Citizens pack public hearing on proposed Edmonds housing strategy

Attendees at the Edmonds Planning Board meeting watch a detailed presentation of the Housing Task Force’s findings on housing and homelessness in Edmonds.

Edmonds residents expressed a range of diverse and often opposing views during an Edmonds Planning Board public hearing on the new proposed housing strategy developed by the Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force and Berk Consultants.

Kevin Ramsey, the lead Berk consultant, presented the findings  during the Wednesday, June 13 planning board meeting, held before a packed house in the city council chambers. Citizens also had a chance to weigh in on the draft plan at a May 21 open house

According to the report, nearly 6,000 household in Edmonds are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing. These numbers were found in the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. The report explained that there is a disconnect between the cost of housing and the amount that those who work in Edmonds earn. More than half of the jobs in Edmonds generate an income that is less than the area’s median income, and is less than is necessary for average rents.

For this reason, the Edmonds workforce is commuting further and further to work. People who meet less than 50 percent of the area median income, for instance, can’t find any housing that is affordable in Edmonds, the report said. At the same time, the housing that is occupied isn’t necessarily meeting the needs of its occupants.

For example, more than 70 percent of households have two or fewer members, but only 11 percent of housing units have one bedroom or less, the report said. People who can afford their home may not have a home best suited for them, but may not be able to afford a different one, and those who don’t have a home may need the space that a single person occupies.

The strategy put forth by the Berk consultants and the housing strategy task force is meant to address some of the ways the city of Edmonds could house more community members at a price realistic for their income.

The strategy is made up of six concepts: increasing multi-family housing, diversity of housing options, the amount of subsidized housing, reducing homelessness, addressing the needs of an aging population, and protecting low-income tenants. In all of this, “using the land that is available for building on efficiently is very important,” Ramsey said. More details on the strategy can be found here.

When it was time for public comment, many citizens raised concerns about the report, and a few praised it.

Teresa Holland spoke against the proposed housing strategy, saying she doesn’t want Edmonds to become like Seattle.

Some spoke of concerns about the side effects of creating more low-income-oriented housing, such as decreased property values, harm on infrastructure, and possibilities of increased crime. Calling herself and her family “refugees from Seattle,” speaker Teresa Holland cited Seattle as an example of what not to do.  “The homeless situation in Seattle has destroyed Seattle,” she said.

Holland and others shared worries that providing more housing opportunities would bring more homeless to the city of Edmonds. Eric Soll suggested the city look to where the homelessness is, and provide services there, and not in Edmonds.

In response, multiple members of the planning board articulated that they had no intention of housing Seattle’s homeless.

“Edmonds cannot be Seattle, it shouldn’t be Seattle,” said board member Alicia Crank, who said she’d lived in the Bay Area for 16 years and watched a similar issue creep up. “But we’re talking about not people we’re bringing here, we’re talking about our neighbors, people who have lived here for years and decades.”

Audience members applaud a resident’s testimony.

Citizens also were concerned that options proposed in the housing strategy could the harm the city’s infrastructure. Speaker Dennis O’Malley asked if research has been done on the relationship between low-income housing and infrastructure, and if the fire department or police force had been included in developing the proposed plan. This question was fielded later by the Berk consultants, who said the police and fire departments were not involved but can be if the strategy takes next steps.

A few citizens’ concerns were not limited to the content of the strategy. John Reed said he was troubled by what he called the “directive” nature of the report, and asked for more flexibility and opportunities for public input. “I encourage you to take your time,” he said to the council. Michelle Goodman said she was unsure about the data included in the report, adding: “I don’t know that it actually portrays what’s going on in Edmonds.”

Goodman as well as another speaker, Dave Cooper, urged the planning board not to depend exclusively on the work of the consultants. Cooper also said he believed that the strategy presented would not address a problem that can’t be solved. “Some people just can’t afford to live in Edmonds,” he said. “That’s just the way it is.”

Caroline Harris spoke in favor of the housing plan.

Speaking in favor of the strategy, Caroline Harris addressed Edmonds’ values. “An Edmonds kind of day isn’t the kind of day when you don’t think of the least, and those that have less than you,” she said. It is important to act immediately, and “not think of just ourselves, and how rich we’re getting, and the taxes we’re paying,” Harris added.

