Last week, a new coalition seeking to help homeowners in foreclosure— kicked off their new campaign called Reset Seattle.  

On their website, they announce that, “With over 16,500 Seattle homes foreclosed on and over 42,000 homeowners underwater, Washington CAN! is working with faith, community and labor groups to launch a campaign calling on City Council to stop at nothing short of principal reduction to provide real relief to struggling families.” 

The timing is good for such an effort.  Last month, RealtyTrac reported that although foreclosure filings nationally saw a decre

ase of 1% from February and down 23% from the previous year, in Washington State they were up 154% over the previous year.  Similarly, property repossessions nationally saw a decrease of 3% from February and down 21%  from March 2012, in Washington State they were up 88% over the previous year. 

In March the City Council agreed to explore new local solutions for homeowners and communities impacted by the foreclosure crisis, when they passed Resolution 31434, for which I was the prime sponsor, joined by Councilmembers Bagshaw and Harrell.

Here are couple sobering facts: 

·         According to the 2012 2 ^nd Quarter Zillow report, 38% percent of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgages and the average amount of negative equity carried by the individual homeowner because of the loss of value in their homes is approximately $92,200

·         According to the Seattle Office of Housing, between 2008 and November 30, 2012, 9,491 Seattle families have lost their homes due to foreclosures stemming from the housing crisis and approximately 34 percent of those are concentrated in Southeast Seattle where 14% of the City’s homeowners live.

Nationally, homeowners owe $700 billion more on their mortgages than their homes are worth and banks have received more than $700 billion in bailout funds.  Yet, these tax payer dollars are only marginally used to help struggling homeowners, while the industry continues to be unwilling to renegotiate loans on any meaningful scale.  The result is that the increase in consumer spending that is so necessary to our economic recovery isn’t occurring.

I’m excited to begin our review of the circumstances and causes of foreclosures as well as the foreclosure methods and practices of lenders, not to mention the inequities people in Seattle face. We’re working with a prominent expert in this field who has experience consulting for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the International Monetary Fund, and a number of federal and state legislators and local governments. Together, the City Council, in collaboration with the Office of Housing will explore all legal options to assisthomeowners who continue to suffer from the housing crisis.

If you want to read more about the impact upon Seattle homeowners and communities from the foreclosure crisis, check out the new report Reset Seattle has released in conjunction with the United Black Clergy, entiled: “The Wall Street Wrecking Ball.”

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the launch of Family Housing Connection (FHC), a “coordinated entry” system created to make it easier for families to navigate the housing system in King County.  There are 3,210 homeless families currently on the placement roster waiting for a housing referral. 

Of the 3,210 families on the placement roster today:

• 7% are staying in a place not meant for habitation (215 families)
• 56% are couch surfing or doubled up with friends/family
• 14% are in shelter or using an emergency hotel voucher
• 10% are in a rental with no housing subsidy
• 4% are staying in a hotel without a voucher
• The remaining 9% are in transitional housing, substance abuse treatment, housing with a voucher, a home they own but are losing, hospital, incarcerated, or other.

Coordinated entry came out of recommendations of the Committee to End Homelessness, of which I am a Governing Board member.  FHC partners with more than 80 shelter and housing programs in King County and continues to reach out to programs who are not yet partnering.  Today, instead of calling 80+ programs individually, families needing housing now have a single access point to 80+shelter and housing programs.

FHC does not create additional housing resources and this new process does not shorten the months long waiting time it takes to get families into shelter or housing faster.

A year’s worth of work illustrates just how much there is yet to do.  Here is an excerpt from a recent report:

“As we all expected, year one presented many challenges.  No one has felt these challenges more than the 3,788 families who have accessed FHC. Long wait times for housing assessment appointments and much longer wait times for emergency housing produce anxiety and hopelessness for families awaiting our call.  The 215 families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation are prioritized for emergency housing – but even with prioritization, they will wait months for a roof over their children’s heads.”  (my emphasis added)

Over this year period, FHC has referred 1,048 families to housing, 55% of them have either moved into housing or been accepted but not yet moved in; 19% of them were denied because background checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc. made them ineligible; 26% of referrals were refused by the family for various reasons.  After a family refuses a third referral, they are removed from the waiting list.

