19 Replies to "Condo-conversion crackdown?"

• scian January 16, 2008 (7:33 pm)

  ***If you want to tell your legislators what you think about HB 2014***

  I’d like to tell WSB what I think of their reporting on this topic… Your “reporting” of conversions locally smacks of bias. Continually your slant is negative and rarely do you mention the obvious which is that property owners and the marketplace (which includes you yes) determine what the next use will be for a property subject to zoning etc.

  The whining that goes on from so many comments left to your “reporting” of conversions is a further mess. So many moan the loss of this or that junkpile for something new and something affordable.

  True enough much of the new construction is rather uninspired and ugly. But conversion of the interior of an already existing building? So what! Tenants moved out because they opt not to purchase at a discount / exercise first right of refusal? So what! New home ownership options at entry level prices in a great part of Seattle? YES – bring on more! Tenancy has its rights but they don’t include the right to endless tenancy if the property they inhabit changes in use.

  More could be said but you WSB could earn some further integrity points by being a bit less populist and bit more balanced in conveying the latest.

  Property owners benefit by selling appreciated real estate at a profit. GREAT!
  Builders benefit by creating and selling a product and earning a profit and employing people. GREAT!
  Buyers find a place to call home, many for the first time. As homeowners YOU can appreciate this so GREAT double GREAT!
  Seattle benefits from increased tax revenue by more people paying more tax on more improved property. GREAT!
  Tax dollars get spent in ways good and bad and then you finally have something worthwhile to whine about…

  You WSB do so much well. Why not try to exhibit a bit less bias on this topic?

• WSB January 16, 2008 (7:58 pm)

  Thanks for sharing what you think. Our mission is to talk about all these changes rather than just let it go unremarked on. Seems to be an important subject for a community such as ours that’s in the throes of transition. Those who are excited about change are as welcome to comment (and to send us story suggestions about more ways to document the benefits of change) as those who are concerned about it.

• JanS January 16, 2008 (8:03 pm)

  scian…to each his own…but I have never seen WSB to show a bias on here…and exactly what buildings have gone up lately that are “affordable”? I think many of us wouldn’t mind the “out with the old, in with the new” if the new wasn’t exactly the same block after block. Architects are paid to design, and they’re doing a very poor job of it…and the construction is quick and ticky tacky (those 2 week conversions were a joke, and who would pay for that? I know I wouldn’t, would you?). We all have opinions…that’s why it’s so nice to comment on here…I may disagree with you, you may disagree with me…and that’s what makes the world go round.

  I guess I’d like to see a little more quality along with the quantity, and what’s wrong with that?

  Me thinks your horse is a little bit too high….and I say that in the nicest way :)

• cami January 16, 2008 (8:18 pm)

  Thanks for the info, WSB.

• acemotel January 16, 2008 (10:50 pm)

  >>Why not try to exhibit a bit less bias on this topic?
  You are accusing WSB of bias because they informed us of an opportunity to comment to our legislators, pro or con, on proposed legislation? ha ha ha ha….. Free-market capitalism, ain’t it GREAT!

• Kayleigh January 17, 2008 (6:20 am)

  More people become homeless–GREAT! Old, disabled, sick, mentally ill, and even “average” people are displaced from their homes–GREAT! Moderate and low-income people are forced to move out of West Seattle–GREAT!

  Many tenants are displaced because they can’t afford to buy a $350,000 condo, or even a $200,000 condo. It isn’t that they “opt out”–they can’t afford it. You tell me what a single mom making $40K or even $60K in Seattle can afford to buy–it’s next to nothing.

  Scian, you sound like a newcomer to Seattle who is angry that Seattle-ites just can’t see what’s good for them….when in reality, it’s you who can’t see what we value,which is different from what YOU value.

• Kayleigh January 17, 2008 (6:29 am)

  As as for whether or not WSB is “biased”,I don’t know, but if so, good for them…they use their brains and they care about the world around them.

• carraignasplinkeen January 17, 2008 (7:02 am)

  I have to agree that the “teardown-to-townhome” focus is pretty heavy-handed. No mention of the McMansions being built in some parts of WS (seen Atlas Place or Charleston at the west end lately?) nor any mention of how important allowing people more affordable options (not much is truly affordable in town) is. While the architectural choices and siting (there are some pretty tight spaces in between units) are less than desirable (I agree!), the implicatation that only people who live in (and own?) a house merit being a resident in West Seattle is disconcerting. West Seatle has strong blue collar roots, evidenced by some remaining workforce housing. Who gets to live here? Who decides? Like I said in an earlier post that also fomented this issue, everyone is a part of development. I’m pretty sure homeowners will sell their homes at what the market will allow them to–funny how altruism somehow stops when it comes to an individual’s selling price.

