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.

At today’s event I received an award for my long time support of OSL.  That was nice, but OSL really should be the ones getting an award from the City for providing 3.2 million nutritionally dense meals since 1989; 3 meals a day, seven days each week!  If you want to volunteer, it’s a great community service opportunity for more than 3,800 volunteers a year.  See here for more about OSL and how to volunteer.

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.

I’m pleased that the Council created a human services package to enhance care for our community’s most vulnerable members.  In particular, it’s critical that – as part of that package – we’ll increase shelter capacity for the nearly 2,000 people sleeping outside without access to basic shelter as well as increasing day services for people spending the night in shelters that are closed during the day. Shelter and day services programs not only address critical survival needs, but they also serve as outreach centers for those needing healthcare, case management and a connection back to a supportive community.

See here for what members of the community say about the Council’s 2013-2014 budget.  Many thanks go out to the Seattle Human Services Coalition, the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Meals Partnership Coalition. The advocacy of these effective coalitions plays a critical role in convincing the Council to shape public policy in a way that addresses basic human needs.

Here’s the Human Services Budget Package breakdown:

For homeless women, men, and families:

• Rapid Rehousing for homeless people ($200,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for additional shelter services ($100,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for additional women’s shelter ($50,000 in 2013/2014)
• Funding for homeless day-center services including hygiene in downtown neighborhoods ($200,000 in 2013/2014)

For domestic violence and sexual assault survivors:

• Additional legal assistance for domestic violence survivors ($50,000 in 2013/2014)
• Another advocate for immigrant domestic violence survivors ($45,000 in 2013/2014)
• Bilingual services for domestic violence survivors ($60,000 in 2013/2014)
• Medical advocacy for sexual assault survivors ($75,000 in 2013/2014)

For individuals and families needing food security:

• Increased bulk food purchasing for food banks ($150,000 in 2013/2014)
• Bulk food purchasing for the meal provider system ($50,000 in 2013/2014)

For seniors:

• Increased funding for outreach to home-bound seniors ($150,000 in 2013/2014)

For first-time moms living in poverty:

• Adding funding to the Nurse Family Partnership to increase child’s readiness for school, and reduce crime. ($530,000 in 2013, $1,100,000 in 2014).

The United States is unique among industrialized nations: 135 other countries already have laws in place mandating paid sick days for the workforce of their entire country.

The Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce brought together a broad coalition of supporters, including several Seattle businesses.  Without this kind of community-wide consensus building it may not have been as likely Seattle would have become the third city in the United States to require paid sick and safe time for its workers.

At the celebration we heard personal stories that made the case for why standards for paid leave is so important.   It was a welcome opportunity to celebrate everyone’s hard work.  To find out more about Paid Sick and Safe Leave, see here.

 ABOUT THE AWARD

The Jeanette Williams Award was created as part of the 2003 Seattle Women’s Summit to honor an individual who demonstrates significant leadership and service in advancing the cause of women in Seattle. Jeanette Williams served on the Seattle City Council from 1969 to 1989. In 1971 she was instrumental in establishing the nation’s first Seattle Women’s Commission and Office of Women’s Rights with paid staff. Prior to serving on Seattle City Council, Williams overcame gender stereotypes to become the first woman elected as County Chairperson for the King County Democratic Central Committee. A tireless advocate for women’s issues, Jeanette Williams helped establish the first shelter for battered and abused women in Seattle, helped create the City’s Division on Aging, developed policies to address early childhood education, and sponsored critical legislation that for the first time prohibited discrimination in housing and employment in the City of Seattle

In June 2010, the Council passed  Ordinance 123311, creating a rental housing registration and inspection program. At the same time, the Council also adopted Resolution 31221, requesting that the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) convene a stakeholder group and report back with recommendations for implementing the rental housing registration and inspection  program.  The Stakeholder Group met 14 times between December, 2010 and January, 2012, resulting in a series of recommendations on the scope of a rental housing program.  The current legislation passed out of the City Council’s Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee on September 26, 2012 with a vote 4-0 after eight committee meetings in 2012 alone.

In their last assessment of housing quality in Seattle, a survey showed that about 10 percent of rental units in Seattle have severe to moderate problems.  The Department of Planning and Development gets about 500 complaints a year about rental housing conditions.  If there are about 147,000 rental units and 10%, or 14,700 have problems, then that means only about 3.5% of the folks living in the worst housing are using DPD’s complaint-based code enforcement system.  For this reason, I’m pleased that the Council was able to agree to knit together an approach of making safe the housing that we know now is not safe and inspecting – over the next 10 years – the rest of the city’s rental housing. In this way we will significantly improve the condition of unsafe rental housing.