Improvements to the system over FHC’s first year include a change requested by the City Council under my leadership, specifically that the “first come first served” referral philosophy be shifted to prioritize families who are staying in a place not meant for human habitation. Future improvements planned, also requested by the City Council, include a. reducing barriers to referrals that currently lead families to be deemed ineligible as well as b. increasing placement assistance resources such as optional background checks and optional document scanning.

Tonight in King County, children in 215 families – while prioritized on top of this list – will sleep in a car, in a greenbelt, on the streets, in an encampment, or in abandoned building.  These children will wait months for their families to be placed in shelter or a hotel.  This is unacceptable for a region of our resources.  I intend to continue to advocate for additional funding to address the immediate housing needs for these children and their families and determine what it would cost to provide basic shelter services so that they do not have to sleep in places not fit for human habitation while they are working with an agency to become re-housed.

So, what are Microunits? They sprung up about 4 years ago, when some innovative developers discovered that they could build new housing projects that provided very small living units without individual kitchens. Using the available building codes they put up residential buildings that provided a shared kitchen for eight living units. The result was an economically viable model that has resulted in tapping a great demand for housing units that can be rented in the range of $500 to $700 a month. The buildings are new, generally have free wi-fi, and provide a common room in addition to a shared kitchen. On the downside, parking is limited and the rooms are small, very small, some small as 100 square feet; the average micro-unit size is subject to some debate. The City’s Department of Planning and Development estimates their average size as 260 sq. ft. but provides no backup data. There are ample examples of new buildings providing micro-units averaging barely 200 square feet.

The developers note that their buildings are filling up with low income renters, some are young workers and others are retired workers. The major developer says the average income of their tenants is under $20,000 a year. Their model is so successful that developers cannot meet demand, there are now more than 2,300 living units located in 48 buildings, and more, many more are on the way.

These buildings cannot be built in single-family neighborhoods, but they can be built in areas zoned Low Rise or Medium Rise Residential, which do have many single family homes, although the zoning in these areas allows for higher density buildings. It is in these areas that their impact is being most felt. Of the 48 projects, 30 have been built in the Low Rise Zone which is a dominant zone in neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, University District and Eastlake. Single-family residents in these areas are now organizing and asking for a moratorium on issuing additional permits for constructing these projects until City departments can provide a consistent set of regulations for controlling their proliferation.

Up until the City’s Office of Housing made a change in their rules, micro-housing developers were using two different set of rules to allow them to receive property tax subsidies based on the number of their living units, while avoiding any design oversight based on a different measurement provided by the City’s Department of Planning and Development. In essence, developers were able to provide a much larger number of living units without being subject to design review that would normally be applied to this number of units.

The Council held a public hearing on April 17th and heard a number of residents complaining of their impact on their neighborhoods. Their complaints are balanced against others who have argued that given the lack of affordable housing in Seattle, micro-units provide one possible solution to the challenge of living in Seattle for those that work in Seattle.

I believe the Council is doing the right thing by reviewing the rules and regulations that govern the permitting of micro-housing. I expect that our work will be completed in the next months, which should result in dramatically altering the process for permitting micro-units and for regulating the size of their units. Currently other cities set minimum square footage for these type of living units. Boston has a proposed minimum of 350 sq. ft, Portland has one that ranges between 295 and 385, New York’s range from 250 to 370, and San Francisco’s is at 220 sq. ft.

Micro-housing has a place in Seattle, but they must be regulated much more than they are now. But the larger problem of providing affordable housing in Seattle must be tackled straight on by recognizing that all new housing development in Seattle must be required to provide a percentage of new housing affordable for people who wish to live and work in Seattle.

