By Erica C. Barnett
The Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to kill legislation sponsored by Councilmember Tammy Morales aimed at helping community organizations with “limited development experience” build small-scale affordable housing developments and “equitable development” projects, such as health clinics, day care, and retail space.
Morales had been working on the program, called the “Connected Communities Pilot,” since 2022. The five-year pilot would have helped as many as 35 community organizations build larger, taller buildings, as long as they preserved a third of their rental units for people making 60 percent or less of the Seattle’s area median income (AMI), or built homeownership units for people making 100 percent of Seattle AMI or less.
It would have also allowed community groups to build apartments in areas of the city that have historically been reserved for single-family houses, and exempted certain projects in historically redlined areas from design review and parking minimums, two requirements that can add significant time and cost to projects.
The council’s land use committee, which Morales chairs, voted against her bill last week, citing vague concerns that the bill had been rushed and that there were more appropriate avenues for building affordable housing.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Morales’ new colleagues repeated those claims, suggesting that the city should instead provide affordable housing through the comprehensive plan, the housing levy, or some unspecified future legislative route.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
“After the comp plan process is finalized, we can determine if additional legislation is needed to achieve our housing goals,” Councilmember Maritza Rivera said on Tuesday. “In addition, the city just passed a nearly $1 billion [housing levy] and we do not yet know how these funds will be implemented. … Finally, given our housing shortage and the slowing down of recent development, we need to consider how to incentivize all development, rather than singling out some investments over others.”
In fact, as Morales pointed out, the city does know how the Housing Levy funds will be spent. And the comprehensive plan update is a set of policy guidelines, not legislation—the city can still pass housing legislation and incentives before finalizing the update, which might not happen until next year. “This is just another tool to help us meet our housing shortage, which we all acknowledge we have,” she said.
Tanya Woo, who was appointed to fill an open seat after losing to Morales last year, offered that as an “affordable housing developer,” she believed the income thresholds in Morales’ bill were too high. (Woo’s family owns the Louisa Hotel, which they renovated and turned into affordable housing under the city’s Multifamily Tax Exemption program.)
“Are we just throwing numbers out there?” Woo said. “As an affordable housing developer, I believe that the devil resides in the details. I urge everyone to read the legislation firsthand and also seek insights from those entrenched in the battle against gentrification and displacement, which I have spent my whole life fighting.”
Morales responded to most of the objections, noting that her bill received five committee hearings, where the council discussed the income requirements and many of the other issues her opponents were bringing up. “We don’t have nearly enough housing, so we need more options for people, and this [is] one tool for increasing the amount of affordable housing,” Morales said. “That’s how we prevent displacement—by giving residents more affordable housing options.”
Councilmember Dan Strauss proposed an unsuccessful amendment that would have rolled back the proposed density incentives, reinstated minimum parking requirements, and required all developments in the pilot to also participate in Mandatory Housing Affordability, a program that requires market-rate developers in certain parts of the city to help fund affordable housing. After that amendment failed, Strauss cast a seemingly reluctant vote for Morales’, initially muttering “sure” off-mic, then clarifying, “yes,” when the council clerk asked him to speak more clearly.
Earlier this week, Morales expressed her disappointment and frustration that in its first four months, the council’s centrist supermajority has proposed no substantive legislation and has chosen to focus instead on unwinding the work of the previous, more progressive council.
In response, Councilmember Cathy Moore threatened to use the council rules of conduct to silence Morales, who Moore claimed (based on no apparent evidence) that Morales called her colleagues “evil” “corporate shills” with “no concern for our fellow human beings.” Moore did not make good on her threat.
“Morales had been working on the program, called the “Connected Communities Pilot,” since 2022.”
[…]
“The council’s land use committee, which Morales chairs, voted against her bill last week, citing vague concerns that the bill had been rushed…”
The Seattle Process strikes again…a program in development for 4 years — or 40 — will never pass if it actually threatens the status quo of rentier capitalism.
We’ve already upzoned the entire state. We’re on track to open thousands of new apartments this year and we just passed an almost $1B housing levy. Unfortunately, the money for this year affordable housing must go to paying the mortgages on the buildings because so many tenants are behind or refusing to pay rent. We could have all the buildings we need if the existing affordable housing could evict non-payers and replace with rent payers but Seattle rental laws don’t allow this.
