Seattle woman can’t build housing without paying city $77k. Now she’s suing(marketwatch.com)
marketwatch.com
Seattle woman can’t build housing without paying city $77k. Now she’s suing
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-seattle-woman-cant-build-affordable-housing-on-her-property-without-first-paying-the-local-government-77-000-so-now-shes-suing-the-city-11671130706
66 comments
Florida and Texas each build more new housing than CA, NY, MA, and IL combined (each effectively run by a single party).
The answer is here, people just don't want it.
The answer is here, people just don't want it.
They build outward, not upward. Huge difference. (NYC is 7x as dense as Dallas)
They already need a highway expansion in Austin because of it
They already need a highway expansion in Austin because of it
I'd like to find statistics on this. I'm less familiar with Texas than Florida, and my firsthand experience with Florida has me curious. I drove from Georgia to South Florida recently and saw lots of new development, including high rises and other multi family dwelling all over central and south Florida. Even the single family neighborhoods I saw were on average denser than what I am used to in Georgia. Florida may not be developing at the same density as NYC, but it is not all single family homes either.
Texas is building six times as much housing as Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma combined (all of the other states in their Census Bureau region). So what's the answer?
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but obviously this is not a valid comparison given the population size.
OTOH, Texas and Florida are both a fraction of a population compared to the sum of NY + CA + MA + IL.
By the way, even the states you listed (not nearly growing as fast as TX/FL) are still building more per capita than the NY / CA / MA / IL.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240622/new-residential-...
OTOH, Texas and Florida are both a fraction of a population compared to the sum of NY + CA + MA + IL.
By the way, even the states you listed (not nearly growing as fast as TX/FL) are still building more per capita than the NY / CA / MA / IL.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240622/new-residential-...
> OTOH, Texas and Florida are both a fraction of a population compared to the sum of NY + CA + MA + IL.
Texas and Florida are the 2nd and 3rd most populous states. That is misleading because you're comparing 3 out of the top 6 most populous states with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
Texas and Florida are the 2nd and 3rd most populous states. That is misleading because you're comparing 3 out of the top 6 most populous states with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
People want to move to Texas #1, the places the parent comment posted are much more dense where people actually want to live. Buffalo, NY doesn’t have the same issues as NYC and Springfield, IL isn’t Chicago.
Is the answer large swaths of land that isn’t great for farming?
California has plenty of land. San Francisco is hardly a dense city. Seattle manages to build lots of housing, despite sharing many of the same challenges: costal city with limited land, earthquakes,etc. But development and housing policy is very different.
California, especially the bay Area, is notorious for being anti-development. The landed class will furiously fight any attempt to build dense housing, to keep property prices high. Rent control exacerbates this as most residents have no incentive to solve the housing shortage since they aren't affected by price increases.
Washington, by contrast, prohibits rent control statewide. It's no coincidence I'm seeing far more construction in Seattle and it's suburbs than I did SF.
California, especially the bay Area, is notorious for being anti-development. The landed class will furiously fight any attempt to build dense housing, to keep property prices high. Rent control exacerbates this as most residents have no incentive to solve the housing shortage since they aren't affected by price increases.
Washington, by contrast, prohibits rent control statewide. It's no coincidence I'm seeing far more construction in Seattle and it's suburbs than I did SF.
I don’t know much about California.
I’m just balking at the audacity of comparing Massachusetts to Texas and implying their comparable on the basis of their politics more so than their geography.
I’m just balking at the audacity of comparing Massachusetts to Texas and implying their comparable on the basis of their politics more so than their geography.
Land isn't really a big driver of housing costs. The issue is housing where people want to live. Nobody is balking at the apartment rents out in the countryside, it's rents in desirable metros that people are talking about. The question is, how do you get more housing units in a fixed amount of land? The answer is higher density, and policy that allows the conversion of low density housing to high density housing.
While it is true that nobody is complaining about rural countryside rents, it’s kind of dumb to imply that land isn’t a critical issue. Dallas is like 5-6x bigger than Boston in terms of area, because it can spread out, because it has lots of land. Boston can’t really spread. It’s hilly and forester and has tougher weather. Texas is flat plains.
> Land isn't really a big driver of housing costs
That is completely and totally wrong.
The land cost is BY FAR the biggest driver of housing cost in the California coastal cities.
The proof of this is that buying a house, completely demolishing it, and building a completely new house is not uncommon in California.
That demonstrates that everything except the land has a negative value.
That is completely and totally wrong.
The land cost is BY FAR the biggest driver of housing cost in the California coastal cities.
The proof of this is that buying a house, completely demolishing it, and building a completely new house is not uncommon in California.
That demonstrates that everything except the land has a negative value.
The point is that it's not a shortage of land. It's not that California as a whole isn't big enough to accommodate it's population. It's that specific desirable places to live are getting more expensive. You concede that this is true when you narrow your statement with "in the California coastal cities."
The problem is that people want to live in the desirable costal cities. The only way that's going to happen is if the city gets more dense. Cities that allow for easy construction are better able to convert low density housing in desirable areas to high density housing to accommodate the growing demand.
The problem is that people want to live in the desirable costal cities. The only way that's going to happen is if the city gets more dense. Cities that allow for easy construction are better able to convert low density housing in desirable areas to high density housing to accommodate the growing demand.
People demolishing poor condition or small houses and building high end homes on the land does not in any way demonstrate that buildings have negative value. You're taking an edge case and applying as a generalization. In many of those cases the homeowners are losing money on destroying the old house but prefer that location.
If labor defined the cost, buyers would renovate. If materials defined the cost, buyers would renovate.
The fact that buyers demolish shows that the cost of labor and materials is significantly less than the value of the land. "losing money on destroying the old house but prefer that location" === value of the land is higher than the cost of the rebuild.
The fact that buyers demolish shows that the cost of labor and materials is significantly less than the value of the land. "losing money on destroying the old house but prefer that location" === value of the land is higher than the cost of the rebuild.
That doesn't show that improvements to land have negative value. You're also assuming that landowners always make the most rational value decisions with their properties and that's frankly just not the case. People aren't tearing down high value homes to build new ones, you're only looking at low value ones and applying incorrectly as a generalization to both.
In most real estate transactions where the home is clearly a tear down, it's priced in.
It seems like might have never viewed a property tax bill.
Here's my neighbor's house built in 2022 appraised values:
land: $465,000 improvements: $620,000
In most real estate transactions where the home is clearly a tear down, it's priced in.
It seems like might have never viewed a property tax bill.
Here's my neighbor's house built in 2022 appraised values:
land: $465,000 improvements: $620,000
I'm not comparing TX to MA, I'm comparing TX to MA + NY + CA + IL.
On the basis of political differences. But MA is radically different on other more important things. It’s just not a good comparison.
MA housing isn’t even particularly bad. I never paid more than $900 in rent.
MA housing isn’t even particularly bad. I never paid more than $900 in rent.
Boston is second most expensive city for rent. Recently overtook San Francisco.
This doesn’t match my experience although all reports seem to focus on one bedrooms. In my experience most housing, or at least most people, just get room mates and end up finding places much cheaper to live. I also wonder what areas don’t count as Boston despite being on local public transit to the city.
Have you seen CA, NY, and IL on the map? Lack of land is not a problem.
Reminds me of this video essay from the NYTimes about how liberal hypocrisy fuels inequality, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw
The sad reality is that a lot of the people who shout the loudest about the problems of wealth and systemic inequality with their words, do very little or even the opposite with their actions.
There's probably similar psychology at play as to why it's common advice to not tell people about your personal goals. The act of proclaiming what you want to do gives you that little kick of dopamine that saps your motivation for actually doing it, making it less likely that you'll actually follow through. Waiting until after your accomplishment to share your success is much more effective.
In the case of moral virtue signalling, it seems like the act of proclaiming your virtue is much more likely to give you a feeling of moral license that makes you feel ok about acting immorally to serve your self interest.
In short, be suspicious of people who virtue signal too much, and judge them by their actions and results, not by their words or intent.
The sad reality is that a lot of the people who shout the loudest about the problems of wealth and systemic inequality with their words, do very little or even the opposite with their actions.
There's probably similar psychology at play as to why it's common advice to not tell people about your personal goals. The act of proclaiming what you want to do gives you that little kick of dopamine that saps your motivation for actually doing it, making it less likely that you'll actually follow through. Waiting until after your accomplishment to share your success is much more effective.
In the case of moral virtue signalling, it seems like the act of proclaiming your virtue is much more likely to give you a feeling of moral license that makes you feel ok about acting immorally to serve your self interest.
