Editor:
Recent MEN news and articles show how the Edmonds’ mayor and city council have claimed to be busy trying to figure out the city’s financial crisis while trying to not impact city employees.
That would be commendable if they were not planning to throw the city’s population to the wolves while trying to keep their cozy schemes and arrangements.
We already know how they have been partnering with developers, using fake population growth numbers to increase the city’s density and throwing away years of careful Edmonds protection by the population, which stood vigil blocking the building heights increase.
We also made a lot of noise regarding that money-squandering scheme for the Landmark project on Highway 99 – we stopped it.
Now the mayor and council want to annex Edmonds’ fire and EMS services to the Regional Fire Authority (RFA), causing significant increase in the property taxes and potentially expel many people from their homes. The RFA also seems to have financial problems and will use Edmonds’ taxpayer’s money and the “generous” contract terms to get out of it. For example, increasing the service prices from the current $11 million to $18 million in 2025. This after the mayor and council simply “donating” to them millions of dollars in Edmonds’ property (fire stations, fire trucks, etc.).
For your own sake, attend the council meeting Dec. 3 and question this craziness.
Voice your concerns to the Edmonds City Council today here.
Please sign the petition here.
Mario Rossi
Edmonds
Mario – thanks for writing this.
Irrespective of your view on the best path forward for the continuation of fire and EMS service in Edmonds, could you provide evidence of the “fake population growth numbers” used by the City? That is a really specific allegation and I am interested in your evidence for it.
Do you have specific, empirical criticisms of the methodology used by Snohomish County in calculating projected population growth for the country, a portion of which Edmonds is required to build homes for?
I believe that it is more accurate to characterize the population growth projection number for Edmonds as being fake than proposing it as being realistic. Our population in 2010 was 39,709; it is now only about 4,000 higher. What is the evidence that says it will grow by 13,000 in the next 20 years? A projection should be a forecast based upon a current trend. Based upon the current population trend, 13,000 is very definitely a target and not a projection.
Ron – thanks for your perspective, that’s an interesting point.
IMO, Edmonds’ limited population growth doesn’t reflect natural trends. It reflects decades of deliberate policy choices to restrict housing development. Since the 1970s, zoning laws and community opposition to growth have put an artificial limit on our ability to accommodate demand for the development of homes and businesses here.
If housing development had been allowed to respond organically to market signals, we would already see denser development, similar to the condo buildings from the 60s and 70s downtown: Edmonds might realistically be a city of 80,000. Instead, growth was artificially constrained.
I will be frank that I see growth projection as a brittle approach to economic development that stings of central planning. I believe Edmonds is best off when we support organic growth to meet societal needs, the same way that we did in our mid-century history: it’s the reason so many people were able to build good lives here in the 1960s/70s/80s.
That said, a 30% growth projection over 20 years aligns more closely with regional trends than our ~1% in past decades. It’s a product of recent shifts in state planning laws, which limit Edmonds’ ability to reject increased contribution to regional economic development on our land. It certainly will require an identity shift but I believe we’ll be better for it.
Mackey, Wasn’t Hwy 99 in Edmonds upzoned in 2017 for multi story residential? That’s 7 years ago and while Shoreline was inundated with new developments Edmonds got hardly any. So our 1% growth in past decades included at least 7 years when many parcels had already been upzoned for residential boxes.
John – I can’t reply directly to your comment (too nested) so I hope you’ll see this.
Hwy 99 in Shoreline has certainly seen more development activity than Edmonds’ portion. I can only grasp at straws but there are a number of factors at play. One is that development activity naturally lags behind upzoning; Shoreline was upzoned by 2013, so they had a 4 year head start. Financing is a temporal factor as well; I know about at least one instance where a developer with a permit on 99 in Edmonds had the project financing blow up during the COVID years. (They are shopping the permits around: https://members.moodyscre.com/api/images/data/og/media/user_uploads/653a967e9af06f00012e29be_apolloapartments_flyer.pdf). Notably, Shoreline also implemented a unique “funded” 20-year MFTE program in 2015 to incent development along the Hwy 99 corridor (and a few other areas), while also producing income-restricted subsidized homes. (More here: https://www.sightline.org/2024/10/28/to-fix-inclusionary-zoning-fund-it/#Shoreline.) I’m sure there’s other things I’m not thinking of.
If we truly wanted homes built along Highway 99, we could probably follow Shoreline’s example on MFTE to expedite the process. My view continues to be that 99 was simply the most politically expedient location for a looming need to upzone in order to satisfy the last round (in 2015) of Comp Plan “pin the housing on the donkey”. At the end of the day, growth is what actually gets built: POSIWID !
Mackey, what do you mean by “natural growth”? The US Census is projecting a population decline (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-projections.html). Even WA State’s own demographics analysis does not show such sharp population increase (https://ofm.wa.gov/about/news/2023/06/washington-tops-79-million-residents-2023).
This is a global problem where fertility rates have been declining and some countries even face population decline itself. That also includes developing countries. Therefore, whether we look at real Edmonds’ population growth, projections based on general population growth the numbers do not match.
