Seattle is dying

[Monahorns]

Yes, we do have significant zoning challenges within King County but as I stare at 13 cranes in Bellevue and another dozen in Seattle building what amounts to 20-50 story buildings for both office and condo usage I don't think zoning is that much of an issue. Literally, the Seattle Metropolitan area is printing money in the real-estate market and nearly all new building is chasing that money. There is no room for low-income housing aside from those being forced on developers to get approval for higher income housing.

You just proved my point SH. The construction of high rise building in urban centers is being done because of zoning. The reason there is no low income housing is because there is no money in it, especially when zoning and regulations make homes for low rent occupants even more expensive.

There are also rent controls that cause the same thing.

 

[Monahorns]

I do wonder why people who can't afford to live in the city don't simply leave.

SH, they do all over California. It is one reason why commutes are so long there.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The reason there is no low income housing is because there is no money in it, especially when zoning and regulations make homes for low rent occupants even more expensive.

You're missing my point. There isn't as much profit in low-rent housing. If your point was true there would be a backlog of permit applicants for low-rent housing projects. That backlog is missing. There is such a dearth of low-rent housing projects that the city has turned to forcing new construction projects to devote a small percentage of new projects to low-income housing. The city devoted prime real estate city owned land to low-income housing projects. Outside of incentivizing builders to focus on low income housing there isn't much more they can do. Still the money pours in to upscale condo projects. Why? In a free market the money will flow to where it can make the most profit. That's not a zoning problem but rather a reflection of the demand for luxury housing.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH, they do all over California. It is one reason why commutes are so long there.

I'm not talking about middle-class residents who do move to outer suburbs and accept the 2hr (total) commute each day. My reference was specifically to the low-income or no-income homeless population.

I do think the rather significant services, unwillingness for forced relocation outside of Seattle and generosity of Seattle residents and police has created an overly supportive atmosphere for the homeless population.

 

[Monahorns]

You're missing my point. There isn't as much profit in low-rent housing. If your point was true there would be a backlog of permit applicants for low-rent housing projects. That backlog is missing. There is such a dearth of low-rent housing projects that the city has turned to forcing new construction projects to devote a small percentage of new projects to low-income housing. The city devoted prime real estate city owned land to low-income housing projects. Outside of incentivizing builders to focus on low income housing there isn't much more they can do. Still the money pours in to upscale condo projects. Why? In a free market the money will flow to where it can make the most profit. That's not a zoning problem but rather a reflection of the demand for luxury housing.

No. I got your point. Production of high rent property is crowding out low rent property. I agree. That is a statement of what is.

But there are 2 things to bring up to understand why. First, the economic environment is shaped by things other than just rich people wanting to buy luxury units. Part of the reality driving what you see is the legal structure of the construction industry. Zoning, rent control, and regulation all feed into that.

Second, you conflate high rent with high profit. Those 2 things aren't always the same, but that is always the case when construction is constrained geographically and financially by government. Low rent properties can be very profitable if builders are given freedom to build structures that are in line with the revenue they will generate. Low rent properties also will get built when there aren't other artificial barriers erected by government. There is obviously demand or there wouldn't be all the homeless or talk of the low rent housing problem.

 

[Chop]

No one that I know of ever said a southern border had anything to do with or would impact Seattle or any cities' homeless problem.

Chop
excellent summation except you forgot to mention drugs

Ah yes. Prescription drug prices have gotten out of hand. Maybe too expensive for the mentally ill to afford, so they end up homeless. I hear Liz Warren has a plan for that.

 

[Chop]

Re: the severely mentally ill.

Building many humane and decent mental institutions and institutionalization should be considered. The history of this is nasty. But if done properly, it’s likely the best option for the severely mentally ill.

 

[Seattle Husker]

But there are 2 things to bring up to understand why. First, the economic environment is shaped by things other than just rich people wanting to buy luxury units.