In short, be suspicious of people who virtue signal too much, and judge them by their actions and results, not by their words or intent.
What, that high property taxes encourage more building? That's probably true.
This answer is thoroughly irrelevant to Seattle. Just throw up more low cost suburban divisions? Where? Nearly every square foot of land between the ocean and the mountains is already built on for a 100 mile stretch up and down the coast.
It seems like a complete waste of time to try to declare a political victory here.
It seems like a complete waste of time to try to declare a political victory here.
So, I can kind of understand the policy. There's not a lot of land in Seattle to go around - you are lucky enough to have some of it, and you want to build something tiny palpably removes potential units from the market. No one would be happy if you tore down a block of apartments in NY to put up a cute little Craftsman with room for a private dirt bike track. Well, in the same way, leaving these types of properties to grandfather into urban areas also makes no sense.
That said, this also clearly sucks and is not fair. She is at least adding something that wasn't there before. So it makes no sense to pay more in taxes. If anything, it's kind of proving the value of a Land Value Tax.
That said, this also clearly sucks and is not fair. She is at least adding something that wasn't there before. So it makes no sense to pay more in taxes. If anything, it's kind of proving the value of a Land Value Tax.
This policy is good, and this isn't even an edge case. This is a landlord who is about to spend a million dollars on more rental units and doesn't want to provide affordable units.
… and doesn’t want to work within the regulations her community has to promote affordable housing.
Doesn’t want to pay anything—submit for an exception, or pay the Hollywood price to do what she wants.
I don’t see what’s unfair. It would be unfair if she could only build the larger building, and was required to have affordable units—or do nothing.
What _sucks_ is that while her and her family were dealing with these restrictions, there has been a world pandemic, and the economy took a swing towards inflation and higher interest rates.
The family is in a worse spot than if they had paid the 77k upfront.
I’m wondering why their story is getting amplified. I guess this is a turn against cities trying to create regulations promoting affordable housing.
Doesn’t want to pay anything—submit for an exception, or pay the Hollywood price to do what she wants.
I don’t see what’s unfair. It would be unfair if she could only build the larger building, and was required to have affordable units—or do nothing.
What _sucks_ is that while her and her family were dealing with these restrictions, there has been a world pandemic, and the economy took a swing towards inflation and higher interest rates.
The family is in a worse spot than if they had paid the 77k upfront.
I’m wondering why their story is getting amplified. I guess this is a turn against cities trying to create regulations promoting affordable housing.
So what? She's trying to build an addition and rent it to her kids. Even if she was going to rent to randoms, so what? Is it better she just keeps the property as a single family home?
It's not an addition. It's a totally separate building with four rental units.
Close enough
I mean, this is an owner-occupied property. I can understand not wanting the city to force two random families to live with you.
But in this case the city assessing a luxury tax for such a setup seems pretty reasonable.
But in this case the city assessing a luxury tax for such a setup seems pretty reasonable.
She wants to build 4 rental units on a lot in downtown. That's an apartment building. Why should an apartment building with 4 units be exempt from offering affordable housing? She will not be occupying those four units. She will be staying in her fifth unit.
If I paid rent to my parents in college would that make their house a 2-unit rental?
I am okay with a certain amount of gray area in the rental market, especially for informal or family situations. If these units ever hit the general market you can hit them with tighter rules later.
Again, in this case, she would not be exempt, she would pay a one time fee for the housing program.
I am okay with a certain amount of gray area in the rental market, especially for informal or family situations. If these units ever hit the general market you can hit them with tighter rules later.
Again, in this case, she would not be exempt, she would pay a one time fee for the housing program.
Did your parents build 2 additional units in a building detached from their house and charge rent, including to people who weren't you from day 1?
If so, then yes. (Assuming it didn't fall under accessory dwelling unit rules.)
If so, then yes. (Assuming it didn't fall under accessory dwelling unit rules.)
Yes this is it. There are good reason for a lot of the 'codes' we have and it costs money to make sure things are cool. That said, I suggest as always there are 'bureaucracy' problems in our governments and processes that are severely limiting to progress. We need to figure out how to streamline and make efficiencies in a lot of these systems if we want to have a future.
>No one would be happy if you tore down a block of apartments in NY to put up a cute little Craftsman with room for a private dirt bike track.