Speaker Terry Rheule said she was encouraged by the strategy’s use of incentives for developers as a way to promote increased building of affordable housing.

Then it came time for planning board members, who advise the Edmonds City Council on planning and development issues, to make comments and ask questions of the consultant.

Board member Daniel Robles said that “as a foster parent, you would be surprised at why people are homeless.” Robles emphasized that the board is looking to this strategy to provide benefits to those in need. “We’re trying to create resiliency in the community,” he said. “We’re balancing this thing as best we can.”

Board member Phil Lovell echoed this when he spoke. “The purpose of tonight’s meeting was to gain input from you folks,” he said.  Lovell also reaffirmed the purpose of the work that Ramsey and the Berk consulting did, and that it is by no means a concrete plan. The strategy “represents only a menu of ideas to address various housing challenges,” he said.

Board member Alicia Crank addressed the stigma around the vocabulary involved in “affordable housing” plans.  “Subsidized housing does not mean the projects,” she said. “Let’s not pigeonhole a certain group of folks that we’re trying to help with this housing strategy to something that’s inherently negative.”

The planning board’s Carreen Rubenkonig’s had several questions and comments for Ramsey about the presentation. She requested that the report contain real numbers to put percentages in perspective, and that it clarify the distinction between the many labels the report uses, such as “low-income” and “cost-burdened” and “homeless.” She also asked the same question as Dennis O’Malley about infrastructure, to which the consultants replied that more data could be included, again, if further steps are taken to develop this strategy.

Rubenkonig also asked if major employers in the area had expressed concerns about being able to house their employees, and how that factored into the housing crisis. The example of Swedish Edmonds Hospital was raised, and she suggested that more data about companies’ like Swedish stake in the issue be included in the report.

Board member Mike Rosen said he was pleased with the public turnout and participation and passion at the hearing. He said it was a reality that incomes are not keeping up with the price of housing. “It is also real that issues related to homeless are very very complex and you can’t deal with them separately and they filter into all other parts of our lives and we don’t like it,” he said. But Rosen said he can’t ignore the growth that Seattle saw last year — over 1,000 people per week — and the role it played in the housing crisis. “There is no silver bullet…a lot of people are coming,” he said.

Planning Board Vice Chair Matt Cheung

Planning Board Vice-Chair Matt Cheung offered a personal anecdote about his mother, who resides in a home that has needs she can’t meet, and that does not meet her needs. “We have a lot of households that don’t match up with the housing affordability,” he said. Cheung said that the idea of accessory dwelling units (backyard cottages, condos, garage apartments), as proposed in the strategy, would be one type of property that would benefit his mother by subsidizing her income as well as providing another affordable housing unit. He said he liked the point of diversifying housing as an answer to the question, “How do we deal with a changing demographic?”

Planning Board Chair Nathan Monroe noted that nothing in the strategy is final. “Any kind of real, structural change will have to go through another process,” he said.

— Story and photos by Mardy Harding

8 Replies to “Citizens pack public hearing on proposed Edmonds housing strategy”

  1. The housing market is melting hot, ready to crash. This is the second longest period in US history that there hasn’t been a natural business cycle. Both the housing market and the business cycle have been fueled by “interest rates being too low for too long.” This is the lowest “too low” and the longest “too long” in banking history. Seattle is the most inflated market in the nation. Any housing plan should wait for the next business cycle before committing to any new spending, levies or rules.


    1. The Fed cannot taper if foreign buyers don’t buy treasuries. Too much QE has been paid back, and the banks neither have enough excess reserves to buy mortgages back, and they might not want the unwound assets at all if there is any decline in the market (which there is nationally). Who has The appetite for another bank bailout? The Fed owns trillions in Mortgage Securities and trillions in treasuries. This is how the music stops:

      More so than Amazon, low interest rates and foreign buyers have fueled local markets beyond the norm (nationwide relestate has cooled off already). The Fed’s floundering to unwind will result in very high interest rates and a reversal in foreign buyers of both real estate and treasuries. The last time this nearly happened, Belgium saved us.

      Affordable Housing might arrive against our will.


  2. The Police and Fire Departments are an integral part of this process and should be involved from the beginning. Crime enforcement and fire, and aid protection need to be addressed now with future growth here projected.

    Growing future Police and Fire protection to address these needs is extremely important to the community in my opinion. They must be involved early in the process.