For a summary of elements of the program, visit http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Compliance/RentalHousing/Overview/default.asp.  For more resources for tenants see the Tenants Union.

tion (MFTE) Program

Last year, I requested an Audit on MFTE Rental Program activity.  My primary objective for requesting the audit was to determine whether the rental portion of the MFTE program, when used by private developers, was successful in implementing the program’s goals.  Today the Audit was released including 19 recommendations to improve the program.  Recommendations range from creating new performance measures for program goals to improving program compliance, administration and oversight.

In 1998 the City Council created the MFTE Program to incentivize development and rehabilitation of rental properties and home ownership projects.  The MFTE program grants to the property owner a property tax exemption on the part of the property that is used for housing.  The taxes aren’t lost, instead that exemption is then redistributed to other residential property tax payers in Washington State.  In exchange, the owners are required to maintain the affordability of some of the housing for the length of the period of the tax exemption.   Since 1998, I have been skeptical of using property tax dollars to provide what is essentially market rate housing, believing that, given limited funding, providing housing for those least able to afford housing should be our highest priority.  The 1998 – 2002 program resulted in 6 projects receiving a $5,240,395 tax exemption over a 10 year period.  (*76 of 298 total units are required to be “affordable.”)

Over the years, the program requirements have changed.  The goals and objectives have changed as well.  In 2004, changes expanded the program to 8 new areas, bringing the total to 17 areas.  The 2004 changes also required lower rents than were required in the original 1998 program.  Under the 2004 program, 20% of the units were required to be affordable to people making 65% of median income OR 30% of the units be available to households making 70% median income in order for developers to get the subsidy.  The 2004-2008 program resulted in 9 projects receiving a $14,300,831 exemption over a 10 year period.  (*242 of 1036 total units are required to be “affordable.”)

In 2008, the Council decided to allow a total of 39 neighborhoods to be included in the rental MFTE program and allowed higher rents again (80-90% of median income, depending on unit size), and changed the length of both the exemption and the required affordability from 10 to 12 years.  The 2008-2010 program resulted in 37 projects receiving a $113,325,447 tax exemption over a 12 year period.  (*1171 of 5780 total units are required to be “affordable.”)

Finally, in February 2011 there were additional changes to the program including: a. lowering the affordability requirements that had been increased in 2008, b. increasing the frequency of and expanding the requirements of reporting, and c. eliminating the requirement that each application come to the Council for review (since the Council doesn’t approve the applications, the Director of the Office of Housing does).  Further, the program was reauthorized until 2015.  As of January this year, the 2011 program has resulted in 20 projects receiving a $37,317,677 over a 12 year period (403 of 1813 total units are required to be “affordable”).

An important reference to understand the issue of affordability is what rent is affordable (see this chart for affordable rent rates) to those making 70%, 80%, and 90% median income.  The Housing Needs Assessment of the 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan tells us a lot about where the real need for affordable housing lies.  More than half of the City’s renters have incomes that are less than 80% of median income.  About 1 in 5 renters spend more than half of their income on rent and more than half of this group have incomes less than 30% median income.  On the other hand, of the renter households paying more than half of their income of rent, only 6% are making more than 80% median income housing.

* The total number of actual affordable units exceeds the number required to be affordable by the MFTE program because some projects either have a deed restriction or another source of public funding requiring additional affordability.

The SEPA appeal period ends Monday, October 1.   Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations when the Council discusses this ordinance this December, in my Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee.  Councilmember Sally Clark and I will be visiting Neighborhood Council meetings through December to gather feedback on the proposal.  Additional information on these meetings will be available as they are scheduled.

The  purpose of this proposed ordinance is to limit the off-site impact of larger-scale cannabis-related activity in zones where they may have increased impacts on neighborhood character or security, specifically those zones with a predominately residential or historic character:

• Single family and multifamily residential zones
• Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones
• Pioneer Square Mixed, International District Mixed and Residential, Pike Place Mixed, Harborfront neighborhoods

In these zones, the growing, processing, or dispensing of cannabis would be limited to:

• 45 cannabis plants;
• 72 ounces of useable cannabis; and
• An amount of cannabis product that could reasonably be produced with 72 ounces of useable cannabis.

