Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
South County Fire crews spent nearly two hours Saturday night battling a fire at the former Family Fun Center in Edmonds.
A passerby first reported a brush fire near the building around 9:30 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 25, said South County Fire spokesperson Christie Veley. “When firefighters arrived, they found the building itself on fire. Additional firefighters were dispatched, leading to a massive response.” Nearly 60 firefighters were on the scene, including crews from the Everett and Shoreline Fire Departments.
“The Family Fun Center brought decades of memories to our community until closing in 2020,” Veley said. “Since then, South County Fire has responded to at least five fires at the site.”
Fires in that building “can be challenging due to access, low visibility and contents inside,” she added. “We’re grateful there were no injuries.”
The preliminary damage estimate is $30,000. The cause of the fire is still under investigation.
This abandoned facility is an incredible nuisance for the community. Not only is the site an embarrassing eyesore for the city, it has certainly added to the public safety issues for the surrounding neighborhoods, especially since it is adjacent to the Interurban Trail. The city MUST hold the current property owner accountable. I cannot imagine how this can be allowed to continue, and I have been in touch with the city for the last two years with very little progress, most recently learning the building is so unsafe that the police cannot enter unless there is an imminent threat to life. Hopefully this recent issue might help motivate someone at the city to do more than they have been doing with code enforcement.
Appears that the pace of this specific development is directly linked to the city’s ability to fund the civil positions that process the permitting. Slow permitting is not typically a competency issue, it’s a budget issue.
I read something about luxury apartments to be built…what is going on with that? Anybody know? Just curious.
It is still listed as a proposed project on the Behar Company’s website: https://www.beharcompany.com/portfolio
What is going on with it or where they are in the process… that is a good question. Perhaps MEN can inquire as to the status of this project and proposed redevelopment of the site.
Asking about it. — Teresa
Hello, It’s easy to find the status of the permitting process in the system the City uses. It’s https://mybuildingpermit.com/ Use the feature called ‘Check Status’. I like to look it up by Project name rather than location because primary addresses can change as old buildings are torn down and new ones put up. If you want to do this query, select Project Info tab. And in the Project Name field, enter Edmonds Green. Re: question about “luxury” apartments. It’s hard to tell from the permitting documents. But I did inquire with the City Planning Department last month about the status of the multifamility tax exemption (MFTE). The developer has received that property tax exemption on all of their apartments – over 400 of them. So they won’t pay property tax on the building for a long time, just the land. ( I think it’s about 10 years. The City Code has the details on MFTE). The Edmonds Green apartments will be the biggest apartment complex in town. My personal perspective is that the City Council should have cancelled the MFTE program years ago when they signed the interlocal agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. These large property owners can pay the same property tax rate as you and I.
I received confirmation from the planning department today that the landowner did apply for building permits for the Edmonds Green project and City review of those is nearing completion. — Teresa
The developer will make mega millions on this after they get the apartments built, thanks to the Edmonds taxpayers generously gifting them this MFTE tax break. And they’ll pay no property tax…the MFTE makes no sense anymore and should be scrapped or overhauled. Meanwhile, they’ve not exactly been good neighbors for the last five years allowing the street people to move in and trash the environs.
The abandonment of that property for the last five years is a violation of Edmonds code section 6.20. I’ve pointed that out on the Mayors fix it app numerous times, and prior to that in person at the Safeway City Hall annex. No enforced abatement was ever done as far as I can tell.
Theresa,
I agree. “City Council should have cancelled the MFTE program years ago.” The burden of taxes shifts to non-exempt taxpayers, all other property owners. As this 6-2-25 article in Seattle Times states, “MFTE has outlived its usefulness.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-multifamily-tax-exemption-has-outlived-its-usefulness/
Excerpts:
“The exemption is intended to encourage the construction of affordable housing. However, it allows market-rate housing owners and investors to essentially shift their property taxes onto the rest of us — to the tune of over $80 million dollars in 2024 alone, according to the Seattle Office of Housing. Last year, that cost the owner of a median-valued ($804,000) Seattle home an extra $145 on top of the housing levy.”
“It’s time to say goodbye to MFTE, give property owners a little break and unlock that $9 million per year in deferred taxes to help reduce Seattle’s budget deficit. MFTE has outlived its usefulness.”