Unless you are referring to the (unnatural) recent “growth” of the American population by opening the borders to millions of unvetted illegals. That’s a debate for a different thread that should also cover all the issues that come with that questionable policy.
A regional group call Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) handles many of these issues relating to projection growth like Ron mentions. Fake maybe the wrong adjective but this number really is derived from a group of folks appointed to Puget Sound Regional Council and they present to SCT. I was part of that first SCT group in 2010 when this population growth targets were being introduced and over the years, they have changed and do change because local cities speak up or topography and/or environment forces a change in estimates. So, these numbers DO CHANGE.
Why this comp plan is garbage is because the expensive consultants were not provided a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of its raw data. As we know the Nelson administration sequenced land use and zoning as a priority and ignored the environment. I know I’m off topic so I’ll circle back to your text book discussion about growth which is well stated and yes, Edmonds should grow organically.
But this highly biased rewritten comp plan has Edmonds turning into a disaster and since Council seems to take the easy way out or pass it now – maybe fix it later – Mario’s concerns are well intended.
Personally, the transparency for this RFA annexation is opaque at best.
Folks, Vote NO RFA. demand inclusivity and transparency of process and numbers.
Hi Mario, I can’t reply directly to your comment but by “natural growth” I mean the net increase of the Seattle metropolitan region’s population in recent decades as a result of economic growth sparked by the the job creation of technology companies and subsequent entrepreneurship, public/private investment & philanthropy.
Unauthorized immigration certainly counts towards this growth – mostly in labor-intensive occupations (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/WA) that would face shortages (or deeper ones) without immigrant workers. Unauthorized immigrants make up ~3-4% of WA’s population, a figure that has stayed pretty much the same since 2010 (https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/researchbriefs/brief110.pdf); a Pew analysis I scanned (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/) indicated that the population that qualifies as unauthorized counts for ~100,000 of ~1,200,000 total new WA state residents since 2010. (Methodology: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2018/11/27/unauthorized-immigration-estimate-methodology/.)
I agree with your assessment that national immigration policy needs a separate forum for productive discussion – most outcomes are too hyperlocal to be usefully dissected from a national level – but I don’t personally see any strong evidence that unauthorized immigration meaningfully contributes to the mismatch between housing supply and demand in the Seattle metro area. I think it’s a factor that has influence, but very little.
Declining fertility rates are real, but I think they’ll be countervailed by the forces making Seattle an increasingly attractive place for investment & for people to work & live, relative to other places with similar regulatory environments.
Hello Mackey, please check the article below, which is based on a study comparing dense vs. sprawl development. (https://sourceable.net/density-vs-sprawl-wins-sustainability/)
Using Seattle as a benchmark makes the high-density story even more unpalatable. Seattle is far from what a healthy environment is with all the crime, pollution, bad traffic, and all the other issues inherent of cities like it.
Please who live in Edmonds do not want to live in Seattle and hope that that kind of environment is kept far away. Conversely, people who like Seattle-type environment should stay there instead of coming to Edmonds and try to convert it into something like that.
If Edmonds get to the 80,000 population you are suggesting, this city’s quality of life will go down the drain like in all other cities that grew that much. There have been very good articles here in MEN showing how unbridled growth will destroy the local environment and deteriorate the present quality of life. There are already infrastructure issues.
And again, the census data and even the state data do not support the growth you are talking about. Only the fabricated data used by the individuals looking to profit show that growth.
By the way, even the individual who pushed the high-density legislation already declared that “it never promised more affordable housing”. So, who is winning with this scam?
Mr. Guenther, you clearly have not been reading the articles in MEN by Janelle Cass and others showing why the numbers are off. I understand that you have a strong believe in density, but that doesn’t make you correct.
Robert Chaffee
Edmonds
Mr. Chaffee: thank you for your reply.
I believe it’s important to engage in healthy debate to build consensus around good ideas. As such, I’d like to gently remind you that respectful discourse is important for productive debate, no matter how much you feel you disagree with my views. Phrases like “you clearly have not been reading” are dismissive, and unfounded: I read Janelle’s article and found many of her points insightful. I don’t appreciate you speaking to me in this manner.
I ask you to focus on the arguments and evidence at hand rather than making assumptions about my efforts or beliefs. If you share my interest in fostering inclusive and thoughtful dialogue about matters of civic interest, I trust these principles are in alignment with yours. I’m looking forward to continued dialogue in a respectful manner.
Mackey Guenther
Edmonds
Well stated, Mackey. Courtesy and respect in expressing different points of view enhance the possibility of objective discussion when a solution, to concerns, should be the goal. Your response to Mr. Chaffee’s post definitely achieved this consideration.
I sincerely hope that your generation will usher in a wave of open minded and respectful discourse.
Mackey,
Let me try to help here.
The State’s Office of Financial Management puts out the official population forecast for each county with a range of low, most likely and high.
https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/pop/GMA/projections2022/gma_2022_high_low_charts.pdf
The Puget Sound Regional Council in their Vision 2050 document used the high end of the official forecast to allocate population growth projections to each county for housing forecast purposes. https://www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision-2050
The County in turn used this information to allocate population growth targets to each city. https://snohomish.county.codes/CPP/AxB
So, if you trace this all back, you’ll see that indeed the growth targets have been inflated from the State’s “most likely” projections.
