25 Replies to "Renew the Multi-Family Tax Exemption? City Council committee briefing this morning"

• Aghast August 20, 2015 (12:42 pm)

  I’m sure these savings are passed on to renters in the form of lower rents, right? Riiiiiight.

• WShawk August 20, 2015 (2:01 pm)

  @ Aghast – Did you even read the post? These tax savings provided to developers in exchange for them setting aside 20% of their units for low income residents. The apartment developers give up market rate rents for these units in exchange for the tax break. This is a city program to increase the amount of low income housing in the city.

  • WSB August 20, 2015 (2:03 pm)

    The details are in the embedded documents – particularly the slide deck, in which one page shows the $ by which rent was “bought down.”

• Diane August 20, 2015 (2:43 pm)

  it’s not really “low income housing” provided; most of the apts via MFTE are for 65% to 85% AMI, which is fairly high income; we need much much more REAL affordable housing closer to the 50% AMI and lower

• Diane August 20, 2015 (2:55 pm)

  75% AMI for 1 bedroom; $46k income for one person; that is definitely NOT low income; many would argue this is also NOT affordable

• Diane August 20, 2015 (2:58 pm)

  thanks so much for this report and included documents; really appreciate
  ~
  I watched/recorded the meeting, but couldn’t see the screen

• carole August 20, 2015 (4:25 pm)

  Are The SEDUS eligible for this tax abatement? If so, does the 20% apply to ALL the sleeping rooms or just the reduced unit number these developers refer to, for example, 12 vs 96?

  • WSB August 20, 2015 (4:27 pm)

    That’s in the slide deck. I’ll see if I can find a direct link to the policy for them & MFTE … (edit- see this:) http://licata.seattle.gov/2015/02/25/mfte-changes-to-increase-affordability-and-number-of-rent-controlled-units-in-some-sedus/

• JanS August 20, 2015 (4:44 pm)

  Dear WShank….the starting “low income rate” at the new bldg at California and Alaska is just short of $1400/mo. That’s NOT low income. One doesn’t have to read the article to be aware of the fact that this is a damned gift to developers. The rents are astronomical…20% of astronomical is NOT affordable housing !

• Aghast August 20, 2015 (5:57 pm)

  @WShank: why, yes I did, but thanks for the recap.

• AmandaKH August 20, 2015 (7:38 pm)

  So the complexes that are taking advantage of this MFTE (40% of new builds) have 20% of their units at these reduced rates. So are the rates of the other units in the building being jacked to accommodate (subsidize) for these units? Is that how we are setting “market rates”? This town loves to make sure it’s corporations and developers are well taken are of…

• sgs August 20, 2015 (7:47 pm)

  Wow, shorten that tax free period to 5 years and we’d have Seattle Schools well funded. Can’t believe we go that far.

• Kara August 20, 2015 (7:47 pm)

  It definitely passes on to the renters, I’m at Altamira and without this I couldn’t live anywhere in West Seattle as a single person. I have five years with them and they only raise my rent $20 a year, which is another saving grace so I can continue to work where I live and be near my family. I know some say more needs to be done and it does, but I’m just thankful we have this option at least.

• urbanista August 20, 2015 (8:50 pm)

  AmandaKH,
  So, so sorry,
  But Econ 101 strikes again…
  –
  Supply vs. demand sets market rates.
  –
  Your revealing remark about Seattle making “sure its corporations and developers are well taken care of…” is without merit and recent history (remember 2008-2012 when thousands of small developers and corporations went bust) proves the point.
  –
  Back to supply vs. demand.
  Enacting additional fees and regulations for developers leads to increasing prices and reducing supply, neither of which we can afford.
  –
  This is one of the serious issues our next councilwoman will be evaluating, I hope with the courage to make the needed changes.

