Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Builders Rep Raps City for Vacancy Ordinance

During November and December, the City Council passed a set of ordinances designed to reduce the proliferation of derelict properties in neighborhoods like Delridge and Roosevelt.  The ordinances created expensive fines for owners who willfully neglected properties and let them degenerate to “nuisance” status, and also set forth some new rules concerning demolition permitting. The big idea was to withhold demolition permits from property owners who didn’t have a rebuilding plan in place and to discourage destruction of affordable rental housing.

But this week a rep from the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties told us that the ordinances create a serious impediment to remodeling and rebuilding. Along with some logical new rules about when and how the city can intervene in neglected properties, they also came up with this: Owners of rental properties can’t get permits to tear down that housing without first submitting rebuilding plans—unless their property has sat vacant for 12 months.

Is it enforced vacancy, or enforced rebuilding planning?  And, if an owner lets their property sit empty for 12 months while awaiting their demolition permit, won’t they face the likelihood of “nuisance”-related fines, since empty homes invariably attract graffiti, vandalism, drugs, and such?

In the past, the city would not let a homeowner tear down a house without first submitting a plan to build a new one, according to Alan Justad, deputy director at the city’s department of planning and development. Introducing the 12-month waiting period is designed, he says, to “not make it so easy to tear down homes. The rule on vacancy is a disincentive to tearing a property down.”

Garrett Huffman, a manager at the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, says he thinks builders aren’t fully aware of the 12-month wait required in some cases for demo permits and that this is just one of a few problems the city is tossing in the way of demolition projects.

“We’re probably losing a lot of projects that could actually improve housing,” Huffman says. “I mean, you have to let it sit empty for a year because we have an affordable housing issue?”

Council member Sally Clark says the 12-month rule on allowing demolition of former rental houses was created to dissuade property owners from either indiscriminately tearing down homes (and sending those homes’ corpses to the landfill) or letting homes deliberately fall into disrepair to speed up permission for demolition (and, as above, hitting the landfill). While it’s hard to believe a property owner getting rental income would let a property go to pot just to secure a full demolition permit, apparently it happens.

Clark says that in debating a vacancy time frame, conversation centered on just how long an owner would wait with property empty.  A six-month wait was deemed too short, 18 months too long, with 12 months the “compromise.” City Council member Nick Licata said he’s aware that builders aren’t happy about the issue during a brief phone interview, but didn’t return our call for further comment on his role in recommending vacancy timeframes.

John Fox, coordinator of the Seattle Displacement Coalition, says that the vacancy ruling doesn’t mean that landlords have to empty out their single-family rentals in order to rebuild them. Instead, he says, owners must have a new home plan in the pipeline before they can get their demolition permit; the only way a property owner can let the Caterpillars rip without a new home plan in the permit pipeline is if the home’s sat empty for 12 months, meaning it’s unrentable, undesirable, or in the gray area between “nuisance” and habitable.

Fox says that single-family homes account for 25 percent of Seattle’s rental housing and that demolition erases lots of affordable housing around town. During the real estate boom’s height, he says, up to 1000 single-family homes fell under the wrecking ball annually; more recently, he says, the number has fallen to about 600 homes per year.

Still, if you see an empty rental home sitting in your neighborhood, you might wonder what’s in store: A new neighbor, a nuisance property, or a bulldozer.

“Welcome to my world,” Huffman says.




  • http://twitter.com/fattailed fattailed

    The point of this ordinance it seems was to make things harder for builders/demolishers, so the fact that they're complaining doesn't seem surprising. But what's so hard about submitting a rebuilding plan anyway?

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    Looking around I see bald spots, empty condos, but at least the “condo auction” signs have mostly gone away.

    Meawhile we have Frank Chopp championing “workforce” housing legislation to pay people to undersell property, as if…

    Is the existing housing stock moving at a pace that would actually support teardowns, or are they wanting to make even more bald spots?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Can someone explain to me the meaning of this in plain language? I like to think I've got some decent skill at parsing out meanings, but I'm lost as to 1) The benefits to the community at large here to mandate this; and 2) how many buildings are actually being torn down in the city for this?

    I mean, is this like a plague of demolished buildings without a replacement building lined up ahead of time? If so, what's the actual number? 10 in 2009? 50 in 2009? More? Is this to dissuade conversions of rental buildings going condo? Is it to encourage that?

    I don't get it and the article reads unfortunately like you need to “get” the real estate and construction business to sort it out.

  • CS

    Agree with Joe. I think part of the problem is that the story has several long and complex sentences in it. The more arcane the subject matter, the shorter and simpler the sentences should be. (Also, rhetorical questions are probably not the way to go when the ostensible purpose of the item is to explain.)

  • joshuadf

    This is one of few things I agree with John Fox on. The number of car-oriented townhouses built in the past 10 years ridiculous, and at least in the U-District they usually replaced large older houses that had been small apartments. Anyone building a decent multifamily project has a building plan; someone trying to quickly cash in on townhouses apparently does not.

    Of course, the unmaintained Sisley properties in Roosevelt really need to go at this point. Sad fate.

  • Kathryn

    Master Builders have a credibility problem and do not represent all builders, and especially do not represent a lot of independent builders who consistently do good things for thier communities.

    This is such a non-story.

  • WOW !

    Any story that has anything to do with vacant or derelict single family houses in the Roosevelt District probably has something to do with an infamous slum landlord in that area.

  • Arthurstone

    Great.

    Now about the big hole in the ground at Fauntleroy and Alaska was…

  • No more parking lots

    They should craft the ordinance so that demolition permits are tied to construction start permits, not just plan submittals. In downtown neighborhoods they plan, demolish, get a temporary parking lot permit in some cases, then when construction doesn't go through we have an empty lot or parking lot for years. Demolition permits are too easy now.

  • sarah68

    Single-family housing isn't generally too “affordable” unless you're at 80% of median income, so desperately hanging onto it won't help lower-income people that much.

    There's no agreement about what workforce housing is. What it used to be is housing affordable to middle/lower-middle income people. But Seattle has lately considered it to be housing that Paul Allen's employees can afford — i.e., South Lake Union housing. The workforce is so diverse, that term shouldn't be used by anyone because it immediately provokes definitional arguments.

  • davidsucher

    Joe Szilagyi seems to have nailed things: what's the factual basis for the problem?

    Before anyone gets into analysis,argument, dialectic and conundrum — what's the problem?

    It boggles me that anyone would — in unusual circumstance — would tear down a structure before having a plan to rebuild? So why is the City doing anything?