Hope this helps
Hi Jim, the OFM low projection was 972,286 and the high projection 1,217,552 and the county adopted through Ordinance No. 23-062 by recommendation from the SCT PAC and Steering Committee a reconciled 1,136,309 which is nearly down the middle (aka CPP Appendix B). What members of the community are not factoring in on the projections and allocations is that the Regional Growth Strategy calls for directing the majority of projected growth to Regional Growth Centers and to High Capacity Transit (HCT) metro cities, cores and communities which Edmonds is classified as a HCT community.
Thank you, Jeremy. You are correct as I didn’t take my allocation down to what it means for Edmonds specifically. The allocations are indeed due in part to what you highlight. The Buildable Lands Report also is used to steer growth. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/1352/Buildable-Lands
It gets somewhat convoluted from there in how the population and housing allocation targets are provided to each city within Snohomish County. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) seems to have a hand in it, however finding the actual methodology they used has been problematic. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/168/Snohomish-County-Tomorrow. This is where the process breaks down for me.
Once the targets had been set, then our Planning Department again increased our internal targets above what had been handed to us. I had reach out to our previous Planning Director with my analysis of what I would expect the targets to be for comment and help but received neither.
(Responding to Jim below) – Hi Jim, I can definitely see how it gets convoluted. The information is hard to find. Additionally, the critical beginning milestones of the STC PAC work which outlines the methodology used in compliance with CPP GF-5 was done at a time where we had a planning director retiring, another program manager taking another job in Oly, a new planning director just getting up to speed, and a couple of important meetings where we didn’t have any representation from our city on the Steering Committee side of things once the PAC recommendation was delivered to the Steering Committee. The methodology can be found in the December 2021 STC PAC packet within the exhibits and subsequently also found in the STC Steering Committee packet in the same month. I was able to locate it following the PB comp plan kickoff with Joe Tovar in March ‘22. I’ll see if I can dig those documents up and send them your way. They shed some light on the process.
Whoops, typo, *SCT not STC.
The mayor’s budget book states Edmonds will be bankrupt/insolvent by 2027. Instead of cutting the budget with layoffs, salary adjustments, department cuts our elected officials are looking to the proverbial piggy bank – the taxpayer. Taxing our way out of debt. This is lazy and an abandonment of their fiduciary responsibility to us. Mayor and Council have proposed to keep 6.2 million dollars that we have already paid for fire/EMS services to help lower the amount we’re in debt – $20 million plus – and have proposed to annex us to the Regional Authority where we will increase from $11 million to $18 million for the exact same service we now receive. Where is the logic? We are in a financial crisis. Many companies have experienced major layoffs. Not fun but necessary to survive. Back in the 1970s Boeing laid off half of their employees in order to stay solvent. Their slogan became “the last one out of the building, turn off the lights”. That took courage, leadership. We seem to be sorely lacking
courage and leadership with this administration to the detriment of Edmonds families.
Further, the hypocrisy of the cry for affordable housing. Mr Wambolt is correct.
Our elected officials are bankrupting the taxpayer and taxing some out of their homes. Making our own homes unaffordable. How’s that for affordable housing.
Hi Theresa, I appreciate your thoughts on this. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by “hypocrisy” around affordable housing?
My apologies – I overlooked the bottom of your comment.
The rising cost of living here is a pressing problem for so many. Property taxes have indeed increased significantly. However, this is primarily due to rising property valuations: a market signal of high demand and limited supply. Homeowners pay higher taxes because their property is worth more (and renters face higher costs as landlords pass on these taxes.) These increases reflect a system where land is scarce and prices climb, rather than a simple policy choice by elected officials: in fact, the rate of real property taxation has grown relatively little.
Bans on denser housing, which spreads land costs across more homes, exacerbates this problem. When zoning limits housing supply, prices rise further, reducing attainable options. Maintaining low-density patterns while keeping housing affordable would require massive public subsidies, probably funded by even higher taxes than we have now! This would increase the burden facing taxpayers and is unsustainable long-term.
Ownership comes with responsibility: aligning costs with value ensures resources are used efficiently. Rising property valuations reflect demand for housing in our community. Allowing the housing market to respond by allowing denser development is, in my view, the only sustainable path towards creating more options for people to stay here.
It requires us to manifest decades of deferred change, but we have to bite the bullet.
Snohomish county is reporting +140,000 housing unit shortage long term, so consider simple economics, even if Edmonds built 5.000 apartment units down at the fountain on Main Street, that would not impact cost of housing locally in any marginal way, is my educated opinion. The major pros of more Edmonds density are tax collection and funding school districts, not affordable housing. Edmonds being the most desirable 8.5 square mile town in Snohomish county (I’m biased) creates another variable that can’t be quantified that contributes to never ending demand. I wager in 5 years, barring no global geo political events or black swan financial type issues, Edmonds will be more expensive than it is today, despite more density and government tinkering with local zoning, in fact cost of single family homes in Edmonds are likely to rise even more with government intervention in the market place.
