The latest installment of Issues that Matter, Sno-Isle Library’s series of community discussions on key issues and challenges facing local communities, got underway Monday evening with a well-attended forum and panel discussion addressing the issues of housing and homelessness.
Moderated by journalist Teresa Wippel, publisher of My Edmonds News, Lynnwood Todayand MLTnews, the event included a three-person panel comprising Mindy Woods, an affordable housing advocate at the local and state levels; Karin Ellis with Konè Consulting, which conducted a study on homelessness in Edmonds; and Aaron Holm, co-CEO of Blokable, which develops modular housing units, some of which are planned for the property adjacent to Edmonds Lutheran Church.
After welcoming attendees and recognizing several elected and other officials in the audience, Wippel went on to introduce the topic and provide rationale for the evening’s discussion.
“We’re here tonight to talk about housing,” she began. “Those who have a home, those who are at risk of losing a home, and those who don’t have a home. This issue is complicated and becomes very personal when it affects you directly. Edmonds is becoming an increasingly expensive place to live, and housing costs have contributed significantly to this. As property taxes increase, senior become particularly vulnerable. We won’t solve these issues tonight, but it’s important to understand and talk about them. That’s why we’re here.”
Audience members each received an index card to submit questions for the panel to address, which Wippel grouped by topic and most commonly asked in the interest of hitting major areas of concern. She did note that several questions tat were submitted couldn’t be asked because they were outside the panel’s area of expertise.
Panelists then introduced themselves and responded to the first question about common misconceptions of homelessness.
First up was Edmonds resident Mindy Woods, who stressed that no one is immune to homelessness.
“It can happen to anyone,” she said. “It can be triggered by an unexpected bill, a death in the family, identity theft, job loss and a host of other things. No one is immune. There is a big misconception out there that some people want to be homeless. This is simply not the case.”
Panelist Karin Ellis talked about the numbers of homeless in Edmonds who were identified in their report to the City of Edmonds.
“Data from our study reveals 230 homeless in Edmonds as of December, 2018,” she said. “Since then, the rising cost of housing and stagnant wages have undoubtedly exacerbated this. The good news is that this relatively low number of homeless means Edmonds has the opportunity to get ahead of this issue before it grows into a much bigger problem.”
Aaron Holm of Blokable talked about his company’s efforts to address the root causes of the lack of affordable housing.
“It comes down to supply and cost,” he explained. “Right now there’s a big gap between the amount of affordable housing available and the amount required. This gap is a function of the cost of building that housing. We’re focused on driving down the cost of development, which will in turn make more affordable housing available.”
The next question was directed at possible risks involved with placing affordable housing in neighborhood settings and introducing a population of newcomers with drug, crime and mental health issues.
Holm responded that the units Blokable builds provide high quality housing that brings dignity to the occupants. “We believe that by giving folks a quality place to live, they will be less likely to resort to crime and that our units, largely because of their quality, will raise values in the neighborhood,” he said.
Karin Ellis pointed out that folks who are experiencing homelessness and attendant substance abuse and mental health issues are more often the victims of crime than the perpetrators, and that a safe and stable place to live reduces the incidence of these problems.
Mindy Woods added that increasing affordable housing and bringing in people with a diversity of income levels makes a stronger community overall.
Holm then walked the audience through a PowerPoint show illustrating how lack of affordable housing supply actually drives up costs. His key concept is that by lowering costs, a “virtuous cycle” is created whereby equity can be built and new ownership options created.
In her presentation, Ellis provided an overview of the study done by her firm on homelessness in Edmonds.
“Our first phase was mainly qualitative research where we talked with many people and looked at best practices used in other localities,” she explained. “With a baseline thus established, we next embarked on collecting quantitative data from Edmonds. It’s tough to collect data on homeless people; they’re often transient and under the radar.”
She went on to explain the protocols of Snohomish County’s ‘Point In Time’ count conducted in late January, where workers scoured the city between 2 and 4 a.m. counting and talking to homeless people. When these results were combined with data from DSHS on numbers seeking food and cash assistance, the results revealed 230 homeless individuals in Edmonds who were living unsheltered, car camping or temporarily living with someone else (for example, couch surfing).
“We found most of the homeless come from within the county and are not outsiders,” Ellis explained. “Eighty percent are working age adults, and people of color are disproportionately impacted. Many fall into the category of ‘hidden homeless’ because they are living in cars or couch surfing, and are less visible than those living on the streets.”
When asked how they became homeless, the most frequent response from those interviewed was family crisis such as death or divorce, followed by increasing cost of living forcing a choice between food and rent.
Her study also revealed that compared to other cities, Edmonds does not funding or staff dedicated to human services.
“Edmonds now has the opportunity to get ahead of this issue,” she said. “We have the chance to address it now and keep it from becoming the big problem it has become for some of our neighboring cities.”
The most effective thing the city can do, Ellis said, is work to keep people in their existing homes so they don’t become homeless in the first place.
Mindy Woods then took over, telling her personal story of how she became homeless and her journey through the jungle of bureaucracy to connect with housing. It began with having to leave her residence due to an infestation of black mold, which landed her son in Children’s Hospital, and included endless hours on the phone trying to connect with services to help find housing.
Finally, after many months of couch surfing, being forced by economics to live separately from her son, and her Section 8 housing voucher due to expire in a matter of hours, she at last connected with a landlord who could provide her a place to live.
“The big take-home lesson from this is that our (the community’s) resources are simply tapped out,” she said. “When you’re low income and need a landlord who accepts Section 8 housing vouchers, you’re in an impossible situation. There’s just nothing out there.”
The next question posed to the panel asked why affordable housing can’t go somewhere other than established communities where it introduces the risk of crime and other social ills, to which Woods responded with her own question: “Why should I have to live somewhere else just because I’ve fallen on hard times? My church is here, my medical care is here, my friends are here. Just because I make less money doesn’t mean I’m ruinous to the community.”
Subsequent questions explored what the community can do to help, what might be the effects on taxpayers if the city were to provide more of these services, and what options might be available for those whose income is too high to qualify for assistance, but too low to afford our increasing housing costs.
Despite ground rules designed to keep the event respectful, at one point during the discussions a person identifying himself only as resident of Seattle’s Licton Springs neighborhood disrupted the meeting with comments about how low-income housing has attracted drug use and prostitution. He forced his way to the front of the room and attempted to present photos and other documenting material to the panel, at which point he was escorted out by library staff and Edmonds Police Chief Al Compaan, who happened to be in attendance.
At the end of the meeting, Wippel welcomed audience members to an open mic session so they could make direct comments.
Dave Cooper of Edmonds said he was concerned that the panel showed no diversity of opinion, and hence presented a one-sided version of the issue. “If you really want community involvement, include people with different points of view, not a monolithic panel that’s all of one mind,” he said.
Another audience member pointed to the finding of 230 homeless in Edmonds, and asked that how, in a city of 40,000, this number represents a crisis.
In response, Karin Ellis pointed out that her role was to report the numbers, not to decide on actions, but adding that “for someone experiencing homelessness, it’s a crisis.”
Other comments pointed to strategies like traditional boarding houses, and the “housing first” model being used successfully in Rhode Island, where it is being found that simply placing people in quality housing and providing stability addresses many of the social problems like crime and drug abuse.
The session ended with Wippel reminding the audience of upcoming opportunities to further discuss the issue. One of these will be the Edmonds Citizens’ Housing Commission, which is being formed specifically –with representation from across the city — to develop housing policy recommendations to the city council.
Monday night’s session is available for viewing on the SnoIsle Facebook page here.
— By Larry Vogel
I am not against affordable housing, I am against Seattle-based Compass Housing Alliance putting their first housing units in Snohomish county on the Edmonds Lutheran Church property. According to their 990 tax forms, they house mostly people with 50% ami (average median income) or less – meaning it could be no income at all. The use the housing first model, so the person can have alcohol and drug addiction, mental instability and be allowed to use drugs as long as it’s not in the common areas of the units. (they can use drugs in their unit and in the neighborhood). They do not have to get treatment in order to have a unit. This is enabling the drug user – not helping. The tenants can have prior felonies as well.
I had a meeting with the pastor of Edmonds Lutheran Church. He said he didn’t know about this. He wouldn’t allow his own child to attend their daycare if that was the case. But he is still trying to move forward with this. I said to him I would be on board with the Blokable units if it was for senior housing.
I moved out of Seattle because there was a house a block away that housed people with mental instability. They were building another house on their back lot that would be on the same block as my house. I moved because I couldn’t raise my 3 year old and newborn in that environment – it wasn’t safe. There was public sex acts during the day, urinating on the street, and the last event made us put up the for sale sign. A man walked into my neighbor’s house and refused to leave. He just stood there in her kitchen next to her block of knives. She had to lock herself in the bathroom and call 911. They took him out in a straight jacket on a stretcher.
Edmonds residents, if you do not want this type of housing in Edmonds please make your feelings known. Attend council meetings so we can find better solutions to affordable housing.
All very good points, not one of which was addressed by the panel.
My wife and I attended this “community discussion” [although there was very- very-very little community discussion and a lot of lecturing] and I am very curious to hear what other people thought of the presentation.
I have a lot to say about it but I would like to hear other opinions first.
I did talk to one man who left early because, as he told me on the way out, “I can only stand so much bullshit before I have to leave” [his words, not mine].
I know that there were some who felt it came off very well.
Yes make then SENIOR housing only, no addictions.
I would like to point out, as a matter of record, that there were three members of the panel, and 8 organizations listed on the back of the program, all in involved in the pro homeless housing industry, and not one single individual or organization representing the Edmonds homeowners and taxpayers. I don’t understand why this would be presented as a “community discussion”.
I would also like point out that two of the member of the panel represent for-profit companies.
I urge everyone to visit the Kone Consulting website and check out their clients and fees.
https://koneconsulting.com/express/
wish I could have been in town. I want to go to another. There definitely needs to be other people on this panel besides those of PRO addicts, mentally unstable, profit making housing, etc. this obviously was pushing a specific agenda. (I say that because if it was unbiased they would have included a couple of people not for this type of housing.) what can happen with these types of communities? What happens to the communities that surround these box houses? What happens to their home values? I would not buy a property if I knew that there was a camp there, close by. Isn’t this exactly what this is? Instead of tents..square house? Again, I want to live on Hawaii but I can’t affords it. Most people need to move to an area they can afford. I look at many in other cultures living here. They have 2 jobs. When I was young I had 2 jobs. I wanted to live in a specific area and my parents raised me to work to get there.
I sold my house in North Seattle (Maple Leaf) and moved to Edmonds one year ago largely because homeless people had made North Seattle unliveable. They were dropping needles and trash, breaking into cars and houses, and attacking people. They even put used drug needles (point up) in the walkways at the nearby Seattle Library, hoping to injure people with them. Unemployment is the lowest it’s been since 1969. Most homeless people nowadays are hard drug addicts who refuse treatment and commit crimes. If we attract these people to Edmonds, they will ruin Edmonds. They will go wherever they can get free stuff. It would be unwise to attract them to Edmonds. PS – the value of my old house has dropped dramatically according to Redfin. Homeless people reduce our property values. That isn’t good for us.
Build it and they will come…
On the flip side….
Watch out folks, that meeting sounded like a railroad setup. Soory but there’s some serious layered questions that should be asked about how folks got into those situations.
Fear of addiction, crime, etc. Get real Edmonds, addicts walk amongst us daily! Addicts don’t wear badges identifying them as such, they are bankers, educators, lawyers, students, wives, husbands, sons and daughters. Empathy and compassion is the beginning point of a conversation
“Empathy and compassion is the beginning point of a conversation”
I am afraid I am going to have disagree with you. Solving problems demands logic, reason, and a knowledge of facts.
For example, if you were going to drive across a bridge, fly in an airplane, or stay in a high rise hotel, would you prefer a designer who was empathic and compassionate or one who was a structual engineer?
Empahy and compassion without any logic and reason are what’s killing Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and if we folow their path we will kill Edmonds too.
You speak the truth. Thank u.
What I missed reading in this report was any discussion of how are we to address the housing situation while not engaging in enabling behaviors of any kind?
To those who weren’t represented re. Housing
Dave Cooper – you are right that ur side wasn’t
represented . My suggestion is you choose a panel and location and host a meeting and I will listen quietly without interrupting your side.
Carolynne Harris
I don’t know if you noticed but my wife and I sat quietly by for 85 minutes while listening to what was billed as a “community discussion” on housing and instead turned out to be an infomercial for the Homeless Industrial Complex. Using, I might add, a taxpayer financed building and library staff paid for by the taxpayers.
Why are you so afraid of opposing viewpoints, especially from Edmonds taxpayers and residents?
I agree that the man who intruded was incorrect and I notice that you had the Edmonds police, at taxpayer expense, standing by to forciably remove him.
I only asked a question after being recognized and handed a microphone.
And the answer I got was a song and dance about how there wasn’t enough room or time for any other viewpoints than the one being presented.
Why not be honest about your meeting and tell everyone in advance that this is a panel of special interests and that no dissent will be tolerated?
I would suggest inviting a broad range of actual homeless people to come to one of these forums to talk. And conveniently, just across the county line, Calvin Presbyterian in Shoreline is again hosting a homeless community on their property. How about bringing some of those people in to talk about what they need and hope for? I have complete compassion for the mom who was at this meeting, talking about the exhaustive expenses of caring for a sick child. But I also know that circumstances comparable to hers are not the leading reasons for homelessness. Lumping them all together does not make sense, if we really are wanting to fix the blanket problem of homelessness.
There is a fine line between helping people and enabling destructive (to the individual and the society as a whole) behavior. I can see both sides of this discussion and have great sympathy for both viewpoints. I started out seeing this only from the perspective of the homeless and borderline homeless people, but have come to realize that one person’s solution, is often another person’s harm. When to help and when not to help, has been the dilemma for all charitable organizations since charity became a human concept. Sometimes when to help is obvious but more often it is a matter of guess work and hoping that something worthwhile is being accomplished.
All I know for sure, is that what we are doing now in the area of affordable housing and homelessness is not working most places in America; certainly not in the greater Seattle area of which we are a part. I also know that many of the people living in cars, on the streets and begging for money on busy street corners are addicted and/or mentally ill and self treating their illnesses. I think figuring out a humane way to help them is really the only way to help ourselves to continue to have a decent society to live in. The punitive, lock ’em up model has not worked. The cops and robbers approach to drug related crime has not worked. The emergency room and back on the street approach has not worked. We need well run and humane drug and alcohol rehab. facilities and real mental illness treatment facilities throughout the country (jails don’t rehabilitate, they just perpetuate). It’s a national, not a local problem to solve. This will cost society at large money, lots of money, which I suspect we won’t be willing to spend. The people in our society that have the lion’s share of the wealth, simply want more and more of the wealth, to the point where one of the richest among us wants to start his own political party to run the country based on his business model. This to prevent the evils of Socialism, whatever that means. I have no answers, only questions.
Clinton, thank for a well thought out presentation of your perspective. Whether people agree with all or some or nothing of what you posted, I thank you for your civility. We need more of it. It is a complex issue.
The city of Edmonds is not a mission
I grew up in a nice area of Bellevue. After my mother and father divorced my mom was forced to take out a home equity loan to pay her property taxes and buy a new roof. Her situation could have made her homeless but it forced my mother to make some changes. She sold her house for $780,000 in the late 90’s and bought a three story home near Mount Rainier in a great little town for $120,000. She invested her remaining money and to this day has had a comfortable lifestyle. She couldn’t “afford to live in Bellevue anymore” but she could afford to live elsewhere! The high property values in Bellevue allowed her to sell her home and retire comfortably.
Sure she had to leave Bellevue but she embarked on a new path in life.
Lowering property values by adding low income housing causes more damage to seniors when they are ready to retire than good. It only provides a temporary bandage and in the long term lowers property taxes collected by the city. Other non-senior residents facing challenges can talk to their neighbors, churches, or employer if they have one to find help. They can move to shelters and/or go to food banks to get food. Our private industry, churches, and non-profits in our region are plentiful and ready to provide resources.
The city of Edmonds is not a mission. The responsibility of the city is to provide the resources needed for the residents of Edmonds to live a life without interference from the city. Residents need resources like water, sewer, parks, law enforcement, schools, and fire/emergency service. Resources that allow our residents to live a life worth living.
Recently I have seen the city take action to become a mission. Committee after committee is being formed. Task forces are evaluating how we live and what we want. The end result with this approach will always meet push back. Our city government is not supposed to hire consultants for $200K+ a year to tell us to allow developers from the outside to use the city land for profit with outside money from grants and then head out of town when done leaving the citizens to pick up the mess. Everything I am seeing in regards to this issue and every other committee issue the city has formed recently has to do with someone making money or the city grabbing money for causes not supported by the majority of residents.
Please Edmonds – Get back to governing our city. Take our tax money and utility payments and do the correct thing with them… Spend them on our schools, law enforcement, emergency services, and parks, etc.
Get out of the business of housing. If developers want to come to Edmonds have them purchase land from property owners for a good price and have them build and fund any building the citizens of Edmonds would reasonably support. No free hand outs, No free land, and please, please, please no more committees!
To Jim O’Brien I can only say amen. Living in Edmonds is a privilege not a right. Many have worked their entire lives to earn the money to live here or to remain living here because they view Edmonds as a safe and desirable płace to live. Did I mention SAFE? We must keep it that way. Seattle has become a toilet for drug abusers who feed their drug habit by theft or worse and who have little motive to change their behavior and a governmental attitude that enables and tacitly approves such behavior. Please, not in Edmonds. Time to stand up and defend your home and our safe way of life.
Per homeless, drug use, crime, … KOMO special Seattle is Dying – YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=bpAi70WWBlw
While beating up on Seattle’s solutions you might as well throw this “Rejected Seattle tourist ad” into the mix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCloTOCdJSs
The problem with the premise in Mindy’s philosophy;
““Why should I have to live somewhere else just because I’ve fallen on hard times?”
Or more simply, “I have a right to live in Edmonds even if I can’t afford it”, is that if Mindy has that right then every one like her also has that right. We can’t have one rule for Mindy and different rule for everyone else.
So everyone like Mindy should have a right to a Section 8 voucher and everyone like Mindy would have a right to use that voucher in Edmonds.
Of course, as she said, there is not enough Section 8 housing for her voucher [and everyone else] so it seems that we current homeowners and taxpayers are going to be required to build it for her and everyone like her.
How else is she going to live in Edmonds?
But you could seize every single property in Edmonds and tax everyone who lives here at 100% of their income, build high rise apartments on every square inch of the city and still not have enough housing for everyone who would want to live here with someone else’s money.
I would assume that there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people like Mindy just on the West Coast alone.
If they all have a right to live in Edmonds and there is not enough room, how are we going to decide who gets to live here and who doesn’t?
Seattle is over run because local government is not equipped to solve the problem. The police have nowhere to take these people when they arrest lthem. Edmond’s local government will be no.more effective than Seattle at solving this. Blaming a permissive culture is just an ideological feei good assumption and a non solution. It will take a national initiative and multi-pronged approach to solve this or, at least make it noticably better. A culture that creates immense unimaginable wealth for 10% of the people and refuses to tax that wealth, is doomed to create vast amounts of poverty and anti social behaviour in the masses. The large middle class center of the 50’s and 60’s was created by government tax policy. Now we are just the big eating the little.
The presentation in a public forum was interrupted by an individual who wanted to present his views on the homeless in Seattle. The audience became somewhat agitated at his interruption and started chanting for that person to either conform to the established rules of the event, or depart. When that person did not conform to the established rules, that person was escorted by the police from the public forum. At that point, there was extended applause and some cheering by many who were relieved that the established rules were reinstated.
Now let’s consider what’s also happening at the same time – the homeless in Seattle are allowed to camp on the streets and in the parks, urinate and defecate on the streets, ingest illegal drugs, reside in unlicensed motorhomes and ignoring parking regulations, steal property from nearby homeowners, block public sidewalks by sleeping and or sitting on them with garbage, needles, stolen property and human waste strewn all about. In those instances, there are no police readily intervening to restore order, let alone enforce local ordinances. Any chanting or applause to terminate the offending behavior by citizen onlookers in support of the police if they actually enforced local ordinances would be condemned.
For those who favor a lenient, sympathetic understanding of the homeless in Seattle and tolerate unpleasant, not to mention illegal activities and behavior by the homeless should at least be tolerant, if not understanding of this person’s minor breach of public etiquette that had minimal impact on the participants.
Very good point, Eric.
Dissent will not be tolerated!!
My understanding is that the Seatle Police Department will not arrest nor will the Seattle Prosecuting Attorney prosecute “survival crimes”.
So if you have something and I need it, I can just steal it from you without any fear of the authorities.
While I may need it the whole question of whether I deserve it is ignored.
While I would submit that deserving is far more important than needing.
I would really really really hate to see that attitude migrate up to Edminds.
I personally believe that not only was the interruption inappropriate, but it did a disservice to those who advocate against both “affordable” housing schemes, as well as increased services to the homeless that are often counterproductive and only make the problems worse.
Homeless advocates often provide excuses for the illegal activity of the homeless, often arguing in favor of “compassion”. They condemn those who are directly impacted and those who complain about the negative impacts of homeless behavior such as theft, public camping, drug use and other activities that are in violation of various statutes and laws. But yet when an individual inappropriately presents his position against homeless encampments in a public meeting, held in a public venue, all of a sudden everyone is extremely concerned about following established rules, procedures and norms. I find it highly ironic how individuals who support the right of the homeless to do anything they wish to in Seattle while condemning those who complain about homeless activity, all of a sudden become overly concerned about rules and procedures in activities that directly affect themsevles.
Seattle spends over $100 million per year on “homeless services,” then wonders why it has so many homeless people. As a former social worker with homeless people I can explain it. Most homeless people are drug addicts who go wherever they can get free stuff, and camp and do drugs without consequences. Homeless shelters are like the baseball field in “Field Of Dreams.” If you build it, they will come.
I do hope the city council members and people running for mayor are hearing us. If you were for this Edmonds Lutheran Church project (Neil Tibbott) then we don’t like the future of Edmonds that you are endorsing. I doubt you could win an election if the people knew you were instrumental in bringing this to fruition. We don’t want Seattle’s answers to the homeless/affordable housing issue.
As you mentioned, yes, I encouraged the church’s dream to provide safe, affordable housing on their underutilized piece of multi-family zoned property adjacent to other high density housing, shopping and transit. Everything that I have heard from Compass and Blokable suggests that they intend to exceed city building standards in terms of quality and sustainable construction. In addition to housing they also plan to provide social services on site.
I too share the widely held concern for drug addicts wandering the streets of Edmonds looking for a place to crash. Up to this point, we have not imitated Seattle’s approach. If the new Compass project turns into the public nuisance that some expect, as Mayor, I would require immediate corrective measures.
Everything I’ve heard from the church, from Compass and Blokable suggests that they intend to build a type of housing that is in short supply and has not been built in Edmonds for a very long time. I continue to support this project, as I’ve heard it explained, and expect it will bring hope and security to its future residents.
Mr. Tibbott, it seems you have only been listening to the Compass supporters. If this “turns into a public nuisance”…..you would “take corrective measures”, as mayor. I am going to “take corrective measures” beforehand and will not be voting for you for mayor.
Yes Neil, you walked the church grounds back in 2016 with your co-hort Bill Anderson (former Woodway city-coucilman, hmm – wonder why he resigned so suddenly?) dreaming how you both could change the city use code to multi-use on the property in order to put these pods up before the neighborhood gets wind of it. Bill Anderson, the finance director of the church, Bill Anderson, the same one who the mayor tapped to sit on the Edmonds housing task force. Bill Anderson, the one who has Compass Housing Alliance under his name on said task force recommendations. The church’s dream came true with a 1.584-million-dollar windfall. Maybe they won’t need to do transvestite bingo anymore to raise funds.
Yes, they plan on having social services on site; but the residents are not required to see them. And the CEO of Compass Housing Alliance said initially the units will be for ‘teachers, baristas, and firemen.’ Why would they need social services? Teachers and firemen make far too much money to live in a unit with an income threshold of 50% ami OR LESS (average median income). Don’t trust whatever the CEO of Compass tells you, because she obfuscates the truth.
As the previous post above by a former social service worker, if you build it – they will come. And as always, their drug dealers follow. Just ask them. I have. You have been an instrumental part of making Edmonds strategy a King County’s Compass Housing Alliance ‘housing first’ solution to affordable housing. And when you see crime increase – I will hold you personally accountable.
Personally I will not vote for Neil Tibbott or any other Edmonds candidate who wants to spend our money on low-barrier low-income housing like the Blokables project. I know this population from personal experience. They are almost all drug addicts who do not want to get sober. They will ruin our city. This is the most important issue to me. I will donate to and volunteer for any candidate who opposes taxpayer-subsidized, low-barrier low income housing.
The city council gets to decide issues like this, not our Mayor.
“Development Services Department” & “Housing Task Force” are all appointed and/or hired by Mayor. Take a look at there mission statement includes long term planning of housing and planning. Hence why Director Shane Hope has key leadership role in Housing Strategy for Edmonds.
http://www.edmondswa.gov/development-services-department.html
That’s all very true, but final approval is in the hands of the city council.
The mayor did select the builders, realtors, and Bill Anderson to be on the Housing Strategy Task Force. (All who benefit from their own recommendations.)