The annual report is required to include, among other things, the estimated total amount of tax exempted annually and cumulatively for individual projects in the MFTE program, as well as for the entire program.  The report is also required to provide an estimated annual impact of the MFTE program on the individual Seattle homeowner.  In the 2011 Annual Report we learned that for MFTE projects receiving an exemption under this program, their owners are estimated to receive about a $170,184,350 exemption for the life of the building’s participation in the project, with a total Seattle homeowner tax impact of $197.50 through 2025.

This year, OH was not ready to provide information on the tax impact of the program and has asked for additional time.  Last year, at my request, the Office of City Auditor conducted a performance audit of the MFTE Program, which is managed by the City of Seattle’s Office of Housing (OH).  One of the findings from the Audit Report was that “OH should…report on actual data, if it is available, rather than estimates. This should include providing actual tax exemption impacts from the King County Department of Assessments…”  My HHSHC Committee is in the midst of a program review.   I support getting accurate information now from the King County Assessor’s Office about the actual tax impacts of the program.

This program was passed in 1998.  There were changes to the program in each 2004, 2008, and 2011.  My emphasis has always been to support increasing the number of rent-restricted units required under the program and making them available to lower income people, for whom the need is greatest.  I voted against the program in 2008 because I believed the changes undermined its effectiveness by 1) subsidizing private developers to build units at essentially market rents, 2) expanded the program to build these market rate units in neighborhoods that have already met growth targets and 3) raised taxes for the rest of us to pay for it.

Each of the times over the last 12 years that program changes were made, the Council and the public was told that there was no general fund impact resulting from the program because the tax reduction developers receive were actually offset with increased property taxes for all other property owners.  Today we found out that this is not the whole story and that some portion of the exempted property taxes is forgone altogether.  In evaluating the project and making future changes it is critical to know what funds we may be foregoing that would otherwise pay for other critical tax-funded services.

INTRODUCTION

I begin this UP with a request. After you read this Urban Politics, consider sending a message to the Councilmembers asking them to dramatically increase the City’s plans for providing for more affordable housing in South Lake Union. My prior UP #322 provided background on how the City is developing SLU into a new and vibrant neighborhood, with expectations that in 18 years it will be the site of over 50,000 jobs and hopefully 15,000 housing units to accommodate those employees. Quite likely it will become one of Seattle’s densest urban centers. The question before the City is what kind of a new neighborhood will this be? Will it become a homogenous residential neighborhood, with employees car dependent on getting to work?

BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP

Before you is a strategy for creating an environmentally sustainable and an affordable neighborhood in the heart of our city. If you are in agreement, then email Councilmembers and put in the Subject Line: “BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP” In the body of the message use your own words for why you believe there should be more affordable housing in Seattle and South Lake Union in particular. Emails for the Councilmembers are:
Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

WHAT DOES “TAKE THE LEAP” MEAN?

In short it asks Councilmembers to dramatically increase the requirements on South Lake Union developers to provide affordable housing units when they build larger and higher buildings due to the upzoning of this area. My proposal, which was kindly referred to as the “Licata Leap” by Councilmember Burgess, would do three things. First, reduce carbon emissions from employees driving to work from long distances by creating a greater incentive to provide affordable housing in SLU and in the city. Second, significantly increase the number of affordable housing units beyond what the other plans are proposing. Third, it will begin to make those changes now, capturing the potential to build hundreds of new housing units that would otherwise be lost if we were to wait another year for more discussions.

COMPARISON OF SLU PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The performance requirement (i.e. the developer builds the affordable housing units on or offsite site) and the in-lieu payment amounts (i.e. the developer pays a fee to the city and the funds are used by someone else to build the units elsewhere) would significantly increase with the Leap Plan. Below is a table showing the differences.

This table applies only to new residential construction, not commercial construction, taking advantage of the SLU upzone. Commercial developments would also pay a fee, but their numbers would vary from those presented below.

Notes:

• *AMI is Average Median Income
• **Office of Housing suggests that non-profit developers may build an additional 300 units by 2031.
• *** This is the number of affordable housing units that the Office of Housing has determined that we’ll need by 2031 to meet our needs for the growth of jobs in SLU. Our consultants have confirmed this number and believe that it would be higher by 50% if we included the demand for affordable housing coming from the rest of the central business district.

The Council is moving in the right direction by increasing the amount of affordable housing from what the Mayor has proposed. One way that some Councilmembers have proposed is to increase the fees is by capturing inflation costs through applying the CPI index. This increase is one that could have been administratively applied, without legislation, any of the years since the 2007 passage of our first incentive zoning program.

I’m also glad to see that some Councilmembers are proposing a higher fee (referred to as an “in-lieu premium” of 20-25%) on developers who do not provide onsite affordable housing. I appreciate that Councilmember Burgess, who was the first to propose higher fees than what the Mayor proposed, acknowledges that even with this in-lieu premium, “the fee would be well below what is allowed by state law, RCW 36.70A.540 (h)”… well below the total cost to develop the workforce units.”

My objective is to encourage the development of affordable housing within projects and discourage the practice of developers writing a check to fulfill their incentive zoning obligations. Since its inception, San Francisco’s differential performance requirements and pay in-lieu options has succeeded in this objective, resulting in 80% of projects performing on-site units, 4% have performing offsite, and 16% making an in-lieu fee payment. My proposal is much more modest, but it will still increase the amount of on-site development than is currently being considered.

Here are some of the details of my proposal:

• For developers building affordable housing onsite: 10% of all residential floor area would be set aside as affordable for 60% and 80% average median income workers, which works out to about $60 gross square foot.
• For developers who don’t build affordable housing onsite, they make a “payment in lieu fee” which is equivalent to the cost of developing more units, instead 15% of units, or about $96 gross square foot.

IS THIS PROPOSAL REASONABLE?

The City Council’s consultant produced The Spectrum Report which concluded that an in lieu fee of even $104/gross square foot (mine is estimated as $96) would result in a 6.8% Return On Equity for developers and investors, the baseline threshold accepted by in the current market is 6%. In other words, developers could still make a healthy return on their projects.

Some have suggested that if we ask developers for too much in exchange for them using the upzones, they will not build in SLU if they can make larger profits elsewhere. While that is a possibility, there are other things to consider.

Although incentive zoning should be applied city wide, SLU is and will continue to be the hottest real estate location in the city for some time. The Mayor created a taskforce for considering how incentive zoning should be applied city-wide. It should move quickly and make a proposal by mid-summer, not at the end of the year as is currently planned. We do need city-wide consistency in applying incentive zoning. With a good portion of the Mayor’s appointees on the taskforce being for-profit developers, I expect that they will voice their hesitations about robust incentive programs. Consequently, I have low expectations that they will endorse anything that is bold enough to meet our city’s needs for more affordable housing. However, while the public deserves to hear their concerns, we should not use this taskforce as a barrier for tackling our affordable housing needs now. Rather, we should move forward before the end of the year to address the need city-wide.

Seattle is currently the sixth most active real estate market in the nation, and the risk factor for investors in this market is the second lowest in the nation as well. Both stats come from a report of Real Capital Analytics, a nationally respected firm, whose report received wide attention. However, San Francisco is even a “hotter” and they have a more aggressive affordable program than what I’m proposing (their “in-lieu” fee is over $300 a gross sq. ft. compared to mine of $96, or the Mayor’s at $15.) The requirements of their program applies even when there is no concurrent upzone and any time a builder is building more than 5 units of housing. And developers there have to provide housing units that are affordable to a lower income worker – 55% of Area Median Income, while all our proposals are at 80% of AMI (mine is half at 80% AMI, and half at 60%). Finally in San Francisco the affordable units are permanently affordable, for the life of the project. Our program guarantees affordability for only 50 years.