Yours is, by far, the more educated opinion ! But surely it can’t be that Edmonds is some edge case that breaks the rules of supply and demand, right?
I agree that there is a lottttt of demand to live here (it’s beyond the preference of most today, but I believe I’ll live to see an Edmonds of 100k+. Humanity has things to do!) I also can’t pretend to have a magic number for you in terms, like X many homes will make rents in Edmonds Y% cheaper. There are plenty of factors that have affected the cost of the materials/labor necessary build a home, as you point out, but they are marginal compared to growth in the price of land here, and the land use regulations that prevent that cost from being spread among homes.
Many places, red & blue, have implemented supply-side reforms, either with the effect of slowing housing cost growth or outright reducing real costs over time. Austin is one example. Regulatory reforms have to match the scale of the problem; I don’t think we are there. Broad local action lightens every city’s individual burden.
Your last point totally sums up my perspective: government intervention in our housing market (both for land, and many of the other components of building homes) has created artificial scarcity that exacerbates price growth.
Spot on analysis. Ultimately, the premium demand for locations in Edmonds will persist. MFTE ‘s are not going to pay for the infrastructure needed with increased density. Some subsidized housing may be constructed using OPM (Other People’s Money), but typically, this supply is limited.
Critical question is why are the Mayor and Council promoting RFA Annexation? The RFA has increased the fire/ems contract price by 50% between 2029 and 2023. They have proposed another 65% increase for 2026 at $19M (not $18M). During these 7 years population growth and inflation have averaged less than 4% per year. RFA has balanced their budget and boondoggled huge wage increases (Top 50 wage earners made between $236K to $350K in 2023) on the backs of annexed taxpayers. Just ask Mill Creek, Brier, and Mountlake Terrace what they got for their 50-70% increase in taxes after annexation. RFA has has mismanaged taxpayer money and failed to deliver on economies of scale promises after annexing new customers. Everett and Mukilteo run small fire departments and their taxpayers pay about $300 per resident per year for comparable fire/ems service. Edmonds residents will pay 50% more per year or $445/yr in 2026 after annexation, or an incremental $960/yr in taxes! Edmonds residents need to tell the Council to walk away from the RFA and find a better, more economic solution for fire/ems service. Make you voice heard at the Dec 3rd Council meeting. No! on RFA annexation. Save Edmonds at lest $6M per year. Find a better fire/ems solution.
Please copy/paste and sign the petition: https: //www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Please submit Public Comments: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
I’m sure my good friend Darrol Haug will come at me with a lower actual number, and I hope he does for accuracy sake, but my very rough calculation is that the average home owner/renter will be looking at around $100/mo. in increased property taxes (direct or passed on) if we decide to join the self proclaimed World’s Greatest Fire Service (I joke) and agree to tax levees to keep all our current City Directors and their employees well paid and happy in their jobs. Same for our City Attorney and his no cut contract that’s never really meaningfully questioned by anyone. Of course we could look at other options to do things better and more efficiently but like all good Americans, why would we want to do that when we can just throw lots of money at every problem that comes down the Pike whether it really solves the problem or not? I plan to vote NO on all these tax asks, because that just feels right to me for some reason. I think it will make certain people try a little harder to look out for the people they are supposed to be looking out for. Just call me a cockeyed crazy dreamer, I guess?
Hello Mackey, to expand upon my “hypocrisy” statement. When Susan McLaughlin came to town one of the things she said at her “introduction” event was that (paraphrasing) ‘everyone who worked in Edmonds should be able to live in Edmonds’ – from the dishwasher to the person who mows your lawn. She was a huge proponent of increased housing development and “affordable housing”. I disagreed with her. I felt and still do that one should live where one can afford. I grew up in a small community in the Bay Area – California. My father commuted to where he worked and we lived where we could afford – an 1100 sq ft home for 8 people. We lived across the Bay from where Nancy Pelosi now lives. It never would have occurred to us to ask that San Francisco build affordable housing so we could live there. Instead we had what I like to call “the fire in the belly” to work hard and succeed. Today all of my brothers and sisters are well off by any of today’s standards. I pose to anyone who thinks we should subsidize anyone in anyway to think again. Please don’t take away their self respect, self determination, and fire in the belly to succeed with artificial handouts they have not earned on their own. I’ll continue in my next
Further, on affordable housing. Many folks who live in Edmonds have lived here for generations. Some still live in the family home. These folks are the foundation of our community. These old homes have increased in value tremendously. Yet, the incomes of the residents have not. Tax increases are inevitable but should they be so excessive as to drive folks out of their homes? They won’t realize the monetary gains of their property until they sell. Should they be forced to sell? When past and present administrations have carelessly spent our tax dollars and now want the taxpayer to bail them out of their folly, is it fair that Edmonds’ taxpayers should pay the price?
The mayor and Council can make budget cuts but they lack the courage and leadership skills to do so. Some in our community cry out for more density to accommodate those folks who want to live in Edmonds. While we’re building affordable housing so folks can “afford” to live here, we are literally taxing folks out of their homes to pay for it – driving them into bankruptcy if they try to stay. So where do they go? What affordable housing are they now to go to. They had housing. Now what? What human price and dignity do we pay for “affordable housing”?
Theresa, I appreciate your passion and and detail on this. Difficult, emotional topics.
Property tax revenue has essentially no role in subsidized housing. It’s hard to get specific unless we zoom to the individual property level, but for my dad’s house in Seaview, the only property tax levy by an entity that does any kind of housing subsidy is Snohomish County ($470.11, or about 7% of his total bill.) It depends on what you count, but housing subsidy is no more than 1-2% of the total budget of the County, if that. (It’s not related to property tax, but the federal government spent $67 billion on housing assistance in 2023, or ~1% of total federal spending.)
To your point that “one should live where one can afford”: unfortunately, the basic income-vs.-price ratio in most metro areas today is greater than the ratio that faced your parents or siblings. Even for someone who has exactly the same fire in their belly (or real income) that you did, dollars spent on housing today don’t go as far today as they did then. Some things are easier for folks today, but affording housing is objectively, empirically harder (how hard depends on where you live: CA is among the hardest.)
Allowing new housing options via increased density is a change that serves people already here. One story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6PpkAO7al4
Edmonds city taxes are limited to a 1% annual increase, so the higher property values do not bring the city any taxes above that 1%. The higher total property taxes result from voter-approved increases, mostly school taxes. Denser property development will almost certainly lower values because our city’s appeal will be diminished. People are now attracted to Edmonds because they like the way it is today.
Ron, my apologies, you are correct (and my earlier assertion that property taxes grow as a function of assessed value was incorrect, sorry Theresa!) Just did a lot of reading about budget-based property taxation 🙂
There are a lot of variables that affect property valuation in relation to developable capacity, but properties that are upzoned almost ~always see an increase in value, fundamentally on the basis that they can demand a greater total rental/sale price when redeveloped.
Downtown Edmonds – a mixed-use district where detached homes, shops, and apartments mingle – is objectively the most valuable/attractive part of our city, in terms of land value per square foot. It is a core piece of the identity of our city, and the sales pitch to prospective buyers. There are lots of parts of Edmonds that don’t look like downtown today, and could grow to resemble it (particularly the areas on the margin of the existing core.)
If Edmonds had governed itself in the 1950s it does today, we would be a shining town of 2,057. Would that have been the right “stopping point”? These are questions of civic vision. If Edmonds is to be home to the American Dream, we will grow.
People came to Edmonds because it was a place to build an honest life. I would prefer that vs. being a page in Sotheby’s.
No apology needed Mackey, but thank you anyway. Everyone makes mistakes, but not too many ever apologize.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
Happy Thanksgiving to you too!
What reasonable people want is a sensible amount of growth in only places that don’t adversely impact our highly stressed environmental gifts that are one of the two main things I think people want to live here for, whether they can really afford to or not. (This city’s approach to our creeks and the Salish Sea is borderline criminal, environmentally speaking). The other reason is that downtown Edmonds looks like an actual town, with little shops, a theatre, a bakery, coffee shops, small restaurants and taverns and benches on the sidewalk; not just another strip mall or conglomeration of strip malls of uninteresting concrete business buildings and high rise apartments/condo dwellings. In my view, up-zoning for apartments everywhere and diced up small lots with no regard for proper storm water management to protect our watersheds are not where we should be headed, but we are. IMO we don’t need a bloated overmanned EMS/Fire system that does fire suppression as a sideline because there just ain’t that many fires anymore. Yes Edmonds was a much better and more efficiently run town when it had a smaller population with a much smaller footprint on the map and some actual tax producing manufacturing business’s along the waterfront.
“Yours is, by far, the more educated opinion! But surely it can’t be that Edmonds is some edge case that breaks the rules of supply and demand, right?-“ To Answer you’re Question, I don’t know if my opinion is more educated than yours Mackey. Your example using Austin as a case study for Edmonds is not valid as it’s the 26th largest metro area in the US with a land mass of 319 square miles. Edmonds is not breaking any rules of supply and demand my friend, and it’s not some special case study, you can’t mathematically build enough new units to offset 140,000 in local unit demand to bring down marginal pricing alone, in the most expensive and limited 8 square miles in Snohomish county. To further explain the logic, in 2019 a smaller 3 story, 1024 sqft Unit was created near civic park, it sold for $560k, and todays value on Zillow is $910k. The plan to proliferate Edmonds with more smaller units is not going to create affordable housing, it’s going to create more $700k-$1m market rate units at best case scenario, that will be great news for many buyers that are priced out of the $1m-$2m home ranges and great for tax revenues for our city.
New Housing = Market Rate housing
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving to you too! (On paper I’m literally a 24 year old college dropout – working on fixing that though – so you really do have me beat on book school OR the hard knocks one, no contest )
I was pointing to Austin as an example of a metro area that has seen prices decrease as a result of supply-side action: I totally agree with you that Edmonds:Austin is not a useful comparison. My point was more that at a metropolitan scale, reforms to reduce the extent of government regulation that bans apartment construction can change equilibrium price. I think we can agree that there have to be concrete factors (like the effects of public policy choices) that ultimately affect variation in outcomes like price changes; one of the constants across metro areas like Seattle/SF/LA is the slowness of land use reform.
The Seattle area at large (mostly carried by Seattle) has done more building than other high-cost coastal metros, which has mitigated price growth, and in some types, like studios, there is even starting to be downward movement. But when I think about the long-term attractiveness of the Seattle area– moderate climate, increasing role as a key hub of our global information service-based economy, I get deeply concerned about the tendency of unresponsive local regulators/legislators to exacerbate divergence into “haves”/”have-nots”. (1/2)
(2/2) Edmonds is just one city of ~35 in the Puget Sound metro area. Many cities besides us have the capacity to build more homes in place of existing ones – organized political organization against doing this varies, ofc – so I think it’s reasonable to acknowledge that Edmonds would not need to singlehandedly sate all SnoCo demand to see marginal pricing change here. We do, however, need to model the role that we want other cities to play when it comes to starting to allow our urban forms to evolve more organically again, which requires leadership.
I agree with your point about (and am excited for) new construction entering at the $700k-$1m range. I also think it’s important to note that new construction at that range does have an effect on marginal prices for others: new market rate housing kicks off “moving chains” that free up older housing stock for middle- and lower-income households. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all). Hard to trace, but real. More options=greater welfare.
Edmonds being on coast / views of Sound is why many people, all else being equal, would prefer to live here vs anywhere regionally. I think that’s great. None of us chiseled out the mountains or make the sun set; we’re meant to enjoy this place with others. I think we can be better stewards of this, like our progenitors.
Theresa, while agreeing with you about having “fire in the belly”, I wish to point out my perception of a lack in logic to your positions. You say that you grew up where you could afford, and others should do likewise. That is sound advice. So using that point, why should people who live in a town, say Edmonds, now live where they can no longer afford to do so? According to your logic they should move to where they can afford to live.
Please don’t misinterpret my question? I support efforts to keep people in their homes. A social safety net makes sense to me in so far as it is cheaper for the taxpayer, and more humane for the individual, than homelessness. For this reason I support programs that permit those in need to pay less in taxes and utilities. These may increase my costs in taxes and utilities, but may lower them for care of those in need of housing.
For factual information on the RFA annexation please visit https://edwafirefuture.info
Factual info on the RFA’s budget can be found at https://www.southsnofire.org/about-us/funding/budget
An excerpt:
South County Fire does not have an operational deficit. This language in the 2025 budget refers to planned deficit spending.
Operational deficit: suggests ongoing revenues are insufficient to fund current-year operating costs.
Planned deficit spending: one-time spending using one-time funding that may not be reflected in revenues from the current year.
Everett and Mukilteo are both facing structural deficits similar to Edmonds despite having their own fire departments. Mr. Krepick continuously shares misinformation and inflated numbers to prop up his anti-taxation stance, to the detriment of the citizens in a city where he doesn’t even live.
Mackey, I agree Edmonds can do a better job of sharing our community, always room for improvement. You are a very gifted writer, I’m asking if you would be willing to use that gift to make some comments on some of the negatives/risks of up-zoning and density expansion? My observation is often times you are quick to counter anyone’s concerns with up-zoning, with long post with the many positives or perceived outcomes of allowing more up-zoning in Edmonds. It would be nice to see a post by you acknowledging some of our communities concerns surrounding the negative impacts and risk of a broad based density expansion in such a small town. “Bitting the bullet” comment seems to be the only acknowledgement that sacrifices and livability levels of our existing residents will need to be taken, but I would like to hear specific details of those sacrifices and acknowledgments to help balance out your point of view. Cheers
Thanks Mike. That’s a good point. I try to introduce a perspective I feel is missing from discussions (or at least comment sections) about population growth / housing policy, probably with a little too much message discipline: it’s not just all about building houses anywhere and everywhere, for sure. I share your perspective that nuance is necessary to find practical solutions for real life. I’m planning to share some writing/visualization in the next months that comprehensively maps out a few nuanced ideas for building a more livable Edmonds.
I can empathize with the fear and frustration that some have around the idea of facilitating greater population growth within Edmonds’ borders. I got politically involved entirely because I think this frustration is avoidable, rather than inherently necessary, and mostly arises from arbitrary central plans for economic development that offer genuinely limited value in ensuring that City policy supports the health of people+the natural systems around us (a popular synopsis of our collective vision) – or even accurately captures our collective vision to begin with.
I consistently arrive at the conclusion that we (as a society, and as a city) have incurred (+stand to incur) far more costs (health, environmental, economic) from our adherence to the notion that growth threatens our prosperity than we could ever incur by actually growing. On me to prove that. Trying soon!
Hi Macky, Maxter to me! You are such a bright young man and a lot of fun too. You are so full of energy and itis obvious you do love Edmonds With you a hometown boy I know you care. I am anxious to see what you discover and to see more of what ideas you think we all might not only accept but are genuinely excited about for Edmonds. Now you will get that degree…Baby steps. Doesn’t matter take your time. I recieved your email reply the other day and I loved it. I haven’t had a chance to email back yet. But I was glad to hear from you and I laughed as I read you visualizing my and my Schwinn haha. I sweat Macky I could break a boulder with my thighs back then haha. So looking forward so much to meeting you. Just you and I. Bring paper lets get on it and discuss your ideas and possibly little adjustments that will surely thrill Edmonds. Ok kiddo. I know we don’t always agree with you etc. but that’s ok man… that is what makes for discussion and solutions . Thanks Mackey many your age would never take the time to devote so much caring for all of our citizens. I believe you care Macky. I will drive that trolly no wages.
Michael McMurray,
Thanks for referencing the “3 story, 1024 sqft” home that “sold for $560k” in 2019 “and today’s value on Zillow is $910k.” It’s also a stark example of Edmonds’ Mayors/administrations failure to enforce our Critical Areas Ordinance.
In the late 1980s, the Feds paid for a fish ladder under Daley Street along Shell Creek where the home you reference now stands. The deck above the fish ladder was for the public to view salmon as they came upstream to spawn. I frequently walked past when there was a “For Sale” sign and encountered developers who said, “You can’t build there. It’s next to a creek and a steep slope.” Having known of many abuses of our CAO, my response was “Well, this is Edmonds.”
Someone bought the property and submitted an application, which my neighbors appealed. I was on Council (2012-2015) when we still served the citizens as a quasi-judicial body, so couldn’t join the appeal. My neighbors won. Another developer bought the property and staff approved that application. The owners now have a private deck where the public viewing deck was. The fault for this rests solely on our city government.
Edmonds administrations’ historical failure to consistently enforce our CAO is why Council MUST listen to Joe Scordino’s brilliant proposal:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/11/reader-view-a-better-idea-for-edmonds-comprehensive-plan-update-environmentally-sensitive-zoning/
Theresa Hutchinson,
I agree with your points, except the first part of the following statement:
“While we’re building affordable housing so folks can “afford” to live here, we are literally taxing folks out of their homes to pay for it”
The new Comp Plan supports NO affordable housing. At our legislators’ town hall on March 18, 2023 https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/03/21st-district-legislators-respond-to-questions-on-single-family-housing-gun-control-and-more-at-saturday-town-hall/ Strom Peterson was quoted: “we’ve never claimed that HB 1110 will make housing more affordable, and it won’t stop anyone from building a single-family home.” He went on to contradict himself saying a nurse could afford to live here. Unlikely, unless the nurse is making way more than the typical salary range for a nurse, and has a large down payment. A nurses’ aide has zero chance.
The Comp Plan defines affordable as 0-80% AMI. “The market” will never “develop” housing for those of “Extremely low income: 0-30% of AMI”. Snohomish County’s 2021 Median Income was $115,700, so 80% AMI for one person is $63,350/year:
https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/202120Snohomish20County20Rent202620Income20Limits_202107011608091908.pdf
Even with developer incentives, all of the housing presented in the Comp Plan will be market rate. As Mr. McMurray said “New Housing = Market Rate housing”
I just had a conversation with someone who does lots of local real estate research and was informed that property values and prices are shooting up in Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood because of the coming of light rail. So if housing is going up in price in what was once considered the more economical place to find housing in south county, why should anyone believe that tiny homes and four plex buildings everywhere and anywhere in Edmonds is going to contribute to lots more housing where a single Providence Stevens nurse or an ESD school teacher can “easily” afford to live? This is all a bunch of nonsense, just like needing an aid car and a fire truck or two full of extra help to show up at every aid call or near shore boating accident is nonsense. As long as we have city and state governments that cater to growth and development, no matter what it does to our natural environment, the “good life” in Edmonds is going to keep being sold to the highest bidders (the people who can afford the high property taxation that comes from all this so called planning and environmental impact research that just really gets swept under the rug and/or ignored to promote growth at all costs).
Hi Clinton I spent a couple hours today looking at prices and yeah you are correct and also Seattle is pretty high itself. I don’t like to compare us to Seattle as its not the same thing. Seattle is a City Edmonds barely. Good. Regardless there is also lots of housing going up in Arlington etc. Lets face it if ya live near the water whether it be the Edges of the Puget Sound of a Giant Lake you are gonna pay to live there. Its like that everywhere if ya think about it. I have looked all over the country as I enjoy doing this research. I did have my license for awhile in Real Estate Sales. I didn’t like selling as it took my weekend time. I only saw my husband on weekends so I chose him haha. Iowa some spendy on their awesome Lake near DesMoines. In smaller areas RiverFront properties with views are the spendy. In the Ozarks of MO and Branson the spendy is on the water. I know we had a cabin there it was awesome. The water clean and the lake was vast in size. It’s just the way it is. For gods sake people go to where you can afford to buy and have a life that doesn’t leave you always wanting or needing. Drive or bus.