If you own the land you should be able to do what you want with it. If you want a single family home, that is fine. If you want a 10-plex, also fine. Cities are making development and renting as painful as possible then being shocked when people opt out of being landlords. If it is more desirable to have a craftsman and a dirtbike track than a multi unit building then the city's incentives are horribly skewed. One of those effectively prints money so we have to ask why someone isn't opting to do it. At the same time, it is their land and they should be able to use it how they wish.
If you own the land you should be able to do what you want with it. If you want a single family home, that is fine. If you want a 10-plex, also fine. Cities are making development and renting as painful as possible then being shocked when people opt out of being landlords. If it is more desirable to have a craftsman and a dirtbike track than a multi unit building then the city's incentives are horribly skewed. One of those effectively prints money so we have to ask why someone isn't opting to do it. At the same time, it is their land and they should be able to use it how they wish.
Yeah, why should we do any planning or zoning at all! Every individual is equipped with all the knowledge and expertise to make good planning decisions that impact their neighborhoods! /s
How is the current planning and zoning working out for affordability?
Too soon to say. Seattle just opened up zoning after fighting a bunch of nimby pushback.
Prices seem to have fallen very very recently. Hopefully the upzoning helps more.
Prices seem to have fallen very very recently. Hopefully the upzoning helps more.
What is the correct amount of freedom to build? Do we have too much or too little? How do you know if we have the right amount of freedom?
King County taxes land value as part of our property taxes. If Seattle up-zoned this property, that component of the owner's taxes would increase to reflect the value of its new highest and best use.
If it includes property value it's not a true Land Value Tax.
The point of a Land Value Tax is that everyone gets taxed purely on the value of the land and none of the improvements. So adding more units would only decrease the per-unit tax you pay.
Seattle here is attempting the same thing in broad strokes by literally taxing underdevelopment - but it's clearly not as elegant of a solution
The point of a Land Value Tax is that everyone gets taxed purely on the value of the land and none of the improvements. So adding more units would only decrease the per-unit tax you pay.
Seattle here is attempting the same thing in broad strokes by literally taxing underdevelopment - but it's clearly not as elegant of a solution
The policy seems pretty straightforward:
If you want to build a bunch of units on your property:
1. A certain percentage has to be rented at an affordable rate (for 75 years).
2. If they aren't you pay a 'fee' into an affordability fund based on how much you build.
The fact they the owner claims they want to 'rent' to their kids is a red herring IMO. She wants to build 4 market rate units on her property, and not designate any of them as affordable.
If you want to build a bunch of units on your property:
1. A certain percentage has to be rented at an affordable rate (for 75 years).
2. If they aren't you pay a 'fee' into an affordability fund based on how much you build.
The fact they the owner claims they want to 'rent' to their kids is a red herring IMO. She wants to build 4 market rate units on her property, and not designate any of them as affordable.
It took the article a long time to get to the actual issue, but here it is:
> Building a new four-unit structure
Seattle had a light up-zone a few years ago to allow all SF-zoned lots to add two ADUs (one detached and one attached). Going that route would make this a non-issue. The owner could build a unit for each child without paying any MHA fees.
FWIW, I would love to see the city up-zone across the board to allow multi-family on every residential lot, but that's not happening thanks to an unholy alliance of NIMBYs and anti-business zealots.
> Building a new four-unit structure
Seattle had a light up-zone a few years ago to allow all SF-zoned lots to add two ADUs (one detached and one attached). Going that route would make this a non-issue. The owner could build a unit for each child without paying any MHA fees.
FWIW, I would love to see the city up-zone across the board to allow multi-family on every residential lot, but that's not happening thanks to an unholy alliance of NIMBYs and anti-business zealots.
This lawsuit is Institute for Justice trying to stop state funded affordable housing. They found this women to be an example plaintiff. Don't get lost in her individual situation, as the lawsuit is about so much more.
I don't think that the state is funding the affordable housing here. The state is forcing anyone who wants to build more dense units to fund affordable housing.
Why have you imputed this motive? IFJ seems to be quite anti-licensure and anti-permitting (according to other materials), and their website says nothing about preventing state-funded affordable housing. https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenges-seattles-man...
The state can give out rent vouchers and loosen restrictions on building if they want affordable housing.
