New Density Bill Coming to Vote!!!!

New density bill could force overcrowding in city

By John V. Fox and Carolee Colter
Outside City Hall



Although Seattle residents don't know it yet, a bill will be introduced in our state Legislature in January that could have a massive impact on the affordability and livability of our neighborhoods.

Proposed by the statewide land-use and environmental planning group Futurewise (formerly called 1,000 Friends of Washington), this bill would essentially force cities in the Puget Sound region to create Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas at every transit station along a rail or bus rapid-transit route and upzone all the land within a half-mile radius of those stations.

Within these areas, cities would be required to accommodate densities greater than what now exists in our downtown (or anywhere else between here and San Francisco for that matter).

The Futurewise bill would have the most immediate impact on Southeast Seattle, especially along Martin Luther King Jr. Way, where several thousand low-income and minority households now live.

But over the long term, it also affects Capitol Hill, the University District, Roosevelt and Northgate, where rail extensions are planned.

WELL ABOVE MINIMUM DENSITY

In principle, adding some level of additional density around transit stations makes very good environmental sense. If not managed, urban sprawl eats up farmland, forests and other open space. Planning housing around public transit gives people realistic options to using cars for all their transportation needs.

However, upzones that encourage still more market-rate development in already built-up communities threaten hundreds, if not thousands, of existing lower-priced housing units within those areas.

Such densities also threaten what remains of the tree canopy. Single-family neighborhoods contain far more trees than our public parks. But single-family housing and low-cost rentals within these TOD areas would become endangered species.

Currently, all of Southeast Seattle is at a density of about four units per acre. The Rainier Vista HOPE VI community located next to the Edmunds Street transit station is planned to contain 1,000 or so units on 65 acres; that's about 15 units per acre. Seattle's Belltown (the densest neighborhood in the state) contains about 25 units per acre.

Now consider that Futurewise's TOD bill would require cities to plan for a minimum density of 50 units per acre within a half-mile of the Othello, McClellan and Edmunds rail stations. Given that a circle with a half-mile radius contains 502 acres, at least 25,000 housing units would be required in each of those station areas.

At most, these areas now hold 3,000 units of lower-density apartments and single-family homes, most occupied by lower-income and minority households. Imagine multiplying densities in these areas by eight!

This bill is a bull in a china shop. It would lay waste to whole communities in the name of "sustainability." Futurewise wrote it as if the Rainier Valley were a tabla rasa - a blank slate for planners and wide-eyed naive enviros to play out what they just learned in class or at a conference on global warming.

ASSURANCES NEEDED

What could be done by urban counties and cities around the Puget Sound to reasonably plan for added densities, including along transit routes, and not jeopardize whole communities, the remaining green spaces and affordability?

If the state advances pro-density programs that jurisdictions are encouraged (or required) to use - such as incentive zoning, bonus programs, multi-family tax exemptions or creation of TOD areas - urban counties and cities must meet the following conditions:

•Create an inventory of existing rental-housing stock in the affected area that is still affordable to low-income renters - If upzones, transit overlays or other land-use measures are planned, they must be accompanied by a low-cost housing vulnerability assessment and tools to mitigate the losses that may result.

•Require one-for-one replacement - Developers who tear down existing low-cost housing to build within TOD areas and who take advantage of such programs must replace the low-cost rental units and at a comparable price.

•Plan for and require a mix of units tailored to the income needs and affordability levels of those communities where these added densities are encouraged - Define the required percentages of units priced at or below 30 percent of AMI (area median income), between 30 to 50 percent of AMI and between 50 and 80 percent of AMI.

•Establish a low-cost housing notification requirement - When rental properties containing low-cost rental units are put up for sale, the owners must notify the local jurisdiction. Nonprofit housing developers and housing authorities from that jurisdiction should be given a reasonable amount of time in which to bid on the property and match or exceed other offers - at least 120 days.

Often notification and time are all that is needed for housing authorities and nonprofits to assemble the resources they need to outbid speculators and preserve such housing.

•Add more state funding into the current "rapid response" fund and possibly into a homeowner equity fund, to facilitate acquisition of low-cost rental and homeowner units that may be vulnerable to redevelopment in these high growth areas, and to facilitate the notification measure we've proposed above.

•Add language to the bill to mitigate the effects of such growth on open space and trees within these TOD areas.

BEING AT THE TABLE

Above all, every plan to push more density in existing areas must begin by making sure that the voice of affected residents is heard and "at the table" when this bill or any other pro-density measure is drafted. It cannot be just a bunch of planners, developers and gung-ho enviros caucusing behind closed doors with no understanding of (or seemingly any care for) the existing social and physical fabric of our communities.

To its credit, Futurewise has voiced a willingness to sit down with affected communities and low-income housing advocates and discuss these concerns.

But it's too early to tell if they will scale back required densities within these TOD areas, or add the housing measures we and others have proposed. If these issues are not addressed, their bill can only be described as social engineering at its worst.

John V. Fox and Carolee Colter lead the Seattle Displacement Coalition. They can be reached at needitor@nwlink.com.