More than 200 citizens filled Edmonds City Hall’s Brackett Room Monday evening to hear the latest updates to the city’s draft housing strategy and participate in idea-generating breakout sessions.
The meeting got off to a raucous start, as many attendees expressed a mixture of anger and fear over the issue, interrupting speakers at several times during the formal presentation with shouted questions and comments. Other audience members engaged in heated side conversations, all of which prompted organizers to call in a police presence as a precaution. But order prevailed, and the evening progressed without incident.
Monday’s event was opened by Edmonds Development Services Director Shane Hope, who welcomed the audience and gave a quick overview of the project to date and a timeline for the future.
Appointed by Edmonds Mayor Dave Earling in July 2017, the Housing Strategy Task Force is charged with developing strategies to take on what they group describes as a “housing affordability crisis,” with a plan tailored to the specifics of the Edmonds community.
“Many groups around the region are working on housing and homelessness issues,” noted Earling as he announced the appointments in 2017. “We need our own approach, one that recognizes good examples from others but is tailored to our community, our people, our needs.”
Following requirements of the State of Washington’s Growth Management Act, Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan calls for the city to develop a housing strategy by 2019, and the current effort is on track to meet this goal.
The Housing Strategy Task Force has been meeting regularly, and has retained the services of Berk Consulting to assist in developing a plan. The first draft was presented at an open house in May.
“After the first public meeting in May, we revised the draft plan based the input received there and subsequently from the (Edmonds) Planning Board,” Hope explained. “It was presented to council in July, where it became clear that more dialogue with the public and others was needed.”
Hope then explained that Monday’s update presentation would be followed by breakout sessions “designed to facilitate this dialogue and provide additional input for the next revision of the plan. We hope to have it ready to present to council this fall, and get the go-ahead begin the process of implementation in 2019,” she said.
Hope stressed that the housing strategy is just that — a strategy that provides a set of guidelines, recommendations and directions to address Edmonds’ current housing affordability crisis. It’s not a set of actions to take, but rather a framework that provides direction for developing and implementing actions. These actions will involve such things as zoning changes, code revisions and Council actions, all of which require hearings, involvement and input from the public and others. “We’re talking years to get this on the ground,” she said.
Hope then turned the program over to Kevin Ramsey of Berk Consulting, who provided a quick overview of the latest (July 2018) version of the housing strategy.
Ramsey began by reiterating the priority objectives of the plan:
- Encourage the development of multifamily housing
- Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle”
- Support the needs of an aging population
- Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable housing
- Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness
- Provide protections for low-income tenants
He then went on to review the key concept of what it means to be “cost burdened” by housing expense, explaining those spending 30 percent of their income on housing are cost burdened, while those spending more than 50 percent are severely cost burdened. He then reported findings that under these definitions, 6,000 households — or 30 percent — of Edmonds’ population is cost burdened.
“Many income levels are struggling to meet housing costs,” he explained. “Housing costs have been going up faster than wages, resulting in a widening gap between incomes and housing costs.”
Citing the example of a home heath care worker making $26,000 per year, he explained that an affordable rent would be $840 a month, but that the average rent for a studio apartment in Edmonds is in excess of $1,000/month.
Addressing some of the gut-level issues directly, Ramsey touched on questions of whether the strategy would be financed through increased taxes, whether bringing low-income populations into Edmonds would increase crime, whether providing affordable housing would attract more homeless to Edmonds, and the potential impacts on parking, traffic, green space, school crowding and views.
Regarding taxes, he explained that the strategy includes no recommendations for additional taxes, but rather suggests exploring incentives to developers that could result in additional tax revenues.
On the fears of increased crime, he cited studies showing no association between crime rates and the presence of income-restricted housing, and one study that actually showed reduced crime rates.
With regard to impacts on parking, traffic and related issues, he explained that the plan calls for full evaluation of these impacts including public input before any actions are taken on any aspect of plan implementation.
Lastly, on the question of whether this strategy will attract more homeless to Edmonds, he cited studies revealing that most homeless people remain in the city in which they became homeless, and that homeless individuals who do move typically do so in search of work or to be closer to family.