We need to build housing for our entire workforce, not just those at the highest wage scales. That is why we must have an incentive zoning program that also produces housing for workers earning 60% of the AMI. These are the security, clerical, maintenance, sales and hospitality workers. One proposed new building, just outside the SLU boundary, will be Seattle’s largest hotel employing over 400 people earning less than $25,000 a year. These are people who deserve the opportunity to walk or bike to work, rather than being forced to drive from Kent, Renton or beyond every day because they cannot find affordable housing in Seattle.

CONCLUSION

Council does recognize the opportunity of capturing additional public value for the private value we intend to create.  And, upzoning adds significant value to private property. The Department of Planning and Development has estimated that future growth due to upzoning SLU could result in over $12 billion worth of development over the next 25 years. Is it reasonable to expect that we should shape that development to be sensitive to our physical environment and our community values? I don’t want to see a downtown enclave created that can only house the most highly paid workers.

My vision is the creation of a functional and sustainable new downtown urban center that reflects the social diversity and environmental goals of our city. Can we do that by creating another 500 or even 700 affordable units when we expect there to be 15,000 housing units in SLU by 2031? I, for one, believe we can and must do better.

I welcome the Council’s continued resolve to grapple with these issues now, as well as the fact that we are also collectively rolling up our sleeves to do the same for incentive zoning throughout the City. But we need your guidance. What do you believe we should do?

Upzoning the 340 acre South Lake Union Urban Center could set the tone for how Seattle grows in the future. It provides a seminal turning point for creating a more economically sustainable and socially diverse city, or for becoming a major development that contributes to more urban sprawl and urban gentrification.

Without doubt the Council, the Mayor and a wide range of citizens, organizations and businesses wish to create a more dense community providing increased employment and residential opportunities for new South Lake Union workers. But while we have succeeded in attracting new employment in SLU, we have lagged behind in meeting our goal of providing more housing, both in total units and in affordable ones.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

When we started this work in 2004, there were 778 affordable housing units in South Lake Union, today they number 1,274, with over 80 percent being provided by non-profit housing developers of low income housing. Affordable housing is defined as having rent which is no more than 30% of an occupant’s income, w

ho earns 80% of the Average Medium Income or less for that metropolitan area. Lots of numbers there, but they are needed to actually measure need and the supply of housing which would be affordable to people, who often work in the lower paying restaurant, security, clerical, hospitality, maintenance, and sales jobs. According to Community Attributes a consultant hired by the City Council, approximately 58% of Seattle employees work in those occupations (see their Community Attributes report).

Affordable housing is clearly needed for our mid and lower wage workers so that they are not commuting over long distances, carrying a personal financial burden and a having a community-wide environmental impact by contributing to greater carbon emissions. Currently only 37% of people working in Seattle live in Seattle, and about 25% live outside the Greater Seattle region (including the areas directly east, north, and South of Seattle), commuting from distant rural and urban areas like Everett and Tacoma.

Community Attributes estimates that currently 29,200 people are working in SLU, with them estimating that the total number of housing units needed for them would be 21,900. Following our city’s Comprehensive Plan, which the City Council adopts and the Mayor approves, we should provide 37% of all housing to be affordable to workers earning 80% or less of the AMI. Assuming that the percentage of those working in SLU commuting from outside the city is the same as from those working in Seattle, there is a need for a total of 8,100 housing units in the city for all SLU employees. And approximately 3,000 of those units should be at affordable rent levels.

Having only 1,274 affordable units now in SLU, leaves a gap of 1,726 for SLU workers. Without them, these workers commute from other parts of the city and beyond, in places where they can locate affordable housing, defeating the goal of concentrating workers and their housing in the city.

FUTURE CONDITIONS

The affordable housing shortage in SLU will only grow worse over time if the city does not take dramatic measures.

Planners tell us that in 2031, there will be 51,100 employees in South Lake Union, creating a demand for 14,200 housing units in Seattle. The city’s Office of Housing estimates that we will need 5,500 affordable housing units to meet SLU’s workforce housing needs by 2031.  With 1,274 now existing, that leaves a production goal of more than 4,200 units over 18 years.

