Affordable
Housing and Urban Transportation
Creating Enough Affordable Housing - 10/5/2007
This commentary is stimulated by our Lake Hills
Liberals discussion led by
We
Need to Ask: What do you Mean by "Affordable"? Affordable to Whom?
Puget
Sound, especially
At
the current minimum wage, you'd earn $16,557. Allocating a
standard 30% for rent, that's $414 a month for rent. I challenge you to
find a habitable apartment in
An
average Seattle Housing Authority tenant receiving Social Security for
disability lives on $10,000 and pays 30% of that for rent. That's like
"earning" $4.81 an hour. It's dismal. No one can live on that
without a lot of help. Housing for low-income elderly
and disabled individuals must be built and operated with
subsidies. The number one advocacy goal for the Washington
Low-Income Housing Association is to increase the Washington State Housing
Trust Fund from $130 million to $1 billion.
Much
of the operating subsidy comes from the federal government, but that's
shrinking, relative to inflation. HUD stopped building public housing in
the Reagan administration, resulting in the homelessness we see today. That
level of political commitment has never been restored. Private charities cannot
hope to fill the gap.
Our
homeownership rate is one of the lowest in the country. The majority of
us are renters. We have the healthiest real estate market in the country, due
to our healthy economy. It continues to push home values further out of
reach. The median house costs about $435,000. One-bedroom condos are also
out of reach. If a first-year teacher earns $35,000, homeownership is not
an option. It would take two jobs to afford a one-bedroom condo costing over
$200,000. Our teacher can pay just $875 a month for rent and
utilities. That limits her to certain parts of the
Not
surprisingly, many young professionals in their 20s are sharing houses.
When a friend put a five-bedroom house on Phinney Ridge up for rent at $2,500 a
month, there were three sets of five young people competing for the privilege.
If
you follow public policy discussions on housing (un)affordability, you may hear
developers talking about providing a percentage of "affordable"
housing that is affordable to people earning 80% of the median income. Please,
please--ask what that is. If the median for a family of four in
The
real public policy discussion should begin at definitions. What is the
poverty level, if it takes at least twice the poverty level to live? (Most
social services use this guideline for "needy.") You can see that
Bush's complaint that the State Health Insurance Program should be limited to
"poor" children is specious, if the federal definition of poverty is
half of what it should be. This is why families earning less than the median
need help paying for medical costs, as well as housing.
This
is why the Washington State Low-Income Housing Alliance is advocating to raise
the State Housing Trust Fund from $130 million to $1 billion, to house the
homeless and subsidize first-time homeowners.
This
is why we need to prioritize those in truly living in poverty, on $700 per
month Social Security disability, to get those limited numbers of subsidized
housing units that we can build and operate, with the subsidies currently
available. We also need to find incentives for building more rental
housing for our workers, by creating tax breaks, land trusts, speedy permitting
and more intensive land use, such as permitting "accessory dwelling
units" in the basements or backyards throughout Seattle and the
suburbs.
Toward a Comprehensive
Affordable Housing Plan
Our central
It might begin by defining various
sub-areas of our
Our Housing Development
Consortium demonstrates that for the region as a whole, the
gap between what people can afford and what is available is widening. Apartment Finder
provides links to public agencies that provide affordable housing and the
housing that they provide. The waiting
lists range from months to two years.
Only three projects are in
Once these housing objectives are
decided, the next question is how to create the needed housing and make it
available at affordable rates. Low
income housing providers Our Housing Development Consortium and Housing Resource Group have worked in collaboration with other housing
non-profits, local, county and state governments, elected officials and banks
on policies and programs concerning; smart growth, Convention Center
replacement housing, resources for affordable housing, property tax exemption,
height and density, MUP process, neighborhood planning, light rail and monorail
related development, tax credit policy, surplus property and zoning and
community education.