  3. I was misquoted in this story. What I said was that “my wife and I are retired, and we pay $1000 a month in property taxes to live in Edmonds. That’s just the way it is.”
    Should we pay $2000 a month in property taxes so someone else can live in Edmonds for free?
    My impression of the meeting, based on the residents who made public comments and the reaction to those comments, is that the majority are opposed to the task force recommendations.


    1. Dave

      My Edmonds News is a valuable resource for this type of information, and are crucial in alerting the normal regular citizens when these types of issues come up. If there was no My Edmonds News- what would be the chances that we would even know of these activities in the first place? The important thing is that the planning board heard the citizens loud and clear, and there is backtracking already.

      Your comments at the hearing were spot on, and Ms. Holland’s and some other remarks were excellent. Now what everyone needs to do is be vigilant and insure that citizens that are concerned that we are heading down the path blazed by Seattle is not followed. I had talked to a number of individuals who were most upset about this process – but did not show up at the meeting. Need even more of those who want to protect Edmonds and the quality of life that we have at the city council meeting – council members are the ones who will ultimately decide this matter. And individuals who are in favor of preventing these types of initiatives must be encouraged to give testimony, even for a minute or two. I understand that some people are afraid to speak in front of crowds – but no one is expecting great Shakespeare oratory, and it is crucial that they provide testimony – just even to read a statement that they are against making Edmonds into another Seattle as far as housing policy goes. It is not like there is enough time to discuss the matter in detail anyway during public comments.

      So I assume we await the recommendations of the planning board to the city council, and see what is included, what is rejected, and what is best for the citizens of Edmonds, rather than the rest of Puget Sound.


  4. Eric and everyone in Edmonds;
    The program that has been presented to the Task Force [using our taxpayer dollars] recommends a series of steps that have been used before and have never worked anywhere at anytime to reduce homelessness, crime, drug addition, garbage accumulation and on and on.
    If it doesn’t work in Seattle or San Francisco, or Los Angels, with their huge budgets and existing infrastructure, what in the world leads anyone to think that it will work in a small town like Edmonds?
    If we residents want to avoid falling down the same black hole as Seattle, there are four easy and simple things everyone needs to do;
    1. Pay attention!!! There is a tremendous amount of news about the homeless problem in Seattle, and the consequences of their polices, almost uniformly disastrous news stories. I read as much news as I can every day, and there are many horror stories out there that did not make the main stream media.
    I just read an article this morning about a woman attacked on the front porch of her home, with serious injuries. She stated in the article that she and some of her neighbors are going to put their homes up for sale.
    2. Get involved!! It doesn’t take much to come to one or more of the meetings. Talk to your family, your friends, your neighbors about the plan to set up homeless programs in Edmonds, using your money. Make your voice heard.
    3. VOTE!!! There is nothing that the City Counsel can pass that we can’t undo. Find out who on the Edmonds CC supports the Task Force recommendations and vote them out office.
    4. And most important, for everyone in Edmonds, trust your own judgment! If some kid fresh out of college with a PhD in “Social Justice and Homeless Shelter Management” gets a $50,000 dollar city contract [with your money, and this is a drop in the bucket for what it will cost in the future] and he tells you that he has a great plan to build a homeless utopia in Edmonds, in your neighborhood, with your money, and by the way there is no contingency plan for more police, for more emergency medical services, for more more hazardous site cleanup, and by the way there is not back up plan or exit strategy if this plan turns into a disaster, well…
    If you hear this and ask yourself “How can this possibility work in Edmonds?”, if this sets off alarm bells in your brain, then I would bet you that there is a 99% chance that you are going to be right and a 99% chance that the highly paid whiz kids with no real world experience in paying taxes, voting for park levies, school levies, and raising families are going to be wrong.
    My wife and I pay $1000 a month in property taxes to live in a house that we designed and built ourselves [so we could afford to live here]. We are retired after 40 years of hard work and we have no interest in paying even more taxes so others can live in Edmonds for free.


    1. Agree totally and wondering why the only comment is “ignore”? Why would I want to ignore and not have an option to like or agree?


      1. The ignore button allows you to ignore a particular commenter — it is temporary and can be reversed at any time. The like/dislike button was removed — to encourage people to actually comment on why they like or don’t like something. This website is not Facebook.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *