mainly market rate (expensive).
MHA is a giveaway to developers, pure and simple.
Bob,
Talk to me after you try to build a residential building in this city’s neighborhoods while shouldering the MHA requirements. Those payouts you dismissed so casually represent a major line item expense on any project budget, and can be the difference between the project going forward or not.
Bob, most of the commenters here have never actually created anything of substance or risked their own capital to build a structure or business that could house or employ people, and therefore have little comprehension or sympathy for the points you’ve made. Instead, they just make naive, selfish demands for cheap housing and rent control.
2019 housing investments in our neighborhood, funded in part by MHA:
125 units at Broadway and Pine (the Eldridge)
100 units at 12th and Spruce
361 units at Madison and Boylston
73 units at Madison and 9th
If developers choose the option of including affordable units in their buildings, they only have to do so at a rate of 5-8% of the total units. This is a drop in the bucket.
Last I checked, 5%-8% is greater than 0%. It’s not perfect, but don’t let perfect be an enemy of good.
Sorry, I meant to address my comment to Glenn.
Woo-hoo!!!