The
Washington Low Income Housing Alliance led
a multi-year advocacy, organizing, education and policy-research effort that
resulted in the passage of several key bills and the adoption of a budget that
brings critical new resources to bear on the work of our members. Various trust funds; tax credits; public,
private non-profit and private profit partnerships; public housing; housing
development
requirements; zoning and building code
strategies have been used.
Our Committee to End Homelessness in King County has created a Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness that sets
a goal of building 4,500 new units and providing 4,500 existing subsidized
units by 2015. But we need a larger regional agency to
address our affordable housing situation and needs
with the same concern and resources as have been used to address urban sprawl
and transportation. Otherwise we will
continue fall behind in meeting these needs.
Eastside Rail Now Would
Require Little Funding – 10/5/2007
Establishing commuter trains on the
Eastside tracks previously used by the Dinner Train from
The cost of Eastside Rail Now is less
than 1% of the proposition 1’s cost (without the necessary borrowing costs of
the latter). The cost is similar to the
recently projected two year increase
in state revenues due to our economic growth. Here is a funding possibility inspired by the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe’s offer to partially fund a basketball
No Recommendation on Transportation Proposition 1
– 10/19/2007
I wish I could recommend
Transportation Proposition 1. Here is my
thinking that alternatives are needed. I
believe that Proposition 1 focuses primarily on traffic congestion which
results from single occupancy commuters.
It not only enables these commuters, it contributes to urban sprawl and
environment degradation.
I believe the basic problem is not traffic congestion. It is the lack of affordable housing for
workers near their workplaces. In the
absence of such housing, urban sprawl results as housing is built further
away. Traffic congestion results from
urban sprawl. Environmental degradation
results from urban sprawl and from traffic congestion.
Proposition 1 enables the
spending of $7 billion on highway improvements.
I believe we would do more to meet the challenges described above by
spending much of this $7 billion on affordable housing. Suppose that a $100,000 investment on average
could reduce the cost of a home near a commuter’s workplace, such that the
commuter would move instead of commuting.
$1 billion would provide such a subsidy for 10,000 homes. How many billions would it take to decrease
the number of commuters enough to reduce traffic congestion by as much as is
expected to result from passing proposition 1?
How much of the $7 billion should be spent on affordable housing instead
of highway improvements? Remember also
the benefits of reducing urban sprawl and environmental damage. Think of the family benefits that result when
less time is spent commuting.
Proposition 1 also spends $11
billion for Sound Transit’s 50 additional miles of light rail rapid
transit. But Sound Transit has a
terrible record with the mega-projects it has already undertaken, way
over-budget and beyond schedule. If you
liked WHOOPS (Slang for the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS),
which made the record books with the largest municipal bond default in
history), you must love Sound Transit.
We do need rapid transit. But I
think we can do it much cheaper. Let’s
do it in phases, so each project depends upon the successful completion of
previous projects.
I would propose the following
projects for our Eastside:
1.
Along Dinner train tracks adjacent to I-405 from
2.
Along I-90 from
3.
Along I-90 from Factoria to Issaquah
4.
Along SR-520 from
5.
Along
6.
Along
These rapid transit routes
parallel existing freeway routes of I-90, I-405 and SR-520.
We could begin with project 1,
which could be accomplished within several years for $200 million. As soon as project 1 is completed, buses
could connect its route with
This approach has the
disadvantage that the route from
One of the
features of Proposition 1 that has most aroused my skepticism is its deceptive
packaging. Traffic congestion has been
exaggerated and other challenges ignored.
Costs have been de-emphasized. It was not easy to find the amount that is to
be spent on highway improvements and the amount on light rail. Combining so many projects in one package is
a Hail Mary Pass. Either win big or
lose.
Election Results – 11/9/2007
Transportation and Affordable Housing
I suspect one of
the reasons that Proposition 1 failed is that most voters are not directly
affected by freeway congestion during commute hours. If so, it will be very difficult to pass any
expensive transportation initiative that concerns either highways, or transit
or both. Suppose, we propose less
expensive smaller projects. High
priority would be replacing our
However, I repeat
that the underlying problem is lack of affordable housing near to jobs, which
is the generator of urban sprawl, commuting, air pollution and other forms of
environmental degradation. Less
quantifiable is the negative impact on family time. Even though there are not the wealthy and
powerful special interests backing affordable housing as those that back
highway improvements, serious attention and planning should be given to
creating affordable housing.
Affordable Housing
It’s affordable housing, stupid.
Lack of affordable housing near jobs produces urban sprawl. Sprawl produces commuting and
congestion. These produce pollution. Commuting also diminishes personal and family
time.
Even proponents of transportation fixes admit they won’t make much
difference. Unfortunately that’s where
the pork is. So we keep trying to fix
the symptom.
Let’s find out how much it would cost to entice people to live nearer
their work. Buying down the cost of
houses and apartments near jobs might be the solution to all these
problems. And it might be cheaper than
transportation fixes. At an average cost
of $100,000 per residence, $1 billion would provide 10,000 residences for sale
or rent at permanently lower prices.
Providing Affordable Housing Near
Jobs –
11/23/2007
Providing transportation and education
involves paying big bucks to powerful interests, so we have well funded
organizations researching and planning responses to transportation and
educational challenges. Providing
affordable housing doesn’t involve paying big bucks to powerful interests, so
our efforts to meet housing challenges don’t produce well funded organizations,
research and plans. The following is an
approach that might be taken to meet our housing challenges.
We must first project where various types of
jobs will be located in decades to come.
Then what types of family by income would be attracted to these
jobs. For example, we would project the
number of single and two adult families with and without children with various
incomes that would be attracted to jobs in downtown
Comparing these numbers with the numbers that
the market alone would provide, we determine the need for additional dwellings
in lower price ranges. We then buy down
the cost of more expensive existing or new houses. For example, we pay $100,000 to reduce the cost
of a $300,000 dwelling to $200,000. The
purchaser would pay $200,000, but could only sell it for that plus
inflation. Thus it would remain
affordable at that level. Similarly,
payments could be made to reduce the sale price of other units. And by paying part of the cost of rental
housing, the rents could also be permanently reduced.
Other means may also be used. Developers can be required to include a
proportion of housing at different price levels. Various types of financing may be used,
depending upon tax and other advantages.
Partnerships can be formed with non-profit organizations to provide
housing with services for particular types of dwellers.
Sound Transit Pushes Enormously
Expensive Disruptive Eastside Light Rail –
3/21/2008
Sound transit insists on pursuing a
route from
A much cheaper and less disruptive
route would use publicly owned land by following I-90 to I-405 and then
north. While taking a few minutes longer
from
It seems like Sound Transit can always
find a more expensive way to create light rail than various cheaper alternatives.
Sound Transit Linking to Eastside – 6/13/2008
As
with its previous projects, Sound Transit shows little concern for cost or for
impacts on neighborhoods. It focuses on
getting from point A to point B as fast as possible. It identifies 7 alternatives for a route from
I
believe that the Seventh alternative offers many advantages. It provides a route which can be extended to
I
anticipate that Eastside public transit would be developed as a series of
projects, allowing better accountability and lower financing costs than a
larger project. The first project would
be to extend service to Factoria and perhaps north along the BNSF Railroad/I-405
corridor to about
Until
Sound Transit seriously considers the alternative 7 route and gives detailed
cost, transit time and other numbers for comparing it with their clearly
preferred
Sound Transit's Eastside plan is flawed
Published
by
Eastside rapid transit should be quickly implemented. But Sound
Transit’s proposal is flawed in three ways. Focusing upon connecting
A superior alternative would use the I-90 right-of-way to
Factoria. In phases, it could be extended along the existing dinner train route
with links to
It would be save much money compared with routes through
expensive private property. It would not disrupt any neighborhoods. The sole
disadvantage is a slightly longer travel time between
Instead of only serving