The result of Council not repealing the MFTE is that another developer will benefit from paying NO taxes on ALL units, for likely 12 years. The Westgate (Henbart) MFTE received 12 years tax free on ALL units in exchange for only 19 units (20%) that aren’t affordable, per state guidelines https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.185A&full=true#43.185A.010
Council should never have approved MFTEs in Edmonds. They don’t provide ANY truly affordable housing. My RV:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/reader-view-the-myth-of-affordable-housing/
The MFTE program requires that 10% of the units in a new complex must be affordable for households with 80% of the county’s median income. The rest can be market rate. The tax exemption applies only to the structure but the land is taxed, and the exemption lapses after twelve years. The intent of MFTE was to spur new residential development in the Highway 99 subarea to augment our local housing supply, but so far, only the Hazel Apartments are up and running. It’s not clear to me MFTE is working as intended and the city may want to consider other ways to spur development, especially since MFTE was introduced in Edmonds well before the state enacted the various housing density bills which will lead to more residential housing supply here. MFTE may turn out to simply result in foregone property tax revenue if our additional housing goals can be met without it.
I took a look today online for the Hazel apartments. They look pretty nice to me. Lots of amenities that really help people. Parking and AC nice windows, laundry in apartments and nice appliances nice closet space too. If I were looking for an apartment I think that would be a fine spot. Green space for residents and lots of schools and shopping and grocery stores and restaurants. Have you seen them Dave?
A 10 year tax break on the building is very generous of Edmonds considering the tax hike we are facing for current residents if Prop 1 passes.
Thank you, Mr. Zipper, i knew the time was up for this build and tear down but I didn’t know it was a violation of code. That no enforcement abatement isn’t cool at all. It’s downright criminal. Imagine what would have happened if a very strong East Wind had hit that building during a fire…It could have easily burned many trees and once they start burning nothing will stop them from going all the way to the shore and West and N and South Now that sounds a bit like another law suit waiting to happen. And unfortunately, if people were killed even those in that building (who may have parents) more lawsuits than ya can kiss Edmonds Goodbye People really need to stop thinking Edmonds citizens are ignorant as most are not. I love that about Edmonds smart people and getting smarter and more informed every single day.
I think a story on how many apartment units we have in Edmonds and the currant vacancy rate would be interesting. I’ve see “RENT FREE for X months” signs in front of some buildings. What does it mean when free rent is being offered to new tenants?
https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=43&q=What+do+signs+in+front+of+apt+buildings+that+say+free+rent+realy+mean+in+Edmonds+WA&cvid=e7f96d8844ac484aa224294b3f80910a&gs_lcrp=
https://www.bing.com/search?
In Edmonds, WA, the signs in front of apartment buildings that say “free rent” can have several meanings. They may be a marketing strategy to attract tenants, a way to ease the upfront costs of moving, or a reward for renewing a lease. However, it’s important to note that these offers often come with a hidden price, as the “free” month may be applied to the last month of the lease, resulting in a higher monthly rent. Tenants should be aware of the full implications of these offers to avoid unexpected costs.
Not necessarily a bad thing its just not free rent forever or anything like that. It probably helps a bit for people moving in etc. Nothing is really free.
As pointed out above MFTE exempts all units above the ground floor. If this is a 400 unit complex with an average AV of $500k then they would have $200,000,000 exempt and with new estimated total rate of $8.05/1000 then the exemption would $1,610,000 of taxes. 10% of 400 units is 40 units would get a small reduction in rent. MFTE does little to help income challenged folks. We could develop a plan to reduce a smaller portion of taxes in exchange for spreading the tax saving around. Developer would still get a tax break but would share more of the break with more renters. As a community we would be better off if we had them pay full taxes and we allot a portion of the new city tax to reducing rents.
Darrol, as an expert in numerical analysis, you present a compelling argument that the MFTE is a program with limited effectiveness. More generally, I believe there is a legitimate discussion regarding the appropriate allocation of tax revenues—whether they should be directed towards essential services such as law enforcement, fire services, infrastructure, and other governmental functions, or whether they should be used to subsidize new residents who would find it financially challenging to reside here without the support of other taxpayers in effect covering those subsidies.
Hi Darrol, I emailed the planning department a couple weeks ago to get ‘the data’. There are 411 units approved for MFTE.
(An aside- I got a very quick response. This department did a great job of quickly and accurately responding to a question from their constituents. This simple email query and reply by Planning proves to me that not everything is a train wreck in Edmonds City Government today. The waste water treatment plant is obviously a very serious train wreck- the new plant isn’t working as designed. And the engineers are not leading the capital improvement projects that is their job. But all is not lost. The trick or treating yesterday was great, and the sun will come up tomorrow)
Citizens get prompt responses from Planning and Development because the department’s director, Mike Clugston, is competent. Unfortunately that cannot be said by some other city departments.
Curious to know from the anti-MFTE folks on the target rent they would want to see. If we are trying to net more housing units that fit folks within the 60-80% AMI threshold then you need stacked incentives in addition to MFTE. At the end of the day, a development needs to hit a yield of 6% (ideally above) in order for the Net Operating Income to pencil out. MFTE realistically only gets a project 0.8% of that yield. Depending on the financing structure and interest rates, this yield is already difficult to achieve even at market rate units, hence the need for stacked incentives. Problem is, no one in this community wants to enable those stacked incentives to realize the type of rents we all are looking for. Until then, this will keep becoming a circular argument without moving the needle.
I 100% disagree with your perspective Jeremy. The developers will build when the cost of money is right for them. In the Edmonds geographic area, the housing demand will be strong for the rest of my lifetime (which I acknowledge is not as long as your remaining years), and the City of Edm does not need to give incentives to developers. No one needs to look out for property developers in the whole Puget Sound Region. They’re doing fine. The future policy discussion in Edmonds can be about helping the renters – not the developers. And is can be about making HASCO as effective as reasonably possible. I agree with Darrol H’s statements above: “MFTE does little to help income challenged folks.” and “As a community we would be better off if we had them pay full taxes and we allot a portion of the new city tax to reducing rents.”. We are in different generations, and you work in the property development industry and I worked at a large regulated utility. So I don’t really expect to come to the same conclusions on this topic. Thanks again for all your volunteer years on the Planning Board.
Cities can’t meaningfully expand affordable housing without both public and private participation. Nearly every successful example and affordability roadmap uses stacked incentives that lower development costs enough to make rents at 60–80% AMI financially achievable (if that’s what we’re targeting). Whether a project is led by a housing authority, nonprofit, or private developer, projects still need to meet a minimum yield to secure funding. Incentives like MFTE, TIF, fee waivers, gap financing, parking reductions, expedited reviews, etc. all contribute to narrowing the NOI gap and net debt service coverage ratios that are sustainable, which allows lower rents to pencil out. Without those tools, fewer total units get built, and rents remain high in the limited supply that does move forward. The public sector alone can’t produce enough attainable housing at scale without engaging private capital, and private capital can’t participate in deeply affordable projects without some partnership. Incentives should be viewed as cost-reduction mechanisms that help align project economics with the community’s affordability goals (if the community is actually serious about attaining them). The HO5 Housing Characteristics and Needs report says most of our future growth will need to be made affordable / attainable. We can’t get there with HASCO alone and we also can’t get there with the historical mindset of denying the very building types that could get us there.
Jeremy, I believe you articulate the various methods of utilizing OMP (other people’s money) effectively in rendering these projects feasible. Nevertheless, I maintain that idealistic affordability and egalitarian objectives will be confined to a limited quantity of units because of the scarce availability of public funding.
Jeremy, I believe you raise a valid point regarding the necessity for developments to have a realistic yield to be justifiable. The difficulty with “affordable” incentives lies in their frequent dependence on OPM (other people’s money) to subsidize the units. Although it may not align with the prevailing political correctness in the local socialist context, I contend that it is unrealistic to anticipate the provision of substantial quantities of idealistic egalitarian local housing when considering factors such as location, construction, and labor expenses. There may be a select few fortunate individuals who have the chance to have their housing lifestyle subsidized by others. However, it is inevitable that the funds provided by others will eventually deplete, compelling developments to rely on traditional capitalist incentives.