For more detail on this information and more, see Ramsey’s PowerPoint presentation here.
At this point, the group was assigned to one of five breakout sessions designed to spark targeted input and generate ideas for incorporation into the next iteration of the draft plan.
Designed as problem-solving exercises, the breakout groups were presented with several hypothetical situations of a person or family in a housing crisis and asked to come up with ideas to solve it.
One involved an elementary teacher making $62,000 a year with two kids, a husband with health issues, and a student loan burden. Another was a single home health worker making $26,000 a year and living alone. Others included a senior living on Social Security, a military family where the husband is transitioning to become a firefighter, and a single parent working as a receptionist.
For each scenario, groups answered questions about the value of retaining this kind of household in Edmonds, what our community would lose if they could not live here, what kind of housing options might work for them, and how else might the city help this kind of resident to find a home in Edmonds.
This exercise not only helped make the housing crisis personal, it allowed participants a glimpse of what many members of our community face every day. The responses were creative and sensitive, and generated valuable input for revising the draft plan. All answers were recorded and collected by the consultant.
City Councilmember Neil Tibbott was present at the session, and was clearly energized by the input generated.
“We got some great ideas tonight,” he said. “This public dialogue is exactly what we need to fill in the gaps in the draft housing strategy.”
Learn more at the Edmonds Housing Strategy website.
— Story and photos by Larry Vogel
As I pointed out at the meeting last night (I was present), the “Open House Presentation” pdf material on the City of Edmonds website was NOT UPDATED and WAS NOT the same presented last night. When I questioned Berk consultant Kevin Ramsey he seemed unaware. No next logical person I spoke with was Development Director Shane Hope and her answer was, that after three weeks of preparation for the Open House…they didn’t have it ready for the website and “that it would come later”. She literally shrugged her shoulders at me as an explanation. ??? Later and after the presentation doesn’t matter!
When a citizen shows up as I did, staying current on all issues pertaining to the event (Housing Strategy & the Open House) , by going & using the City of Edmonds website to do so only to find that the staff has not full filled their job and obligation is not acceptable.
FYI- I sure didn’t notice any “fear” from the attendees last night but their sure was frustration. You can start with what I noted above.
And no, the draft plan has not been revised since May, being almost entirely the same as it was in May. Last night was another rehash of the same thing, different day. Shane Hope is NOT listening to the citizens of Edmonds.
I was at the meeting and there was much more opposition to the plan than this story would indicate.
7 out of the 9 housing task force members are from the low income/homeless industry who want to turn Edmonds into a smaller version of Seattle or San Francisco. Naturaly there were Edmonds residents there who disagreed with this.
My wife and I have attended 5 or 6 of these meetings and have appalled at the process. At every meeting the people opposed have grown in number. As a result, and based on our personal experience in Seattle, we are dead set against this plan.
At the very least I would like to see it put to a vote so all citizens in Edmonds can be heard.
Also, I did not see any reason at all for a police presence, unless it was an attempt by the city to stifle any resistence to their plan.
Quote from the article:
“We hope to have it ready to present to council this fall, and get the go-ahead begin the process of implementation in 2019,” she said.”
Is there any doubt that the city plans to ram this through despite any concerns by Edmonds residents? Or a general feeling that the city is running a dog and pony show before rubber stamping a radical redesign of Edmonds?
I got a very nice call from the Edmonds Police Chief about the police response to the meeting. He explained to me that the mayor called in an informal way and asked if there were any officers available to stop by, so an officer was sent over. Since it was an informal request there was no log made of the action taken.
So, as I understand it, the mayor is the caller who felt so concerned Edmonds residents were about to get out of control about challenging the radical redevelopment of Edmonds drawn up by his hand picked group of advocates.
It would have been more professional and saved a lot of grief to have included real Edmonds taxpayers and residents in the beginning instead of stacking the Task Force with vested interests.
Really disappointed that I missed this last night. Would love someone (or two) to share what happened. Thanks! Love the dialogues on this site.
In a couple of years we might see:
1. a levy on home owners to subsidize affordable housing
2. needle exchange in the Bowl
3. RV and tent cities in the Bowl
4. safe injection sites in the Bowl
5. used syringes by the curb, library, city hall, etc..in the Bowl
The ‘affordable housing’ cabal is trying to make Edmonds (and the Bowl) a magnet for problems that exist in Seattle, but don’t exist (not yet) in the Bowl.
There is a need, but Social Engineering is not the way to address it.
Bullseye! You see what’s coming if the hard-core “progressives” get their way.
Larry at MEN can you please tell me how you got Kevin Ramsey of Berk Consultings Power Point presentation.
It is still NOT on the City of Edmonds website.
Good Reporting, Larry. The sound system (or lack there of) caused lots commotion at first. I went to about three different groups and heard lots of comments and ideas such as how do we mesh this proposed draft policy with other quality of life issues like tree canopy or open spaces.
I truly think the timeline was a bit ambitious.
No subsidized housing equals less crime, lower taxes, and less litter…just vote NO on ALL subsidies and we get a better quality of life. I know…I left Seattle because Seattle was attracting homeless drug addicts from all over, who ruined the quality of life there.
Thank you Larry for the descriptive summary. It was almost like I was there.
Let’s continue the online discussion once we have details from the breakout sessions. There is much public interest on this important housing strategy.
My breakout group was very enthusiastic about the plan, especially excited about the opportunity for accessory dwelling units; much taller development where views are not blocked that includes apartments as small as 400 sq. ft.; and every-ten-minute small buses allowing everyone to get to gateway and Aurora. This is the right way to go.
I heard nothing about small buses every ten minutes in Edmonds. They don’t exist yet in Edmonds and after going to over to multiple meetings on this “Housing Strategy” this sounds like a”bait & switch” technique to get people to go along with the”program”. Don’t hold your breath.
Also, I have a name for a 400sq foot box. A prison cell.
That is what it will feel like in no time.
I can tell that you were not in the same breakout group. What were your breakout group’s solutions? By the way, they are called “apodments”. You can read about them on the web.
In the United States, prison cells are usually about 6 by 8 feet in dimension, with steel or brick walls and one solid or barred door that locks from the outside. Many modern prison cells are pre-cast. So about 48sq.
It’s important to get government out of the way as much as possible. If developers want to create apartment houses with tiny apartments and people want to rent them, why get in their way? Maybe you would feel as if you were in a prison cell, but who cares? You’re not renting them. Let people do what they want to do.
Or, perhaps, let people decide what kind of a town they want to live in?
Because these poverty pumps are getting wealthy off the backs of the homeless. These blockables cost $285 a square foot!! There are better solutions!!
I meant poverty pimps
On August 27th there was a Forum to present and discuss the Edmonds Draft Housing strategy. However, the meeting was carefully engineered so the Task Force could report to the city council that the citizens of Edmonds largely support the conclusions and recommendations of the consultants and Task Force. Unfortunately that conclusion is not valid because we never had a chance to discuss the proposal.
Shawn Hope opened the meeting and introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting who presented his findings. The audience, myself included, assumed that after the presentation, there would be an opportunity to discuss the details and suggestions of Berk Consulting. But this never happened! We were never given an opportunity to have an open discussion or debate.
After Mr. Ramsey’s presentation the audience was divided into smaller groups with were then further broken into even smaller groups of 2 to 3 or 4. The groups were given case scenarios about nice people who would obviously be great neighbors. They all wanted to live in Edmonds but didn’t have the income or resources. We were also given questions about these scenarios but the answers could only produce one conclusion; that people who wanted to live in Edmonds, should be given low cost housing so they could live in Edmonds. And the Edmonds taxpayers should pay for it (details were omitted). We also were not given the opportunity to discuss the costs and tax concerns which were glossed over or ignored as were the issues of crime, narcotics, filth and alcoholism (as seen in Seattle).
Moreover, Mr. Ramsey’s facts were often slanted, framed or only partially true. The most egregious was the statement that 70% of homelessness was a result of poverty (it seems that “a study” has shown this). However mostl other studies show that the majority of chronic homelessness is caused by alcoholism, addiction and mental illness. In addition, the statistics about the income levels of Edmonds residents largely misrepresented the facts because they ignored supplementary federal and state income such as social security, the earned-income tax credits, SNAP and others. Were pensions or investment income included? We didn’t have a chance to ask.
In short, we heard and discussed what the Task Force wanted us to hear and discuss but not the very real concerns of the citizens. They got the predetermined result they were paying for but it wasn’t the truth. They didn’t seem to care about the opinions and valid concerns of the citizens of Edmonds. The final result could be one we will regret for many years.
Quoting from the article:
“Other audience members engaged in heated side conversations, all of which prompted organizers to call in a police presence as a precaution.”
I was flabbergasted to hear that the city had called the police to come to a public meeting attended by a group of 60 to 80 years Edmonds residents who were concerned about a radical redevelopment of our city.
I was so stunned that I went down to the Edmonds Police Dept. to request more information as to who felt so threatened by citizens asking questions that they called for a police presence.
Quoting from the reply sent to me by the EPD:
Hello,
I am in receipt of your request received 8/28/18. I have searched the database and found no documents responsive to your request.
Sincerely,
Mindy Broman
Public Disclosure Specialist
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
425.771.0200 Office
425.771.0208 Fax
So the article says the city called for the police, but the police deny it.
Seems a little curious to me. I would love to hear back from the city with more information.
Why do I get the impression that anyone opposed to this new housing plan for Edmonds is going to face an steep uphill battle just to be heard, let alone have any input?
My wife and I designed and built one of the very first “apodments” in Seattle, beginning construction in 2008 and with the first building completed in 2009. We built a total of 6 buildings and 55 dwelling units.
Our intention was to provide affordable housing for grad students and newly graduated college kids who needed a less raucous environment than the U District. I knew what it was like to be poor and looking for an affordable place to live while starting my working career after college.
It was a tremendous success. All units were rented before completion, and remember this was in the middle of the Great Recession. We always had 99% occupancy.
But after we were notified that the property was going to be acquired by Sound Transit thru eminent domain for the new light rail line, we decided that we would try and help with the homeless crisis in Seattle by working with Compass Housing and many other organizations by making our apartments available to low/no income residents.
We took lower than market rate rents in order to help.
The project, which we self managed from 2009 to 2017, went from a big success for young working people to a total disaster in just two years. The organizations which had made such rosy promises to us in the beginning walked away from the many problems that surfaced later. We ended up with ex-felons [unrepentant], drug dealers [carrying guns!], drive by drug buyers, theft, vandalism, assaults, tenants who refused to follow any rules and flouted the law, all of which drove our hard-working law abiding tenants out of their homes.
It was a nightmare. If Edmonds chooses to go down the same path as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles they should expect the same results.
And after having lived through this once before, we have decided that we would move to Anacortes or Bellingham rather than live through it again.
Thank you for sharing your first-hand experiences.
To Alex & Allen,
No offense meant (personally) by saying “prison cell”. Didn’t mean to strike a nerve. Just saying 400 sa feet is very small and claustrophobic. Measure it out in any configuration you like. The walls will close in on you.
But “It’s important to get government out of the way as much as possible” and let developers do what they want with very little to “no guard rails”. Really?
What you get trusting developers to do the”right thing” is a nine unit apartment with no parking:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2018/08/edmonds-street-apartment-project-with-no-on-site-parking-prompts-city-moratorium/.
And don’t tell be there is a morartorium now. The Development Director assured us this would never happen…but it did and with her “over site” and it will again if it means getting the”Housing Strategy” she wants.
In my opinion any scenario can be created to illustrate unaffordability in any area especially Edmonds. If one exams the teacher scenario it is very hard to relate for some. With new improved pay structures a teacher will make 114K upon reaching 15 years. Some teachers already enjoy nice homes in Edmonds. Yes, teachers are valued and at the same time we need to be realistic as well.
Please keep in mind the needs and thoughts of all residents not just passing a housing strategy. Many have worked hard to be here and continue to work hard to stay.
Just to add a little perspective on the 114K upon reaching 15 years – that is only reached if the teacher has earned a Master’s and then continued his/her education and added 90 more credit hours. The salary schedules haven’t been released (or at least I haven’t found them), but previously a teacher with a BS/BA at the top of the schedule is 40K less than then the MA +90. Don’t get me wrong – these are wonderful raises for our teachers, but not all the teachers will earn 6 figure salaries.
To add a little perspective is good, so lets remember that in addition to salary pay includes generous benefits such as health and other insurances,retirement contributions,sick/family leave,some education reimbursements and of course the most amount of days of vacation for length of service of any Public position. Not bad for Government work!
During the last levy the school district provided some teacher pay data. Average pay was $77,000 and the state was paying $70.000. The difference was paid out of local levies. The latest contract stated raises of 13% to 19% but gave no details of the average pay increase. Assuming the average increase is 16% that would make the new average pay up about $12,000 or to a new average of $89,000. I have asked the district for data that would help us understand if the state will not pay more than the previous pay of $70,000. Highly unlikely the state will pay the full average so the difference between the contracted pay and the state payment will have to come from local levies. Any new local will be limited to about $2500 per student.
What school district is this? I have family members and friends, with MBA’s who are only making $45-$65k that is even includes a neighbor who is only making $68k as a prof at Edmonds CC.
I’ve a child who works in healthcare and it took 2 degrees just to make $36k a year. These are the people who live in my area of Edmonds. they live in 1-2 bedroom condos they purchased for $100k – $275, which means they are paying less that $2K a month for rent/mortgage. So this can be done but NOT in the core of Edmonds.
More research needs to be done on what is happening in many areas of Edmonds; what are the options, costs and alternatives. Edmonds use to be a town where there were more seniors (in the core) and not many children. So what is the current census on people, housing, type of workers, etc. then look at what we can logically do to solve problems. I’m not seeing the housing, homeless, services issues and crime problem that has been here all my life. What I do see is new large homes (mega-mansions), condo-homes crammed into land where a medium size mid-century used to be. These are not homes that the teachers, healthcare work, services work can afford to purchase in our town. Even the 1950 mid-century are going for the high $600K-$1mil. This is not sustainable.
Think people, what are we really trying to accomplish that has not try in the last 100 years?
Not bad for 8.5 months a year!!
A 400 square foot unit would be ample for 1 or 2 people, and a little larger for a family.
The goals of affordable housing should be…
1) Safety.
2) Cleanliness (i.e. no roaches, rats, etc.).
3) Sound, quality structure in good condition.
4) Practical location – a reasonable walk to public transit and basic shopping (groceries).
5) Reasonable comfort but not luxury.
Affordable units should have practical, efficient appliance, fixtures and features.
It would be unethical for affordable housing to be on par with market rate housing. Affordable housing should not have granite counters, luxury faucets, etc. Basic refrigerators and stoves unless volume buying dictated otherwise.
Now if people want a market rate unit, there are some options.
1) Upgrade their job skills and find higher paying work.
2) Take on additional work or a second job.
3) Reallocate one’s budget. I.e. I will drop cable to be able to have a nice place.
4) Hate to say this, but give up smoking, expensive coffee drinks and other vices.
5) Advance one’s education. No bad ever comes of this!
6) Relocate to an area where their money will go further.
I worked two jobs for 25 years, until I had a stroke, to be able to afford to live in Edmonds. I was 50 years old. Not 22 years old and fresh out of college.
I don’t understand why someone who wants to live in Edmonds but can’t afford it thinks that they have the right to be given my money, through subsidies or forgone tax revenue, to live here. Why not follow the common sense suggestions listed above if you want to live in Edmonds?