The state can give out rent vouchers and loosen restrictions on building if they want affordable housing
This is literally what the state is doing. They're loosening restrictions if you build affordable housing. They're not loosening restrictions across the board as the default would be to just build housing without any regard to affordability.
This is literally what the state is doing. They're loosening restrictions if you build affordable housing. They're not loosening restrictions across the board as the default would be to just build housing without any regard to affordability.
> the default would be to just build housing without any regard to affordability.
Luckily, that would still lead to affordable housing, because "just build housing" is what actually makes housing affordable.
Luckily, that would still lead to affordable housing, because "just build housing" is what actually makes housing affordable.
No it’s not.
It’s specious to think that just adding supply to the desirable metro areas like San Francisco, New York or Seattle would be enough to make housing affordable to teachers and lower paying jobs. You’d just get more unaffordable housing or have to somehow flood the market with so much inventory that they would no longer be a place where people want to live.
It’s specious to think that just adding supply to the desirable metro areas like San Francisco, New York or Seattle would be enough to make housing affordable to teachers and lower paying jobs. You’d just get more unaffordable housing or have to somehow flood the market with so much inventory that they would no longer be a place where people want to live.
Yeah, that’s what Inslee wanted to do last year — open up denser housing and remove city-level zoning laws preventing denser builds, at least within a short distance of mass transit. Couldn’t even get that done thanks to local pushback. It’s a shame IFJ didn’t show up for that fight.
"In Seattle, new developments in certain areas have to include affordable housing units or the developer has to pay the city an amount of money based on the floor area of their project — to fund low-income housing preservation and production elsewhere — as a condition of receiving a building permit.
Adams has two options: Add two extra affordable units to her project and rent them at below-market rates to income-restricted tenants for 75 years, or pay a fee. "
Yeah... good intentions and all that.
Adams has two options: Add two extra affordable units to her project and rent them at below-market rates to income-restricted tenants for 75 years, or pay a fee. "
Yeah... good intentions and all that.
Or make the units that she's renting to her kids at affordable prices stay affordable units for 75 years.
That seems eminently reasonable. "Landlord plans $1m expansion of non affordable housing to help their family only" seems more reasonable to me.
That seems eminently reasonable. "Landlord plans $1m expansion of non affordable housing to help their family only" seems more reasonable to me.
The subtext here is probably that her kids would not qualify.
According to the article her kids do qualify. She doesn’t want the 75 year lockup.
Ah so it does...
Fred : Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and...
Ted : Really?
Fred : And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs - they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
Ted : The text.
Fred : OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
Fred : Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and...
Ted : Really?
Fred : And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs - they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
Ted : The text.
Fred : OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
A landlord in Seattle wants to spend $1m to build apartments, discount them for her children but not be on the hook to extend that discount to meet local building regs around affordable housing.
If you are building big enough to need to hit the affordable housing regs, then you should commit to either providing affordable housing OR pay to make sure someone else can.
This is a story about a landlord trying to avoid having to help their community.
If you are building big enough to need to hit the affordable housing regs, then you should commit to either providing affordable housing OR pay to make sure someone else can.
This is a story about a landlord trying to avoid having to help their community.
No better way to get public support for restricting housing development and drive property values up than by putting labels like 'inclusive' and 'affordable' on policy. Wish her luck.
This is by design. A lower cost house in the neighborhood will lower property values all around. Especially in the kind of neighborhood where a single property has room on the land for a 4-plex.
A 4 plex in the neighborhood will raise property values. If you can 5x the land's income earning potential it is more valuable. This is the whole idea behind a land value tax.
Think of it this way - Single (wealthy) families are competing for the land because it is illegal for more than 1 family to live on the land. Multiple (not wealthy) families could be pooling their money and competing for the land. Which drives the property value up? I would love to have 10 median income families who pooled their money (500k/yr) bidding up my land value versus single (top 5%) households (250k/yr).
Think of it this way - Single (wealthy) families are competing for the land because it is illegal for more than 1 family to live on the land. Multiple (not wealthy) families could be pooling their money and competing for the land. Which drives the property value up? I would love to have 10 median income families who pooled their money (500k/yr) bidding up my land value versus single (top 5%) households (250k/yr).
It's better if the city simply keeps everyone honest and tries to keep compliance costs as low as possible. Increase housing density where possible, while not listening to the NIMBYs.