You do know that smaller landlords who aren’t paid can deduct non payment of rent from their federal income tax (and already take deductions from depreciation anyways)? Are all those banks foreclosing on all the small owner’s properties? Or are the landlords getting a bigger tax refund?
If you think Seattle tenant protections are pro tenant, you’re in for a bigger surprise if you own property in bigger cities.
No surprise, of course they did. This bought and paid for council is on a serious mission to push poor people out of the city. Listen to them, like Woo, who thinks the benefits are too generous and votes no, “it’s all the details.” These evil corporate whores won’t do anything for you unless you make six figures, no exceptions!
They’d rather dedicate their time to fake moral crusades, like Moore who picked up the Gingrich-era conservative pseudo-cause, “human trafficking,” bestirring the other Gingrich-era conservatives into loud cheers all around her. This city has really gone to the braying jackals. If you make less than six figures, expect to either move far away, fall into homelessness where you’ll get swept and swept until you’re ground into dust, or be stuffed in some overcrowded jail cell, “human trafficking!”
So you’re packing up and moving now? I mean if you think Seattle is run by “braying jackals” maybe it’s time to move on? There’s a lot of opportunity in America and leaving Seattle is good first step for a lot of people. As a nation… we’re split into 2 basic groups…. land owners (2/3rds of us) and the renter class. Political parties tend to cater to the “landed class” (both the GOP and Democratic Party). It’s been this way for 500 years and it’s not changing. You surprised the “landed gentry” control of the government? I’m not. That’s the way America works.
When you read this blog…. it’s rarely about winning. Although Josh does have pretty good ideas for urban planning. What you read here are the “lamentations of losing”. It’s Ms. Barnett pointing out all the failures she sees in the City. It’s just getting your undies in a bunch about one thing after another. It’s not a healthy way to live.
I’d humbly suggest joining the “landed gentry” by buying a house somewhere. Seattle isn’t a prime place to do that if you’re not already really rich. Try the Deep South or Midwest. The West coast seems pretty played out now.
If the current Seattle City government proves anything, it’s that Lefties aren’t likely to ever control anything in the USA. I wouldn’t wait around for 20 years to see if new Liberal housing policies make Seattle affordable to you. Look at the Mayor’s housing plan. If that doesn’t work for you, I guess calling U-Haul might be the next step? The City is chock full of 40 year old Lefties who have had all their hopes and dreams for the Emerald City squashed over and over for last two decades. Just get over it. Move on. Be happy. There’s a shrill bitterness on the Left I think prevents it from ever winning. Nobody likes whiners after all.
Seattle is meaner than Hell…. ask any of those poor 60 year old bastards living in tents. Nobody really gives a crap if you fail.
“Just leave.” Yeah, just as I was saying….
The last three mayors (Harrell, Durkan, Murray) have been from the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Democratic party. Being mayor means a whole lot more than being a member of city council (e.g., ST3 was designed by SDOT’s Scott Kubly, not city council).
As a low income Seattle resident and a senior living on Social Security alone, I wish the city would put some money into housing that actual poor people can afford. I have been on a waiting list for SHA low income senior housing for almost 5 years and have not been offered a place to live. My current rent is more than my monthly income. I do not qualify for the so-called “low income housing” provided by organizations like Community Roots and Plymouth Housing because they do not rent to anyone with income lower than 30% of the average Seattle income, which is about $115k/yr. My income is less than $15k/yr but I would need to have income of $35k/yr to get “low income” housing in Seattle. The city council’s proposition called for developers to offer some housing at 60% available. 60% means an income requirement of $69k/yr. 30% requires $35k/yr. So every low income housing program in the city completely shuts out those with really low income.
I have been in Seattle since I could rent an apartment for $250/mo and earn $800/mo and survive with income more than 3X the rent. Why does the city continue to force the truly low income into homelessness by not building housing for them? Do they not want us here? Given affordable places to live, maybe we could actually contribute a little to the economy instead of having our lives ruined. Just a thought.
Bob Phillips