Affordable Housing

Navigation

User login

Online users

FRESH
cupric oxide
CIAGuy
jlw
JulieM
freeschoollove
M Kretzler

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

shadowclad_warrior
Lisa P
GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...

Affordable Housing

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 12:13am.

I want to have a conversation about what 'affordable housing' means to us.

On one end of the spectrum we have, I guess, me, or, people who feel the way I do. That is, we need to build housing in such a way that everyone who lives here can afford housing.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the idea that we need to build housing that, in the words of newly elected city councilor Rhenda Strub, "most of us can't afford." The idea behind that being that we build housing that attracts people from other areas who are of a higher income level than most of us here now in order to stimulate the economy.

What say you, bloggers?

Rob Richards's blog
Login or register to post comments

My problem with Stub's plan

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 12:24am.

My problem with Strub's plan is that I feel it doesn't take into account those who aren't able to afford housing in Olympia the way things are now. I'd like to hear Strub's plan in more detail, and I feel now is the time for her to start sharing it with us. She's been elected, now what is she going to do with that?

Access to housing is an issue that goes beyond simply solving homelessness. People who were born and raised here that work minimum wage or not much more are in some cases barely making it in rental housing. Not many people making an average income in Olympia can afford to buy a house right now.

As a community do we feel that economic development and the quick profit that it brings is worth a few casualties? I think we need to start basing our decisions on what the affects in the long term will be. If we build condos and other more expensive housing right now, where will the average person live?

I have a son. Where will he live when he becomes an adult? Will he have to move away from Olympia where he grew up because he won't be able to afford to live here? That's a sad future if we create a community that our children can't afford to live in. We need to strive for economic diversity. It's OK to build housing that costs more, but we have to strive for balance in my opinion.

What about a mixture...

Submitted by Chia on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 1:32am.

I've seen news magazines which feature housing projects which offer housing to people with a variety of incomes in the same building. The rents of the better off tenants is used to help subsidize the rent of low-income tenants. Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both?

---------
Nonviolence Includes Animals:
audio
"PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk's address to the International Nonviolence Conference in Bethlehem"

absolutely

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 2:07am.

it should be both ways.

Olympia as it could be...maybe?

Submitted by Nicki on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 7:12am.

I think that Strub surely has a plan regarding housing, and I think she should get it out there. It's a wonderful idea to have what she calls market housing for the more well off in our community, because, hopefully, those people will spend money downtown. But, that said, traditionally downtown housing in many communities has been lived in by lower income people simply because most higher income people want larger spaces. Would it be possible to build say, 1/3 market value, 1/3 middle income value, and 1/3 low income value? That way there would be more of a balance, and a controlled balance at that. I think the builing and impact fees ought to also reflect the actual cost to the community. If we are going to start peopling the downtown area there will be children living there, we will also need to build another school. Where? I also think they ought to tear down the old City Hall and build a 2 or 3 story building, how ever much it would take to accomodate everyone, and this time plan ahead 10 years, just in case we might need some more employees in the future, build it BIG enough! Why should City Hall be right smack downtown? The warehouse at the port should be cleaned up and turned into workshops and studios that would be shared by artisans and non-profits, in the commuity for a small monthly amount. These could also double as living quarters for them. The Hand's on Museum could be down there too. Why does it need to be NEXT to City Hall? There is enough spare space in this vicinity to build all kinds high and low end housing, but we need to build up, hopefully no higher than 4 stories. Each complex would have an interior garden patio and/or it's own private parking area. There would be shops on the ground floor and 2 or 3 stories of condos. The less affordable would be studios or 1 bd. and the more expensive ones would be much larger versions, maybe penthouse style, with views on the water and over the garden patios. I see some streets that are pedestrian only and parks would be incorporated. And for heaven's sake we need several beautiful fountains for our Artesian water! It is our world signature. These would be created with donations of fountians created by local sculptors who are just dying to be honored by having their names prominently display on them. We are now at a point where we have choices to form a vibrant community here. One that could be beautiful, attractive and accomodating all that the same time. There needs to be balance. Let's stop spending money on researching everything and start creating!

We currently are missing the top tier.

Submitted by Dylan Carlson on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 12:08pm.