I'm talking about basic laws of supply and demand. The supply has been unable to keep up with demand. Sure, zoning and building codes contributed but that's a bit like focusing on the pimple of the Elephant's buttocks. The elephant was the near astronomical growth of the Seattle tech sector.

Part of the reality driving what you see is the legal structure of the construction industry. Zoning, rent control, and regulation all feed into that.

Let's get specific. Which Seattle municipal laws, rules or policies are you pointing to? As a former landlord I had restrictions how quickly I could raise the rent (60 day notice required for >10% increase) that was implemented in 2015. From my perspective, that was a response to rent escalation, not a reason for it. As much as I disdain the Seattle move towards socialism the law changes are well intentioned and a direct result of the economic boom that left anyone not employed in the tech industry chasing those that were.

Low rent properties can be very profitable if builders are given freedom to build structures that are in line with the revenue they will generate.

Please tell me you aren't advocating for reduced building standards in a city built on a major earthquake fault line and largely built on trash/silt that liquifies during earthquakes.

Low rent properties also will get built when there aren't other artificial barriers erected by government. There is obviously demand or there wouldn't be all the homeless or talk of the low rent housing problem.

Which artificial barriers are you pointing to?

All I have is my firsthand experience as someone who works in Seattle, was a landlord until 2018, and live across the water in a major suburb. I've worked off/on in Seattle and suburbs since 1996.

 

[Monahorns]

I'm talking about basic laws of supply and demand. The supply has been unable to keep up with demand. Sure, zoning and building codes contributed but that's a bit like focusing on the pimple of the Elephant's buttocks. The elephant was the near astronomical growth of the Seattle tech sector.

Maybe. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. The laws I mentioned affect the supply and demand.

As a former landlord I had restrictions how quickly I could raise the rent (60 day notice required for >10% increase) that was implemented in 2015. From my perspective, that was a response to rent escalation, not a reason for it. As much as I disdain the Seattle move towards socialism the law changes are well intentioned and a direct result of the economic boom that left anyone not employed in the tech industry chasing those that were.

What you mention is rent control which always ends in a reduction in supply and therefore shortages, which is what we are talking about.

Please tell me you aren't advocating for reduced building standards in a city built on a major earthquake fault line and largely built on trash/silt that liquifies during earthquakes.

I am advocating for right sized building standards in order to provide affordable housing to people who need it.

Are you telling me it is better to have an increase in homelessness than it is to provide affordable housing if that means a change in building codes?

Which artificial barriers are you pointing to?

I am speaking to generalities and theory. I am not an expert on Seattle. I have read an article or two about Seattle and San Francisco.

Your comment about the rent control gives credence to my viewpoint.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I am speaking to generalities and theory. I am not an expert on Seattle. I have read an article or two about Seattle and San Francisco.

I've lived here since 1989 and experienced the tech boom first hand after college at UW.

Your comment about the rent control gives credence to my viewpoint

It was a response to the quick pace of rent growth, not a cause. Do you think the pace of rent inflation only started in 2015? I've been a Seattle landlord since 2002.

What you mention is rent control which always ends in a reduction in supply and therefore shortages, which is what we are talking about.

There are easy ways to get around it. Simply offer 10% increases every 30 days. At best land developers look towards condos vs apartments. I do see many mor condominium/townhomes developments than new apartments. In fact, former apartments are being converted to condominiums. That has as much to do with increasing housing prices than any rental laws.

I am advocating for right sized building standards in order to provide affordable housing to people who need it.

Again, the problem hasn't been building codes with the exception of some density zoning. I'm not sure where the laws landed on micro-apartment buildings. There were a few buildings converted to apartments with units <150ft and shared kitchens.

 

[Monahorns]

It was a response to the quick pace of rent growth, not a cause. Do you think the pace of rent inflation only started in 2015? I've been a Seattle landlord since 2002.

No. But I know that rent control in every case leads to housing shortages and even higher rent for units not under the law. It's one of the only things all economists agree on.