We want to create standards now so that we don’t repeat what is happening in Los Angeles, where law enforcement raids shut down operations of good and bad businesses alike and eventually City Council banned dispensaries altogether because there were few standards in LA to hold operators accountable.  For this reason, I hope access point operators and neighborhood residents will agree that they each can benefit from the consistency and accountability that these regulations will provide.

More information can be found in the Department of Planning and Development’s Land Use Information Bulletin.

On September 4, the City Council approved four pieces of legislation giving the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) the green light to move ahead with its 30 acre, $300 million redevelopment of Yesler Terrace.  Of the $30 million in City funds that SHA will request, approximately $11 million are committed with this agreement.

BACKGROUND

SHA has been working with the City and the Yesler Terrace Citizen’s Review Committee since 2006.  The establishment of the Review Committee was the result of a 2002 settlement secured by the Seattle Displacement Coalition in their fight against the redevelopment of Rainier Vista.  The City Council review of Yesler Terrace began this year in February and the Council’s Special Committee on Yesler Terrace Council began meeting on May 21, 2012 and, after 12 meetings and two public hearings, finished its deliberations on August 16th.  I would have preferred more time to address several issues that I believe would have benefited from additional discussion.  I proposed a one week delay on the passage of the Cooperative Agreement, in particular to address the request of the Little Saigon community that we add language committing SHA to work with them. Councilmembers declined out of concern that additional delay could lessen the likelihood of receiving up to $20 million in Federal funds for the project.

The Displacement Coalition sent the Council a letter, signed by nearly 30 individuals and organizations, notifying the Council of their disappointment in the direction of the redevelopment.  I understand their sentiment; in some areas, I share it.  But I believe that one Yesler Terrace resident leader said it best when she testified that the plan approved by the Council is the least bad option when we consider that the 70 year old units do need repair and there is no federal funding available for a renovation option.

Yesler Terrace is one of the most diverse as well as the most economically challenged communities in Seattle. The average, Yesler Terrace household earns about $14,000 a year. It is the oldest publicly subsidized housing in Seattle.  Its 561 housing units, according to SHA, have water, sewer and other key systems that are failing.  The Council’s role in supporting a redevelopment like this should be to preserve the existing community as much as possible.  Of course some families may decide not to return to Yesler Terrace but if we do not have as a goal sustaining a community, then all we are doing is building buildings.

TWO POLICIES TO PURSUE

The primary two community preservation policies that still need to be strengthened are:

1.  More Family Units

The difficulty producing larger family-sized units is not unique to SHA.   Recently I spoke with a group of immigrant youth, not living in SHA housing, who told me that they were members of 6 person families living in 2 bedroom homes.  Still, there should be more guarantees that Yesler Terrace will remain a child-friendly environment.  Although the legislation passed by the Council requires the redevelopment to provide more affordable units for low and moderate families with children than exist now, I still want a commitment from SHA that they will limit the time away for today’s Yesler Terrace families to not more than a single school year, particulaly if the children will have to change schools.  We did receive a commitment that of the 281 replacement housing units that will be available at all times to returning Yesler Terrace residents during the redevelopment project, 94 of them will be 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units.  Hopefully this will increase the number of families that will be able to return sooner.

2.  Provide Staffing for Assisting the Low Income Community

Though I am pleased that SHA has dedicated staff to work with the resident community, I wish they had included staff focused on advocating specifically for the unique needs of a low-income tenant community in what is planned to be a dense mixed-use neighborhood including office buildings and retail spaces, with a population expected to be 5,000 families, over half of whom will be living in more costly market-rate housing.

AMENDMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

I am, however, glad that I succeeded in having the Council adopt a number of amendments to SHA’s Cooperative Agreement with the City (I sponsored 12 of the 16 amendments.) So, what new commitments did we get?

• Many asked that we reevaluate the plan’s intention to sell 40% of the public land, as necessary to fund the project.  The legislation requires SHA to explore the benefits as well as the negative impacts of leasing rather than sale and requires SHA to provide a report to the Council prior to the sale of any property.  This report will start the conversation about sale of land, not end it. I personally prefer the land be kept in the public domain, even if it is leased out for a many years to come. I hope that this report will show how that can be accomplished without hindering SHA’s ability to provide a quality redevelopment of YT.