I think many people would agree that a 1/3 "affordable" housing, 1/3 "middle income" housing, and 1/3 "market rate" housing is a good idea. A diversity of incomes would allow downtown businesses to prosper without pushing long-term downtown residents out of their homes and apartments.

The problem with what we have now, is that the top tier is missing. We have nothing but "affordable" and "middle income" housing downtown. (Although I'll be the first to argue that the definition of "affordable" squeezes many of us out.)

The facts are these:

Downtown has the lowest home values in the Olympia area.
Olympia is in a housing crunch.
Encouraging dense residential living is good for the environment.
There are wealthy people in our community who want to live downtown, but cannot find housing that offers the features that they want.
Building market rate housing downtown does not require forcing exisiting residents out of their homes. There is enough land downtown that is ripe for re-development.

We absolutely need more "affordable housing" so that young people like, um, me can buy houses. But putting it all downtown will only serve to increase the income-level disparity between neighborhoods.

Are there more rich people who want to live downtown...

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 3:10pm.

...than poor people who need to?

There are not as many wealthy people as there are poor people. I don't have to give you a lecture on how capitalism works, it's common sense. Right now, Dylan, there is not enough housing for anybody, poor people, middle income people or rich people downtown. The problem is that if your land is residential you can sell it's valued at $12/sq. ft. and if it's commercial, $24/sq. ft.

If we want more housing at any income level we need to provide incentives for building housing. Right now, we're just encouraging less housing and more office buildings. That's not going to solve our housing dilemma and it's certainly not going to change people's perception of downtown.

Mixed Use

Submitted by nich on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 7:55pm.

This isn't directed at anyone, but relates to your post.

That's why there's mixed use. You get underground parking, so we don't lose any (probably increase the amount), you get your commercial space that makes a good amount of money and you get apartments/condos on top. In many cities, a certain number of apartments in each building are set aside for low-income/subsidized housing. A few buildings with 6 or 7 stories and you can pack a ton of people downtown. More people downtown means it's safer at all hours, would bring (real) night life into downtown and give people things to do.

As has been stated before, if all you've got downtown is low-income and subsidized housing, downtown will see pretty flat growth and people won't go there. They'll continue spending their money in Lacey or Tumwater.

The fact of the matter is that this city is growing. People can either accept that and do it in a dense, mixed use, sustainable fashion, or we can continue to sprawl endlessly in all directions and cut down the remaining natural beauty that most of us moved here for in the first place. Prices for housing are going up either way.

There are many, many cities who are doing this successfully.

exactly

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 11:24pm.

Heck yeah!

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 04/07/2008 - 10:08pm.

And for heaven's sake we need several beautiful fountains for our Artesian water! It is our world signature.

Amen!

I was shocked when a friend

Submitted by OperaGirl on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 8:03am.

I was shocked when a friend showed me a site by her old house that they were going to build several low income houses (or townhouses ~ I'm not sure what). This site was not 20 feet away from train tracks down in a remote area. It seems like they are saving the "good spots" like down town with nice views for one class of people and then hiding away another class down by the train tracks.

Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life. ~Ludwig van Beethoven

Before moving back to

Submitted by scrubjay on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 12:54pm.

Before moving back to Olympia three years ago, I lived in both Berkeley and Arcata, California, so to me it seems like Olympia does have a lot more affordable housing! Downtown desperately needs housing, and a percentage of it should definitely be affordable or low-income. This developer in Berkeley was a leader in developing new housing in Berkeley that included low-income housing in each development. http://www.panoramicinterests.com/projects/ I can't believe the proliferation of ugly sprawling developments in Thurston County that are destroying natural habitat. There seems to be plenty of room for restoration and development of housing downtown. I bet a lot of people would choose to live downtown if there were better housing.

Affordable housing to me

Submitted by wilson on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 3:14pm.

