際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Dsa iz reality_check_2 12 14 final final

Download as PPTX, PDF
Roger Valdez
Roger Valdez

This document summarizes key issues with Seattle's incentive zoning policy for affordable housing. It argues that the policy focuses on the wrong problem of workforce housing rather than more pressing needs of households below 50% AMI. It also questions several assumptions behind the policy, finding that incentive zoning fees are too low to be effective, produces fewer affordable units than other tools, and does not support the city's comprehensive housing goals. The document concludes by recommending fixing incentives to encourage more housing supply, focusing on more productive tools, and using the right tools to meet policy objectives.

1 of 11
Download to read offline
INCENTIVE ZONING: A REALITY CHECK February 2014 DSA Workforce Housing Subcommittee
Seattles affordable housing strategy is failing. Seattle is focusing on the wrong problem, which leads to the wrong solution and limited outcomes.
Income disparity results in housing disparity 80% AMI $56,480 $35,300 $27.06 $16.91 83.1% Annual income for 2-person household in Seattle 50% AMI 37.3% Hourly wage equivalent % of Seattle rental units affordable by income level Seattles most significant affordability gap is at 50% AMI and below, not at 80% AMI.
Dsa iz reality_check_2 12 14 final final
Assumption 1: Seattle Doesnt Have Enough Workforce Housing The Facts: According to the most recent data available from King County: 83% of Seattles rentals were affordable to incomes at 80% area median (AMI) In contrast, only 37% of Seattles rentals were affordable to incomes at 50% AMI Conclusion: There is no shortage of workforce housing, and Incentive Zonings focus on it neglects Seattles much greater affordability need for households at 50% AMI and below.
Assumption 2: Incentive Zoning fees are too low The Facts: At current fees, 62% of eligible development in Seattle did NOT to use the incentive since 2001 In South Lake Union alone, 14 of 20 projects did not use the incentive Significant public benefit was left on the table as a result of projects in downtown and South Lake Union building below zoned capacity: Conclusion: Increased Incentive Zoning fees will lead to even less participation in the program, resulting in less housing supply, less revenue for affordable housing, and loss of many other significant public benefits.
Assumption 3: Incentive Zoning fees are an effective way to create affordable housing The Facts: Over the past 12 years: Incentive Zoning has resulted in funding for the equivalent of only 616 units of affordable housing, compared to 46,000 total units developed in Seattle. The Housing Levy produced over 3,700 units and the MFTE Program produced 2,563 units, with another 4,312 units in the pipeline. Conclusion: Incentive Zoning accounted for less than 2% of Seattles new housing supply in the last 12 years. Under any approach, Incentive Zoning will supply only a fraction of Seattles affordable housing needs; other tools are needed.
Assumption 4: Requiring affordable housing in on-site performance in highrise buildings makes sense The Facts: High-rise construction costs 1/3rd more per unit than mid-rise 5-over-2 For the same amount of money, 1/3rd more affordable units could be produced in mid-rise construction Conclusion: Requiring affordable housing in high-rise buildings results in fewer homes for workers, as 1/3rd more affordable housing units could be produced for the same resources in mid-rise construction.
Assumption 5: Incentive Zoning supports the citys comprehensive plan goals The Facts: Incentive Zoning charges an extra fee for zoned capacity that increases the cost and risk to produce the housing supply goals established by the Comp Plan. Incentive Zoning taxes housing supply, ironically, in an effort to produce housing supply. Conclusion: By increasing the cost to produce additional housing, Incentive Zoning is a deterrent to building the housing supply envisioned by city policy.
Incentive Zoning is not working so what should we do? Fix the incentives: Establish true incentives to encourage developers to build to maximum capacity and increase housing supply. Re-examine fee rate and the base height to increase participation in the program leading to more housing supply and contributions to the program. Focus on more productive tools: Incentive Zoning accounts for less than 2% of the housing supply while other tools (Housing Levy, MFTE) have been 10X more productive Use of City-owned property Up-zones around transit areas Expansion of the MFTE program Purchase/conversion of multi-family properties Encouragement of market innovations such as Micro-housing, ADUs, etc. Using the right tools to tackle the right job, we can meet the policy objectives driving zoning increases in designated urban centers.
Citations 際際滷 3 City of Seattle Office of Housing Income and Rent Limits MFTE 2009 King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing 際際滷 5 2009 King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing 際際滷 6 Data accumulated from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development and Office of Housing 際際滷 7 Data accumulated from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development and Office of Housing

More Related Content

Dsa iz reality_check_2 12 14 final final

  • 1. INCENTIVE ZONING: A REALITY CHECK February 2014 DSA Workforce Housing Subcommittee
  • 2. Seattles affordable housing strategy is failing. Seattle is focusing on the wrong problem, which leads to the wrong solution and limited outcomes.
  • 3. Income disparity results in housing disparity 80% AMI $56,480 $35,300 $27.06 $16.91 83.1% Annual income for 2-person household in Seattle 50% AMI 37.3% Hourly wage equivalent % of Seattle rental units affordable by income level Seattles most significant affordability gap is at 50% AMI and below, not at 80% AMI.
  • 5. Assumption 1: Seattle Doesnt Have Enough Workforce Housing The Facts: According to the most recent data available from King County: 83% of Seattles rentals were affordable to incomes at 80% area median (AMI) In contrast, only 37% of Seattles rentals were affordable to incomes at 50% AMI Conclusion: There is no shortage of workforce housing, and Incentive Zonings focus on it neglects Seattles much greater affordability need for households at 50% AMI and below.
  • 6. Assumption 2: Incentive Zoning fees are too low The Facts: At current fees, 62% of eligible development in Seattle did NOT to use the incentive since 2001 In South Lake Union alone, 14 of 20 projects did not use the incentive Significant public benefit was left on the table as a result of projects in downtown and South Lake Union building below zoned capacity: Conclusion: Increased Incentive Zoning fees will lead to even less participation in the program, resulting in less housing supply, less revenue for affordable housing, and loss of many other significant public benefits.
  • 7. Assumption 3: Incentive Zoning fees are an effective way to create affordable housing The Facts: Over the past 12 years: Incentive Zoning has resulted in funding for the equivalent of only 616 units of affordable housing, compared to 46,000 total units developed in Seattle. The Housing Levy produced over 3,700 units and the MFTE Program produced 2,563 units, with another 4,312 units in the pipeline. Conclusion: Incentive Zoning accounted for less than 2% of Seattles new housing supply in the last 12 years. Under any approach, Incentive Zoning will supply only a fraction of Seattles affordable housing needs; other tools are needed.
  • 8. Assumption 4: Requiring affordable housing in on-site performance in highrise buildings makes sense The Facts: High-rise construction costs 1/3rd more per unit than mid-rise 5-over-2 For the same amount of money, 1/3rd more affordable units could be produced in mid-rise construction Conclusion: Requiring affordable housing in high-rise buildings results in fewer homes for workers, as 1/3rd more affordable housing units could be produced for the same resources in mid-rise construction.
  • 9. Assumption 5: Incentive Zoning supports the citys comprehensive plan goals The Facts: Incentive Zoning charges an extra fee for zoned capacity that increases the cost and risk to produce the housing supply goals established by the Comp Plan. Incentive Zoning taxes housing supply, ironically, in an effort to produce housing supply. Conclusion: By increasing the cost to produce additional housing, Incentive Zoning is a deterrent to building the housing supply envisioned by city policy.
  • 10. Incentive Zoning is not working so what should we do? Fix the incentives: Establish true incentives to encourage developers to build to maximum capacity and increase housing supply. Re-examine fee rate and the base height to increase participation in the program leading to more housing supply and contributions to the program. Focus on more productive tools: Incentive Zoning accounts for less than 2% of the housing supply while other tools (Housing Levy, MFTE) have been 10X more productive Use of City-owned property Up-zones around transit areas Expansion of the MFTE program Purchase/conversion of multi-family properties Encouragement of market innovations such as Micro-housing, ADUs, etc. Using the right tools to tackle the right job, we can meet the policy objectives driving zoning increases in designated urban centers.
  • 11. Citations 際際滷 3 City of Seattle Office of Housing Income and Rent Limits MFTE 2009 King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing 際際滷 5 2009 King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing 際際滷 6 Data accumulated from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development and Office of Housing 際際滷 7 Data accumulated from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development and Office of Housing