According to our Office of Housing (OH), the Mayor’s proposed program for incentivizing developers to build affordable housing in exchange for receiving valuable upzones for SLU, will provide only 450 additional affordable housing units, when we need 4,200.

OH also hopes to see another 500 units from the Multi-Family Tax Exemption program, but these units are only affordable for 20 years, not 50 years as would be the ones provided through an incentive program attached to a rezone. That office also suggests that another 250 affordable units might be provided through micro-housing type of units and an additional 300 for the very low income through other city and state funds. All of these numbers strike me as overly optimistic. Even so, there would still remain a gap of 2,700 affordable housing units to reach our goal of 4,400 affordable units.

Another solution floated by planners and echoed by some councilmembers is to take the money provided by the Mayor’s incentive program and build housing along the Light Rail Line in Rainier Valley, where land for new housing would be cheaper than in SLU, which is being up-zoned. Philippa Nye, of Ally Community Development, addressed that suggestion in front of the City Council by saying: “Having everyone commute from Rainier Valley or Rainier Beach feels like housing segregation to me.”

I view the Mayor’s proposed incentive program for developers as being akin to wanting to build a house with a staple gun, when you really need a hammer and nails. We need an incentive program in SLU that will produce thousands of new affordable housing units to match the expected growth in jobs in this urban center; one that we are paving the way for by legislating upzones worth millions of dollars on each parcel and by the $200 million in city and federal money that we have devoted to Mercer Street improvements.

Without a new approach, housing disparity will actually increase in South Lake Union, resulting in more workers having to drive into the city to work, reducing the value of their hour of work as well as further harming our environment with their long commutes.

Another consultant, Spectrum Development Solutions, presented a report to the Council on February 25 that confirms these concerns and concludes that if our current Incentive Zoning policies were retooled to increase the investments developers make in affordable housing development, the profit of these projects would still meet the reasonable profit expectations of stockholders and other investors.

WHAT THE CITY CAN DO TO GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SOUTH LAKE UNION

The City has incentive zoning programs in several Seattle neighborhoods.  These programs create affordable housing with contributions from developers utilizing additional development capacity granted under the zoning code. In late 2007 the program was extended into South Lake Union for use on specific projects proposed by Vulcan Real Estate for the new Amazon campus.  The program does not exist otherwise in South Lake Union and the Council intends to extend the program throughout South Lake Union.

The current Incentive Zoning program allows for additional development capacity if developers contribute to affordable housing.  They can set aside units equivalent to approximately 5% of all residential floor area in a 240 foot tall building fully utilizing the bonus provided through incentive zoning.  Those units can be built either onsite or offsite in other developments and they must be affordable to people earning 80% of area median income.  Developers who don’t want to set-aside affordable housing in their developments pay $15.15 per gross square foot of 60% of the extra residential floor area above the original height of the building (before the additional development capacity).

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW OR LATER?

Throughout this debate the Council has withstood incredible pressure from the business community, who entreated the Council to pass the South Lake Union legislation increasing building heights from 85 feet to 240 feet as well as allowing for several 400 foot towers, together with adopting the Mayor’s proposal for status quo affordable housing requirements that are far more lenient than experts have revealed are necessary for a reasonable return on investment.

I believe we must take the opportunity to increase the public value today, at the same time that we are considering increasing the private value thorough this rezone. Thankfully, Councilmembers O’Brien and Rasmussen agree and on March 3 joined me in taking the position that the:  “Council shouldn’t wait to strengthen affordable housing requirements”
Specifically, they joined me in saying “Zoning is fundamentally about creating public value. The suggestion that we should not create new affordable housing requirements within the South Lake Union legislation before us risks our ability to meet our housing needs, as well as our social equity and sustainability goals. Rezoning an area with the highest opportunity in our region for development is the perfect time to meet these goals.”

I believe now there is agreement among a majority of Councilmembers that we want to improve the affordable housing investments of developers in South Lake Union. On Monday, March 25^th, the Council will have an open discussion in its Special Committee on the SLU Rezone on a number of Councilmember generated proposals on what the City can do to increase affordable housing in SLU.

I’ll write more about the affordable housing proposals developed by myself and other Councilmembers on Monday.

The good news is they are about to make a new wait list for 2,000 new households, but to be eligible to be selected for that waitlist, you need to register now. Here’s how it works.  If you earn 30% or less of area median income you can participate in a lottery to be put on a Housing Choice Voucher waitlist.  Then, if you get a voucher, you can rent a unit from any landlord in Seattle eligible to participate in the program and pay only 30 to 40 percent of your monthly income in rent.

Area median income (AMI) means that half of the people in the area, in this case Seattle, earn more than the median, and half of the people earn less. For Seattle, 30% AMI for a single person household is $18,200/yr, for a 2 person household it is $20,800/year and for a 3 person family it is $23,400.  Find eligibility for larger families here.

Registration is NOW and it is online only.  You can register until February 22nd, 5 p.m.  If you do, you will be entering a “lottery” for a chance to be placed on this new waitlist. Of all the households who register during this three-week registration period, 2,000 households will be selected at random to be placed on the waitlist.  The first households on the list could begin receiving vouchers as early as spring.   Here is a Frequently Asked Questions.

Seattle doesn’t have enough low income housing.  I’m glad that SHA is giving those in greatest need this opportunity for safe, decent and affordable housing.  If you are interested in registering for the lottery, visit http://seattlehousing.org/waitlist.  A Waitlist Hotline to take questions or to help you register is also available by calling 206-239-1674.

Because there are still so many people without shelter, despite the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness’ success in adding 5,130 housing units for homeless people, the Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) established the Single Adult Shelter Task Force. The Task Force was charged with finding ways to address the immediate needs of individuals who are unsheltered and to increase efficiencies to move people through shelter to permanent housing.

I am a member of the CEH Governing Board.  A group called, “Occupy CEH,” has begun to attend Governing Board meetings.  Over the last several months, this group has asked that the Governing Board look to partner with homeless people in seeking solutions to meet the emergency needs of homeless people.  In particular, they have been concerned that long-term housing has been pitted against the immediate survival needs of people without any shelter at all and that “partnerships between existing tent cities and their host communities should be nurtured to build the political will to end homelessness.”

The Governing Board met today to hear the Task Force recommendation that the CEH adopt a shelter strategy as part of our solutions to end homelessness in our community. This may not seem like news to some reading this, but it is significant shift in policy considering that, since its inception, the 10 Year Plan has recognized the important role of shelter but has recommended to partner-cities and funders that they focus new investments on housing rather than emergency shelter.

In particular, the Task Force recommended the development of additional shelter capacity outside of Seattle and the development of 24-hour shelter options throughout the shelter system, including Seattle.  The Governing Board voted to approve these recommendations.  I’m heartened by this change because, although shelter may not end homelessness, it does keep people safe.

* During the January 2012 One Night Count of People Who are Homeless in King County, the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness reported there were at least 2,594 people who were without shelter.  There will be another count this week, on Friday morning.  I will be joining a street count of 900 volunteers with 125 trained team leaders in parts of Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Shoreline, Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville, Kent, Federal Way, Renton, Auburn, and White Center.

Though there were supporters present, there is still much opposition.  The major concerns I heard on Monday night were:

• Many people believe that new low income housing for families will result in an inevitable increase in nuisance behavior such as public inebriation and urination, aggressive panhandling, drug dealing, shoplifting, etc.
• Many people believe that there is already a much too high concentration of low income housing in Lake City.
• Some people were worried that development now would interfere with an opportunity for another commercial/residential development that could contribute to Lake City’s growth and economic health.
• A few speakers said that low income people wouldn’t be able to support local businesses to help those businesses succeed.  In other words, they would be a dependent population not a contributing one.
• Some people thought that the Fire Station Levy Fund account would suffer, because the city would be use funds from the sale proceeds to support the project, instead of replenishing the Fire Station Levy Fund.
• Nearly everyone included in their testimony that the City should make more investments in infrastructure, particularly the community center.
• Many people said that they believe that the city is not listening to the community’s concerns

I believe that many of the concerns voiced on Monday night can be addressed. However, a strong perspective that I heard was that Lake City residents feel betrayed by the City; facts alone may not alter those kinds of perceptions.

A little bit of background on the proposal is important to understand how we got to where we are today.  On any given night in Seattle, there are more than 6,000 people in need of shelter. Most find their way into an emergency shelter or transitional housing, but there are still over 1,700 people in the Seattle area sleeping outdoors without shelter.  In the Spring of 2011, the Council passed legislation that created a work plan and timeline for analyzing alternatives and recommending actions to provide services in securing housing and to help meet the immediate survival and safety needs of individuals in our community who do not have access to safe shelter.  The City Council’s review was to include possible renovation of Fire Station 39 as a long term location for a new shelter or housing facility.

Then, about this time last year, the community convinced the Council to not support the proposal for a shelter at this location and instead look at possibly selling the property to someone who would develop permanent housing for this site and partner with the City to use the $950,000 earmarked for this site for some sort of a public community space.  And with that, the Seattle City Council changed course and voted for a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI), requesting the Executive instead develop a proposal for the future redevelopment at the site of the old Fire Station 39 to include long-term housing for low-income or formerly homeless families.  The  Executive was requested by the Council to also involve community stakeholders in the development of that particular kind of proposal.  The Executive has not yet made a final recommendation to the Council and the Council will still have to – after a recommendation has been made – vote to support, reject, or amend that proposal.

So, in short – the Council heard the community a year ago when Lake City residents emailed and met with Councilmembers to say that Fire Station 39 should not be used as a shelter.  How do you know that the Council heard Lake City residents?  Because, Council voted to tell the Mayor to change the shelter proposal.  And the community will have still yet another opportunity to influence the Council, after the Mayor makes a final proposal and before the Council votes on the disposition of the Fire Station.

Back in June, after the City made a preliminary recommendation, there was a briefing on that recommendation and the next steps in my Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee.  If you are interested in the details of the preliminary recommendations, an assessment of the needs of Lake City residents, or information about the concentration of low income housing in different City neighborhoods, you may want to review the documents at this link, under agenda item #2. In December, the Executive will be making a final recommendation to the City Council.  My committee will hear that recommendation.  If you want to track the Council’s discussion in December about these issue, you may want to sign up to receive my committee agendas here.

Both leading up to and following the passage of the legislation, I received a number of comments expressing both concern and support for the program.  Most  comments  raise questions about how the new program will be implemented.  Although some important aspects, including the cost of registration fees and inspections are still to be worked out, here are DPD’s answers to several of the questions we have heard.  Here is additional information specifically developed for the tenant perspective.

I’d like to say a bit now about next steps.  DPD will be working with stakeholders in developing the framework, inspection standards,  fee structure, and information and outreach elements for the program. Key issues will include how notice of inspections will be provided, what are tenant rights for refusing entry, and what issues or standards will the inspections cover.  This work is scheduled for 2013.  The first registration requirements will not take effect until 2014.  Inspections will not begin until January 2015.  If you’d like to participate in development of these program elements, or at least be notified as they are developed, please feel free to contact Faith Lumsden, Director of the Code Compliance Division at DPD, faith.lumsden@seattle.gov, 206-615-0097.

I have great hopes that this program will improve the conditions of renters living in substandard housing as well as encourage stronger maintenance practices so that fewer properties fall into irreversible disrepair and are less vulnerable to redevelopment so that we can be successful in preserving the existing rental housing stock.