Affordable housing to me means being able to own a home and gain wealth and independence through equity. Rental units and rental homes are fine but they do virtually nothing for the long term financial health of a family. There is nothing better for a family, neighborhood, or town than to have homes that people can reasonably purchase and maintain. A large problem that has arisen is that less and less people are able to qualify credit wise. It is not a matter of income or job stability, it is a simple matter of having bad credit. Our city, even with national record breaking real estate prices, exceeded the national average. We however lagged in the availibility of new units. That can be good and bad, so far it has helped those of us who own homes as they are still appreciating. Bad for those still struggling to purchase, it has kept prices high. As far as downtown housing goes it's just a matter of political will that it hasn't happened yet. We have a great oppurtunity in the near future to "walk the walk" when it comes to affordable housing downtown. Rehab projects on older buidings and homes usually do not pay off, we need to get the wrecking ball out and build some modern row houses, condos, office space, and parking to jump start downtown. People spending money downtown will start the ball rolling, the city needs to open the door to developers for this to happen. It will not happen with the weekend developer putting new carpets in an 80 year old building.

I'm all in favor of market rate housing...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 7:50pm.

but we should be clear that the actual market rate for a one bedroom apartment is between $550 and $600 per month. This is affordable for people of incomes of around $20,000 per year... a reasonable income for a single person or even a couple. Prices go up as apartment size increases.

Housing should be affordable for people with median incomes. There's already plenty of million dollar houses along East Bay Rd; we don't need any downtown.

The Canaanite's Call

Good Comments

Submitted by DJW on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 12:41pm.

What I see is the problem is that there is no incentive from the city, county or state for people to build so-called 'affordable housing'. What exactly is that? Phil mentioned a $20K number as it relates to rent ($550-600). I think it's not a bad idea. However, has anyone tried to look at the numbers to see if it is even financially feasible to renovate a building or build apartments while only charging that amount of rent? I would also factor in is how big is that apartment going to be? 400-500sqf? 3/4bath? Washer/dryers? If we are going to build housing I think having more than a closet sized home would be appropriate.

I've bought/sold properties for 20+ years and still have many rentals that are of varying mixes (upper, middle, low). I would like to build some 'affordable homes' but right now it's just so dang tough to get anywhere. Contractor prices, materials, permits and delays. Don't even get me started on how expensive it is if you want to build Green. I don't know how far over my personal budget I went to include some green ideas in my home. Everytime I rehab or change something in a rental when a tenant moves it's costing me much more to try and be eco-friendly than if I would just buy whatever is cheapest from wherever.

What I think I'm trying to say and what I hear (read) is that there has to be some incentive to build affordable housing and the requirements for all types of building needs to be reviewed.

great points

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 1:15pm.

I think a lot of those concerns can be addressed through credits. Let's get Housing and Urban Development back into the habit of building housing and out of funding more shelters. Let's revamp HUD's budget to provide credits to developers who build equally mixed income housing. We don't need all "affordable" housing, but we do need a better ratio than we're getting locally. The EPA should be providing tax credits or some kind of subsidies for developers or property owners who want to build or rebuild green. The idea that passing a law or adding fees is the right way to go is a bit backward in my opinion. Incentives will always go farther than punitive measures.

All those ideas are great.

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 3:02pm.

All those ideas are great. Most importantly locally is the need to engage buiders and developers on how to do this. Right now there is a combative culture between regulators and buiders. The builders know exactly how, and what needs to be done to build affordable homes and rental units. There are many who would love to do it. Breaking the wall that was built in the last 15 years would go a long way.

Possibly

Submitted by DJW on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 5:01pm.

I think you might be correct Rob and Wilson. Not only builders but suppliers need to get on board. It has to trickle down, up or across the board. Everyone involved needs to get some sort of incentive. I'm for affordable housing but I'm also for someone allowing the market to dictate how much someone can make when they sell property.

The market already dictates

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:45pm.

The market already dictates how much a person can make on a piece of property..............worrying about how much money a developer makes is probably not a good road to go down. A builders margin is largly set by his costs. Most builders make about the same margin, until you get into the really high end stuff. The most common margin is around 25% - 30%, it is incredibly difficult to go much further. People just won't pay it. It sounds high but that is gross not net. For example a 100,000 structure would gross about 25k, after taxes, support, fees, the builder might make 18k, not a lot of money for the work. Thats why you have massive developments.

I apologize WIlson

Submitted by DJW on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 9:15am.

I realize what you are saying. My comment was very uneducated and jumped around. I was actually stating an opinion from a previous discussion about affordable housing. There are some that believe that some other entity other then the market should set fair market value. If someone is willing to give me $200k for a home I purchased for $80K, then so be it. (Simple example I know.)

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: