I’d like to think our legislators believe HB 1110 (SB 5190) and SB 5466 (HB 1517) will create affordable housing, but since all evidence shows otherwise, it’s clear they’re serving only developers. A Seattle Times editorial states:
“HB 1110 includes no authentic proscription to create affordable housing. Instead, it creates market-rate housing.”
The editorial claims “a token attempt” to provide affordable housing. I contend even the token attempt is a ruse. Our legislators have defined low-income household as “at or below 80% of the median household income,” “very low income” as 50% Adjusted median income (AMI), and “extremely low income” as 30% AMI.
HB 1110 allows the “development of six units per lot in all residential zones” if the developer commits “to renting two of the six units at rents that are affordable to low-income households,” defined as 80% AMI. SB 5466 allows “at least 100 units of housing” within 1/4 mile of transit if 20% of units are rented to those at 80% AMI or less.
Snohomish County’s 2021 median income is $115,700/year. Eighty percent AMI for a four-person household is $90,500/ year. See more here.
Eighty percent AMI for one person is $63,350. Minimum wage is $15.74/hr yielding $32,739/yr for a 40-hour work week. Rental limits are set to ensure no more than 1/3 of gross income goes towards rent. Based on 80% AMI, the landlord can charge $1583/month for a studio and $1695/month for a one bedroom. Allowed rents represent over half minimum wage earnings of $2728/month. Those of “extremely low income,” that is, incomes of 30% AMI or less, can’t afford this so-called affordable housing.
There is no upside to these bills. Failure to build affordable housing, override of local zoning ordinances, negative impact of development on our environmental resources (watersheds, critical areas, tree canopy) and on our aging infrastructure, and inevitable future property tax increases, are all serious downsides.
To comment on HB 1110 (SB 5190)and SB 5466 (HB 1517) go to:
— By Joan Bloom
Joan Bloom served on the Edmonds City Council from 2012-2015.
I agree with Joan that the negative impacts of forced density have not been adequately considered. We have many examples to prove that this is a bad idea.
This is a very thorny issue. Wondering where the influx of 300,000 new residents to Snohomish County by 2044 will be housed. If we don’t increase density in our urban areas, I guess we’ll just have to displace farms and carbon-storing forests. There is no perfect answer to this question- but we should at least work together to forge reasonable solutions.
Nancy Johnson, we can save our “farms and carbon-storing forests” through existing GMA processes where cities and town are assigned population targets to plan for. That’s already happening. There is simply no need for the state to be mucking around in local zoning codes, doing city planning by remote control from Olympia.
Many of Edmonds neighborhoods were developed under county code before incorporation into the city. The last thing we need are 6-plexes in the middle of single-family neighborhoods served by two-lane county roads with no shoulders and no sidewalks. Good planning mandates we put such density where we have the infrastructure to serve it, and that we keep it out of areas where it can’t be effectively served~ subtleties lost on politicians in Olympia.
My question is, WHY would we build housing for 300,000 people to move here? If people want to move here and there is no housing available, they are free to move somewhere else. This “if we we build it, they will come” mentality is eroding everything Northwest. The PNW will be bulldozed down, overpopulated and totally destroyed. We do not have to bring more people here.
Your remarks, Joe, are so very, very true! Thank you.
The vibrant Edmonds restaurant scene and its Creative District designation make Edmonds a popular visitor destination. The widening income gap and rising housing costs, though, result in our service workers being pushed further and further out. Ensuring that there are viable housing options for lower wage earners is a win-win situation- it serves both the workers and the businesses that depend on them.
As Joan Bloom points out, a vibrant, sustainable community needs housing available at all price points and the proposed legislation fails to address this. In addition, without clear and specific language providing the environmental protections needed to safeguard our wetlands, streams, wildlife, and tree canopy, our quality of life will be significantly eroded. These WA House and Senate Bills are seriously flawed and need to be sent back to the drawing board. I hope all who are concerned about the future of our quality of life in Edmonds will encourage our elected representatives to do just that.
The rich get richer and the poor get babies – true; past, now and forever. Plus, everyone with a dime or two and some intellect wants to live on the same “primo” real estate. Barring a major Depression, there is never going to be any highly affordable housing in Edmonds (or even near Edmonds) with or without DADUs and 800sq. ft. apartments. This is just another political con job that isn’t going to solve anything. Least of all, actual “homelessness,” let alone housing needs for low and moderate income earners.
Please. Please Please, go to the link Joan provided and contact the legislators. Ask them to send these 2 bills to legislative grave yard. Deeply flawed and only proposed benefit is to the RE developers that will build these properties
I’ve done this and mentioned the above responses and my objections for these same reasons. I hope it does some good.
Thank you, Joan, for continuing to put this in context with the proper perspective. As a community, we have all the knowledge, skills and insight we need to plan for our own growth without outside influence. Just say NO to this proposed legislation.
One would hope a housing strategy would start with the needed price points based on the real-world income of folks. Looks like for a 40-hour minimum wage person their target housing cost would be around $900/mo. I would like to see some data on how many housing units we need at various price points. That would then give us some real targets. Then we can sort our ideas on how to achieve those targets.
Rep. Strom Peterson came out today is strong support of this bill to usurp local zoning control. My response to him was:
“HB1110 is deeply flawed and a mistake for you to support.
State mandates requiring local zoning changes for higher single family zoned areas removes local decision making at a fundamental level. I would have thought your years on the Edmonds City Council would give you some appreciation of that fact. This bill mandates higher density in single family zones with no consideration of, or compensation for, the impacts on local sewer, water, streets and parking infrastructures burdened by such higher density mandates. The only benefit will be for builders and developers and it will not increase the supply of low income housing. Have you priced townhouses in Edmonds or Mukilteo lately? One size solutions do not fit all. What of the people who have invested their life savings into a desired single-family home? Your bill will diminish values of existing single family homes and the undercut the reasons why homeowners bought them in the first place.
Please reconsider your support of this bill.”
You can share your opinions with Strom at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks, Mark. That’s an excellent statement of some of the many reasons that HB1110 “is deeply flawed” as you say. And also a good suggestion to write directly to Edmonds resident, Representative Strom Peterson, to express opposition to this bill.
Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.
By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.