Yep. RIght on Clinton. Since the word affordable became the word in every article, every plan, every everything people believed it! I didn’t. But anyway I called them out all of the time on calling these units affordable…They are not and maybe yeah there might be a few thrown in to these buildings but then the folks like nurses and school teachers will not be income appropriate for subsidized etc. SO maybe we have to yes Go Back dangit ha to when people that were young and single etc lived together. If you have a 2 bedroom with a half way decent size 2 people could buy as an INVESTMENT and live together. Possibly stagger shifts..It’s not affordable and it never was. All of this for several years here and basically all for nothing. Your developers will go to Lynnwood and Mt Lake T…why wouldn’t they? Well, I think you all know the answer to that. What are we to do now? I don’t know. But I would challenge the state like so many other small cities and larger ones too are doing. As far as $$ for city too far out and we will go bankrupt I think unless we find a way to do something that will bring in heavy commerce. would need backers. It could be the most unique in our state.
I mentioned this once before and I gave a very successful business that has made a fortune, brought in people from cities near and far and its been in operation for over 50 years. It’s cool. It brings in jobs of all sorts too. I would so love to discuss this idea with someone. Maybe a builder or a developer with deep pockets Because we need deep pockets, and we need to shake it up around here. The DT for shopping and a more layed back entertainment venue and then in my place we get down to business for our young and for our old like me who love all kinds of music from all cultures. If I were doing this in Edmonds, I would add onto this little musical and food venue compound of mine tower housing available for workers. Maybe even as part of their income. That takes care of that problem for service workers etc. Talk to me. I am interested at least in trying to save our city and our county. Ok then I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving. My Turkey turned out perfecto. Loved that Turkey sandwich with cranberries so much last night I’m gonna eat that again tonight. Yum…and no cooking. I am tired but happy!
If anyone wants to talk about my idea we will need a white cotton table cloth and 2 carpenter pencils and a lot of time. You can come here I will clear the table and we can get down to business. This idea will appeal to people all the way up and down our corridor and ya know what we have now the busses to bring folks in. I think a location that is on 99 would be good but not right on the S county line NO, It needs to be between 196th and south county line. This way all can easily enjoy. NOW where is that land? What do we own? We will need several acres for my plan. I would also add a nice luxury hotel tower onto this campus like facility. The hotel will book for this venue and in the day time the Bowl or whatever right. We need this. Get real ambitious and put a pool there too a public pool and ok a fence to divide the hotel pool for guests…It should be classy but accepting of all people OK I’m finished with this rant for today anyway. oh one more thing there will be no retail in my idea. We will leave that to our city (all of it) Happy yet? HAHA.
Good morning Deb. Your redevelopment idea is interesting. You could ask the city’s economic development commission to evaluate it. The city owns the parcel at 7110 210th SW- not too far from Hwy 99. And if the planned property tax special levy (in 2025?) doesn’t pass, they will probably sell or grant long term leases on some of their land. (Left over turkey sandwiches are fantastic. So is having pie for breakfast….)
Best regards.
Hi Theresa, Thank you. I don’t know who is in charge of our economic development commission? Who is this and how would I reach these folks? Thank you for your ideas and facts about Edmonds. I appreciate the work you are doing. Deb. And yeah, last night I ate the last Turkey sandwich threw out the pie and had Moose Tracks Ice Cream with two large dollops of peanut butter and two choc chip cookies crumbled into this mess. It was delicious. Ha. I slept like a baby.
My wife and I are seriously kicking around the idea of selling our old relatively small house on a relatively big lot with some view – two story; a great possible view – three story; and buying a Condo in town with or without a view. If the Fire Annexation and extra G.F. levees pass we will definitely take this approach as the economics of it all will force that approach. Condo HOA fees seem to almost always include sewer/water and have much lower property taxes over all for the living space involved. When the old house gets torn down and four three story 1000 sq. ft. condos get built, filling set back to set back, selling for $800,000 each, don’t blame me. Blame Strom Peterson, Marko Liias, Mike Rosen and all the Council members except Michelle Dotsch that most of you all just put in office or back in office. I’ve talked and begged for some common sense approaches in all this until I’m blue in the face, and so far have failed. Now it’s time to make some money and take advantage of all the management by and for special interests folly Edmonds has been engaged in for years. I still plan to keep speaking up for the creeks (and salmon) and the wonderful Salish Sea as long as I can.
Well Clinton It would be nice if you could find a spot down there that was guaranteed to have a view. I know it is hard to give up a home that is like a part of you. But the stress and the wondering is becoming a part of you now. I think your great Clinton. I love reading your posts and I am proud of you for not worrying much about what others think of you. That takes courage in a little city like this. So good for you. I have wondered if we should do the same thing and enjoy the bowl for a few years but giving up my gardens would be the most difficult for me. I can never replace 31 years of tending and planting and designing. Its my exercise and its my peace of mine after a hard day working and then showering and then just sitting there with my de caf coffee and looking at it and feeling such pride and such an accomplishment. I love my birds a lot. I think we will wait though and see for a couple more years and if things look like they are getting worse for us up here we will move. Either to the Bowl or to another state as there are only 5 states that are doing growth mandates.