• CMP January 17, 2008 (8:12 am)

  Way to go Kayleigh, I completely agree with you! I’ll happily continue renting my huge $700/month apartment for the rest of my life instead of wasting money on an overpriced condo. If I had a dollar for every time some obviously wealthy person told me I should be buying a home, I probably could have had a 20% down payment by now. But I don’t care. Until I see some condos being built or converted that I deem are worthy of their ridiculous price, I’ll keep renting and have plenty of money in savings for something better.

• m January 17, 2008 (8:58 am)

  It does seem that homeowners fear (or can’t understand) renters- I don’t see why renters get such a bad rap. Renting works better for some people for a variety of reasons- not everyone has to own a home to feel like they’ve ‘made it’. I find it sad that people who either choose to rent or are forced to rent don’t have more options around here.

• Jiggers January 17, 2008 (9:12 am)

  Owning a home or a piece of property is probably the best investment to make over long-term, but like with marriage, if your not sure about it, don’t do it.

• WSB January 17, 2008 (9:17 am)

  One note regarding reporting teardowns-to-townhomes vs. teardowns-to-McMansions and so on: We read the building permit applications every morning, the “Land Use Information Bulletin” when it’s sent twice weekly, and frequently check the city’s “activity locator” map to make sure we haven’t missed something. (Most notices are posted online before the yellow signs and/or big white signs go up at locations, so it’s one of the earliest ways to learn what’s going on.) What we generally report here is what’s going on along the main streets — California, Admiral, Fauntleroy, 35th, Alki, etc. — that’s what more people are going to see — and most of that is teardown-to-multi-family, for obvious reasons. There are tons of teardown-to-townhomes on other streets that we’ve never mentioned, and certainly teardowns for larger single-family homes too. Also, we started checking apartment-building sale listings after hearing from renters who felt they were blindsided by condo conversions; unlike single-family homes for sale, apartment buildings for sale seldom have a shingle out front. Finding condo-conversion applications in the city system is also difficult because there’s not an easy search function for them, unlike land-use and demolition permits. Just because an apt. building goes up for sale doesn’t mean it’s destined for condos or some other repurposing, but at least its residents can ask. Sharing info and helping people figure out where to find it for themselves is what this site is all about. By the way, regarding being a homeowner and benefiting from high home prices – sure, it’s fun to look at Zillow and think, gee, our house is worth more than three times what we paid for it in 1993. But on the other hand, because all the other houses are worth so much too, we can’t sell it and buy something even slightly nicer (maybe with a second bathroom!) without a dramatically larger house payment that we can’t afford (unless we wanted to move to someplace where prices are lower, no thanks, we are staying in WS, and lucky to be able to). Not complaining, that’s just the fact, and yet another side of high house prices, which of course as ‘scian’ and others have noted, have a good side too. I guess we could have a whole ‘nother site about absolutely all things growth, development, construction, real estate, etc. Short of that, at least we can discuss some topics here. As WS residents, we really didn’t pay much attention to this at all before starting this site two years ago, and it’s a learning experience each day.

• flipjack January 17, 2008 (10:25 am)

  It’s funny scian, that you seem so threatened by WSB’s perceived bias when you’re cheer leading for the winning team.
  What are you so worried about, that WSB is choosing to focus on an issue that is affecting real human beings that just want to live somewhere without thinking of it as a business deal or investment?
  Look closely at what is bothering you about this because it’s your own conscience that is telling you something, not WSB’s “bias”

• Sue January 17, 2008 (12:13 pm)

  Regarding homeowning being a good investment (as opposed to renting), someone recently sent me this interesting article that puts some of that into perspective: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/07/16/renting-vs-buying-the-realities-of-home-buying/

• Mike January 17, 2008 (12:20 pm)

  I would like to live downtown but can’t afford it anymore. I’m not whining, it is a fact of life. This isn’t a socialist society. This area has some really great companies that have high paying jobs that directly impact everyone from jobs to the cost of houses. We could all be unemployed with cheap housing and lots of crime. If you can’t sfford it move. There does seem to be a little bias here.

• Jan January 17, 2008 (1:59 pm)

  Mike…a point…cheap housing does not necessarily equate to crime….

• Mike January 17, 2008 (3:24 pm)

  True Jan, but no jobs would tend to increase crime.

• TheVelvetBulldog January 17, 2008 (8:34 pm)

  Thanks Sue – good article.

• Mike January 18, 2008 (12:38 am)

  The numbers are right in the article except it never takes in the fact that rents do rise at all. In ten years, the rent will be higher than the mortgage. In thiry years you will own the home outright instead of having nothing.

Sorry, comment time is over.