After all, I am 63 years old, a stroke survivor, and retired while they young, healthy, and are still working.
Maybe someone on the Mayor’s hand picked Homeless Industry Task Force can explain that to us senior citizens?
John, your two lists are pretty good for starters. The walkable shopping and public transportation items limits the locations where we can accomplish this in Edmonds. Westgate, Safeway, 5 Corners, Firdale, and south in the bowl near 5th and Walnut have some shopping. Public transportation is sparse in those areas except Safeway. In the past each time one of these areas discussed for some from of development folks flock to the sessions and are often not very supportive of the zoning changes needed to offer some added less than market rate housing.
What we may want to do is put on our thinking caps and figure out What’s the Problem(s) we are Trying to Solve (WPTS). Below market rate is not affordable to all unless we can find land to use that is much cheaper than what is typical for Edmonds. An idea will be offered at the end.
The second list of options for obtaining market rate housing is also pretty good and many who currently live in Edmonds have done some or several of these options. Locating to where your money goes further is really the only short term option that can help. This is why lower paid people who work in Edmonds live in lower cost areas away form town.
Emerging technologies like self driving shuttles could pay a role to provide shuttle service from larger groups of housing to shopping and other transportation options. Even some form of driver based shuttles could work if the density if large enough. Done correctly it could be one of those added jobs for folks who need a little extra income!
So here is an idea to consider. The Ferry system will be presenting its long range plan next week. Likely they will not have a short term plan for the 22 acres and the Union Oil site. They do not have the money to the big plan for moving the docks to that location. Also I recall that there is a new state law allowing the state to give away or sell at below market rate land then is not being used. If we were to consider some housing strategy that uses this property even for a short time like 10 to 20 years (that could be what the Ferry system says about the future use of this property), we could put together all sorts of ideas for housing given the cost of land zero or very low. We just need to do some creative thinking on how we could use this public land for the public good! Given a good shuttle system, driver or self driving we could even provide a great deal of parking and shuttle people to town for shopping and working.
Let’s just do some creative thinking about WPTS and see what we can come up with.
Dave, during one of the last AH Task Force sessions their was an open discussion on how best to “sell” these ideas to the citizens of Edmonds. The discussion when something like this: 1. Older retired people have a big clout on Edmonds politics. 2. People generally read only the top 3 points in a report. 3. The draft report at that time had the “address senior housing” way down the list. 4. Lets move senior housing to number 3 on the list.
So their idea was to show support for seniors by moving it up on the list. Maybe they should have made it number one and worry less about how a food server working should be able to live near their job in Edmonds.
I wish your common sense was contagious!
Elizabeth, thanks for your comment. Common sense is often missing in our public dialog. One of the best ways to look at issues is really easy and can work for us all is to follow this set of thinking to discuss and solve issues.
1. Start with “What’s the Problem(s) we are trying to solve.
2. Identify Stakeholders who should participate.
3. Identify potential solutions. (with out an agenda behind the solution)
4. Identify costs/benefits/risks for various solutions.
5. Identify was to measure success.
6. Always try to improve outcome through monitoring and adjusting.
If we used this kind of model to our thinking we would come up with far better solutions than what sometimes happens today. What happens all to often is we all bring an agenda to the table with often prevents us from thinking through the issues in an disciplined way.
When I was a teacher in Oregon I had a generous health plan, even some payment for legal help.
I also became part of PERS, Public Employes Retirement Service, which continues to this day.
It was worth $15,000 a year at least and was untaxed. Does anyone know what the city/county/state pays in benefits to our teachers? I think this information should be included in any talk about teacher pay.
Barbara, the benefit question is a great one for benefits are a large portion of one “income”. One rule of thumb I have often heard about all employment is a good benefit package adds about 30% more to the pay numbers. For teachers that may well now be near $25,000/year.
Teachers are only one part of the public employee equations and sometimes the numbers for public employees are had to find because they are in local and state budgets and hard to get the full data.
It would be nice if the budgets for government were displayed in a way for folks to more fully understand the full cost for government provided services like education and others.