• SHA must use all proceeds from the sale, lease, or other disposition of property in the Yesler Terrace Redevelopment Area only for Yesler Terrace redevelopment activities. It came to my attention that the draft Cooperative Agreement made no mention of how the proceeds from the sale or lease of land, had to be applied to the Yesler Terrace project.  Consequently, I added language saying that if there are excess revenues, SHA is required to submit a proposal to the City Council for approval before expending them.  In the legislation, if capital and operating funding is available after SHA and development partners have completed all the Replacement Housing, SHA shall produce up to 100 units of extremely low income housing with a minimum term of affordability of 50 years.

• The Cooperative Agreement now increases the number of trees to be planted by 10% and requires maintenance of the trees that are planted.  Urban planners agree that landscaping with trees demonstrably contributes to more cohesive social communities. It was unfortunate that more mature trees could have been retained but extensive road work required their removal. With this new commitment, we should see a greater canopy in this neighborhood in the future.

• The legislation requires that the City and SHA work with the Friends of Little Saigon and other community members to explore the feasibility of developing a mixed-use project in Little Saigon that may include low-income housing, affordable commercial space, and a Vietnamese cultural center.

• The legislation requires new limits on screening policies and an appeal process for Yesler Terrace residents seeking to return after redevelopment.  Returning residents will not be denied their right to return unless they are ineligible for federally subsidized housing.

• I would have preferred legislation limiting the use of levy funds for the redevelopment of Terrace to the already $7.2 million in levy funds already committed. Instead, the legislation requires that if SHA requests future Housing Levy dollars for Yesler Terrace, they must compete for those funds through the regular, competitive Housing Levy process.

• Each year of the redevelopment SHA will provide an annual report to the Council that will include the status of all housing production by affordability and bedroom count as well as the number of public units still on site, taken out of service, and brought back into service through replacement housing production.  The report will also include an update on properties leased or sold, including purchase price.

• SHA must work with community organizations that assist women- and minority-owned businesses and economically disadvantaged individuals to obtain employment through Section 3 hiring, apprenticeship programs and equal opportunity programs.

GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO RETURN

Some feared that there would not be a guarantee of 100% replacement of the very low-income units on or offsite.  The legislation not only requires that all 561 current units will be replaced within the immediate neighborhood but it also controls the location and timing of replacement.  Of the 561 units being replaced, only 118 of those units are planned on property that is adjacent to Yesler Terrace, property that was actually once included within the Yesler Terrace boundaries.  Some critics were concerned that residents would not be granted a right to return to Yesler Terrace; however every Yesler Terrace resident has been given a certificate of return.  It’s true that it may take time for residents to be able to exercise that right because the construction of all 561 replacement units will happen over many years, but the legislation has granted residents that right should they choose to use it.  The focus has rightly been on the replacement of very low income units, but the plan is to build another 290 units of housing for low income residents earning up to 60% AMI and 950 units of 80% AMI housing.

SUMMARY

The scope and size of this project is unprecedented among other Federal Choice Neighborhood projects that the Federal government is currently funding.  Some have used the word “scary” to describe the project.  I don’t believe that I could have just voted “no” and let fear hold me back from working with other Councilmembers in seeking commitments from SHA to assure that this legislation promotes the principles of a culturally and economically diverse community while continuing to prioritize the provision of housing and services for those most in need. It is the Council’s duty to watchdog this legislation as it is implemented and to work with SHA and the community to assure that every requirement that is in this legislation is met.  In moving forward we cannot be slack in our diligence.

The Office of Housing has recently provided $1,200,000 in funding for a new program as an innovative response to the current foreclosure crisis. The program is Homestead Community Land Trust’s new Acquisition and Rehab program and it is called Homestead Rebuilding Communities.  The new program is funded in part by the 2009 Housing Levy.  Housing Levy Homeownership funds through the Office of Housing will also be available for buyers when Homestead sells the homes to eligible low- and moderate-income buyers. Homestead homes, because the property is held in a long term housing trust, secure long-term affordability.

As required by this resolution, later this year, with the help of the Office of Housing, the Council will examine the number of home foreclosures in Seattle, the geographic neighborhoods in which the foreclosures are occurring, and lender information on homes involved in the foreclosure process. They’ll also look at circumstances and causes of foreclosures and foreclosure methods and practices of lenders, including reviewing apparent inequities many people in Seattle face when lender foreclosure proceedings occur.  The Council has also asked the Office of Housing to make recommendations, as appropriate, for changes to the City’s Foreclosure Prevention Program, which provides stabilization loans to low‐income homeowners facing default.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.