I love how people who think we live in a pure capitalist society love to label everything they don’t agree with as a “socialist program,” like assuming that when the population writ large finally realizes the given program is “socialism” and gets rid of it; everything will suddenly be right with the world. All working economic systems (countries) have elements of socialism and capitalism. The only exceptions are places like Haiti, Somalia and even Russia which basically have anarchy or the law of the jungle – survival of the strongest and most fit at the expense of everyone else and generally a really bad place to exist. Fire departments, public schools, police departments, municipal water departments, state owned ferries, and federal government bank bail outs are all socialist programs or common needs met by financial input from the whole society. When capitalism fails or just doesn’t fit the problem very well, the fall back is always socialism, or in other words – other people’s money or wealth re-distribution thru taxation. This happens in all economic systems that are based on some sort of civil law. When the economic system fails (The Great Depression of 1929 and Housing crash of ’08 for example) the only answers are limited(hopefully) socialism, charity and sometimes war, or a combination of them all.
Clinton you make a good case for staying here and paying higher taxes, oh well never mind….
I’m not trying to make a case for anything but the idea that people need to look out for themselves and not expect any government, federal or local, to take care of them much. We are quick to accept “Socialism” that keeps the rich, rich; but fast to condemn any sort of “Socialism” that aids the poor or even just the un-rich(shrinking middle class) in any way. MTFE is a form of “Socialism” that supposedly helps the middle class and poor, but really only helps the “Capitalist” developers. In the end the only person who is probably going to save you is you. Learned that from my Mom years ago. She also told me that the only way to become rich is to think and act like a rich person with what money you have and always pay yourself first. So far that’s been great advice and I just turned the big 80. Corruption is corruption whether it comes from the political Right or Left. The same goes for just simple incompetence which there is no shortage of either in this old highly political world we live in.
With respect to “affordable” housing, everyone needs to remember that “affordable” is a defined term which is based on an “areas median income” which is also a defined term. An affordable apartment in Bellingham has a different rent than one in Everett and a different one than Olympia and Aberdeen and Grant County. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (for urban areas) and Department of Agriculture (for rural areas) publish the AMI for every area in the US. As a result actual dollar values do not define what is affordable but rather what percentage of the AMI is affordable. This then leads to individuals qualifying for Affordable Housing in Seattle but earn too much for Affordable Housing in Aberdeen. King/Snohomish County has the highest AMI in Washington. There is a second tier which includes Whatcom, Skagit, Pierce, Thurston and Clark. Clallam, Jefferson, Gray’s Harbor, Mason, Pacific and Lewis Counties are a third lower tier. When I moved to Washington I looked at a subsidized senior housing chain with multiple properties in western Washington. I made too much money for their properties in Sequim and Chehalis. I could not afford their property in Snohomish County. I qualified for properties in Pierce and Skagit counties and they were affordable.
This happens because of different land costs, labor costs and property taxes. “Affordable” is local.
There are examples of affordable developments in Edmonds. Ballinger Court Senior Affordable Apartments on 76th Ave. W is an income limited property at $66,000 for one person renting a one bedroom. The AMI in Snohomish for one person is $110,000. So the income limit at Ballinger Court is 60% of the AMI which is considered low income. There are available one bedroom units for $1,320 or $1700. This complex likely predates the MFTE zoning.
The village at Westgate is an MFTE property. It has 2 commercial spaces which are subjected to property taxes. The value of the land is also subjected to tax. It has 91 apartments. They have studios, one bedroom and two bedroom units. 20% of the units must be “affordable” using the Snohomish area median income. 10% are at 80%, 10% are at $115% of the AMI. The rental figures include the landlord paying utilities or giving a credit for estimated utilities. In addition if renters insurance is required, the landlord must credit that from the maximum rent.
Finally the new Madrona Highlands has half of its units at 50% of the AMI. Most units are 2 bedroom units for families, they do have some 3 bedroom and 1 bedroom units as well. For one person, the income limit is still $55,000. The rent on a one bedroom is $1,150.
In this somewhat unexpected discussion, I hope everyone remembers the primary issue with this property at the moment: the significant public safety problem that residents in the surrounding community have been grappling with for years. At the very least, I hope we can agree that it has become unacceptable.
I’m with Tom. I don’t care what they build in that area or when they build it. Interest rates will probably no go much lower than they are right now. The feds say no more reduction in December. All I want is for them to tear that building down now.