• AmandaKH August 20, 2015 (9:35 pm)

  Oh please urbanista. Your patronizing tone goes no where with me. The MFTE lets a portion of the housing market get out of paying property taxes (which pay for schools, roads, fire, police..) for the sake of giving us “affordable housing” that has a year long waiting list.
  *
  If they are in fact jacking the rates (I have no proof, only wild speculation) of the units that are NOT “affordable” in order to make their money back, that is not helping with affordability. Nor is it then “market rate”
  *
  In a “supply vs. demand” situation, the fallacy that by making developers pay a fee will make them not build is proven to be false time after time – in market after market. 80 cities in Washington state alone charge developer impact fees. We have let the developers get away with this since the 90’s. And we have a huge problem with crumbling roadways, overcrowded schools, reduced police forces and libraries that had to take furloughs.
  *
  So let me give You an economics lesson…
  *
  You can’t keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and expect the poorest to pay for them. That is a non sustaining situation.
  *
  But that’s what they City keeps asking for! And will do so again in 2016 with a new housing levy while the developers again laugh all the way to the bank.

• KT August 21, 2015 (7:43 am)

  Urbanista – Your reply to another poster … “Your revealing remark about Seattle making “sure its corporations and developers are well taken care of…” is without merit and recent history (remember 2008-2012 when thousands of small developers and corporations went bust) proves the point.” … ignores the fact that it was the national economy that affected developers and corporation outside of anything Seattle City Government could influence.
  And as to your comment …”Enacting additional fees and regulations for developers leads to increasing prices and reducing supply, neither of which we can afford.”… Try reading this – http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/shouldnt-growth-pay-for-growth-2/

• Urbanista August 21, 2015 (8:49 am)

  KT,
  The national economy is exactly what is driving the price increases now, so it equals out.
  –
  Since there is no truth to her other statement, “You can’t keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and expect the poorest to pay for them.” If this were true, we could all agree it would be a nonsustaining situation.
  –
  Non of the challenged factual elements of her claims were addressed.
  –
  Calling supply vs demand curves a fallacy and claiming fees and restrictions do not reduce development is beyond naive.
  The “jacking rates” claim particularly defies logic…if the rates are ‘jacked’ above the market rate set by demand, there would be no one to rent them.
  –
  Providing false hopes by demonizing a group and placing all the burden on them, will not be the solution.
  –
  It is everyone who lives here that has created our burdens and we should all share in response.

• AmandaKH August 21, 2015 (10:03 am)

  Nice try again urbanista. Your opinions are not good challenges to my opinions either. I called the idea that charging impact fees will decrease building a fallacy. It is a scare tactic developers use (along with the idea that parking spaces cost $50,000 each to build) to get their way. The developers have run this town since the 90’s, and it’s time they stop. First step is to not renew the MFTE. Second step, impact fees.
  *
  And you aren’t exactly challenging my claims about artificially inflating the market are you? I am using logic there.
  *
  You are completely naive if you think that “Since there is no truth to her other statement, “You can’t keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and expect the poorest to pay for them.” If this were true, we could all agree it would be a nonsustaining situation.” is not happening right now.
  *
  We the People have sucked up the “burdens” that corporate welfare have saddled us with. We vote for every single tax increase that has been asked of us. People are hanging on by a slim thread, and yet corporations Still get huge tax breaks. Enough already. It’s time we start spreading the burden back around.

• Urbanista August 21, 2015 (11:02 am)

  Rather than make such a political and dismissive , “Nice try,” response, how about some facts?
  –
  Sure, it is an effective scare when developers actually share some of their concerns.
  But, to deny that adding construction costs and restrictions to building does not have any effect on supply and cost is an amazing claim.
  –
  There is no way to “artificially inflate the market” without two factors; excess demand (which we have) and a monopoly (which we don’t have).
  If prices are raised artificially high, people reduce consumption or go next door.
  –
  Maybe AmandaKH should go into the parking garage business since she implies she can do it for (how much does she say?) rather than the actual tens of thousands of dollars to build what should rightly become a relic.
  –
  No sympathy found here for all of those involved in the trades who lost their homes and livelihoods in the last decade.
  It’s these nasty polemics that so concern me. Why can’t we all work together to address the problems we have all created. Playing the blame game does nothing but harm to our community.

• Diane August 21, 2015 (12:14 pm)

  YES; JanS “the starting “low income rate” at the new bldg at California and Alaska is just short of $1400/mo. That’s NOT low income. One doesn’t have to read the article to be aware of the fact that this is a damned gift to developers. The rents are astronomical…20% of astronomical is NOT affordable housing!”

• Diane August 21, 2015 (12:18 pm)

  Thank you AmandaKH; agree 100%; especially, “In a “supply vs. demand” situation, the fallacy that by making developers pay a fee will make them not build is proven to be false time after time – in market after market. 80 cities in Washington state alone charge developer impact fees. We have let the developers get away with this since the 90′s. And we have a huge problem with crumbling roadways, overcrowded schools, reduced police forces and libraries that had to take furloughs.”

• Captain Dave August 22, 2015 (12:35 am)

  Fair housing prices will come if transportation is improved (Like adding more lanes to I-5 or building a new freeway or two). Supply is constricted because people can’t reasonably commute from distant areas anymore. Too many people are fighting for too little resources–that’s what drives prices up. Fix transportation and you will fix the housing problem. “Smart growth” turned out to be a really stupid idea.

• Urbanista August 22, 2015 (9:07 am)

  ” 80 cities in Washington state alone charge developer impact fees.”
  –
  This is a tired, discredited and misleading political ‘talking point’.
  –
  Apples to oranges.
  –
  Seattle is unique as obviously the only metropolitan city of the 80 ‘cities’ in Washington. It is fully platted and settled for more than a century with no room for expansion. no vacant fields, former farmlands, or forested lands to develop.
  When developers build in a new tract, of course they develop the infrastructure, same as Seattle. Seattle also has many developer impact fees that are simply not acknowledged here.
  –
  I lament the way these posts are all or nothing. Development must pay for all needed infrastructure even though the people they house are a small contributor to the problems caused by all of us. Traffic and housing were also problematic well before the current boom.
  –
  Stopping the blame game to work together, all of us making changes for the better of the community is what we need.
  –
  “We have let the developers get away with this since the 90′s. And we have a huge problem with crumbling roadways, overcrowded schools, reduced police forces and libraries that had to take furloughs.” That was in the recession.
  –
  As we now know, ” crumbling roadways, overcrowded schools, reduced police forces and libraries” of the 90s are all being addressed in this current boom.
  Dozens of new libraries, new schools opening, increased policing, new police stations, new vehicles new uniforms and massive transportation spending. Is all of this is the result of development also?

  • WSB August 22, 2015 (12:29 pm)

    Urb, re: your last line, are you referring to something outside Seattle? In Seattle .. we don’t have dozens of new libraries (the entire system itself is just over two dozen branches). The $123 million 2012 property-tax levy http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/libraries-for-all/lfa-plan/levy-at-a-glance was just to help keep the ones we have open … hours had been cut back, libraries were closed part of the week, etc. Earlier, as part of the 1998 Libraries for All Levy, four new libraries were built in the city, plus some replacements/expansions – http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/libraries-for-all/libraries-for-all-building-program … no new libraries are on the horizon (I just checked the capital-improvement plan through 2020). A replacement branch is being built in White Center right now, but that’s county, not city (at least pending possible annexation, but that’s a different discussion) … TR

• Urbanista August 22, 2015 (8:35 pm)

  TR,
  I beg to differ, as it depends on how one defines ‘new’ in the period since the 90’s.
  –
  Here in West Seattle, all of the libraries I go to are new. That list includes Delridge, Highpoint, Southwest, South Park and even the historical and costly seismic re-new of the Admiral libraries.

  I greatly enjoy library architecture and I cannot think of any in the city that are not new and excellent. Beacon Hill, Ballard and Montlake all have cool new libraries worth a visit, not to mention our world famous Kolhaus downtown library.

Sorry, comment time is over.