Recession Stalls Building Boom Along Rainier Valley’s Light-Rail Corridor

There’s power in the RVP readership! Let’s get a email/mailing/phone campaign going to get the loan decision overturned for the Columbia City Cinema. Yes, it must be a solid business decision but I can think of a better business in the area that typifies good values, great entertainment and our community spirit. Of, and guess what, its not social service jobs!

Sorry, Gidge, but you don’t have the facts correct. Seattle always lags behind the rest of the country when the economy changes. Seattle’s economy was soaring in 2006 and 2007 with record sale prices for commercial land (see the Puget Sound Business Journal). We didn’t begin a recessionary trend in Seattle until late 2007. The recession really hit hard in 2008. The downturn in southeast Seattle had been underway since 2005, over three years earlier. By the time the Bush recession caught up to us we were already suffering. Southeast Seattle was hit by the Nickels economy before the Bush recession came along.

In fact, the building boom in Seattle began while Clinton was in office. Look at Ballard if you want an example of growth and development over the past decade or more. Do you see anything like Ballard’s expansion here? And Ballard doesn’t have light rail. Or, how about West Seattle. There’s been a huge building boom there, ongoing for almost two decades. The difference? Not even ONE new market-rate rental apartment was built in southeast Seattle during the entire economic boom. In fact, there hasn’t been one new market-rate apartment in southeast Seattle since the 1970′s. How do you explain ZERO new apartments? The answer is low rents. Southeast Seattle has artificially low rents because we have so many subsidized housing units here. Low rents offer no incentive for new development. Low rents discourage development of new housing and new business. Low rents create slums.

Face it, southeast Seattle was hit with TWO body blows; Sound Transit construction, which destabilized our entire community, and city policies to concentrate social services here which expanded almost overnight when the city rolled back the Special Objectives Area (SOA) overlay. The SOA overlay protected southeast from new social services. It was put in place in 1982 for good reason. It was quietly rolled-back by the City Council in 2004 without consultation with residents of southeast Seattle. Look around at all the new offices the social services are building for themselves. The only building boom southeast has experienced has been in the social services sector.

Your statment, “If the economy were still strong, you would see new businesses coming in to build along the line–that’s what happens in other cities when they’ve built rail” is not an accurate statement. Even in Portland, sections of the rail line thrive while others are practically a wasteland (the poorer communities to the east).

I agree with you on one point, “Light rail will help to bring in more businesses–it’s just going to take a little more time.” Yes, it’s going to take time to recover from the Bush recession. It will take even longer to recover from the Nickels economy which has nothing to do with the Bush recession. There will be NO recovery for southeast Seattle until we elect a new Mayor and some pro-business people to the City Council.

We need to change the thinking in City Hall which is an impediment to progress and development here. We need a special economic stimulus for business. The Office of Economic Development has been AWOL. Where has OED been for the last 4 years? Why have city leaders not come up with an incentive for new business? Othere cities offer incentives to attract business, why not Seattle? If we can subsidize low-income rents for people, why not subsidize rents for new businesses to encourage new business to locate here? Where is the Rainier Valley Community Devlopment Fund (RVCDF)? Why haven’t they asked the U of W to help study retail leakage to surrounding cities like Renton and Tukwila? Why hasn’t RVCDF been engaged or aware of the failing economy in southeast Seattle and working diligently to propose some fixes to the problems?

The problem is a lack of political will. If the Mayor and the City Council really wanted economic development in southeast Seattle we’d have new businesses here. City leaders don’t spend a lot of time thinking about southeast Seattle. We don’t vote in numbers large enough to threaten them. Those who speak the loudest are non-profit agencies and not residents. Non-profit lobbying groups spend countless hours hanging around City Hall. As a result, non-profit agencies are lavished with support by city leaders and southeast Seattle is overwhelmed by non-profit agencies.

I mean seriously, can you fathom the RVCDF actually turned down a business loan to the Columbia City Cinema while granting a loan to Southeast Effective Development? That perfectly illustrates the problem in southeast Seattle; support for social services is plentiful while business development is discouraged by city policy and a hostile business attitude. It’s no mystery, our City Council has an extensive background in government and social services. They lack experience in the business world. You know the old saying “you get what you pay for”?

C’mon, Gidge, I think you understand the problem better than you let on.

“Where is the Rainier Valley Community Devlopment Fund (RVCDF)? Why haven’t they asked the U of W to help study retail leakage to surrounding cities like Renton and Tukwila? Why hasn’t RVCDF been engaged or aware of the failing economy in southeast Seattle and working diligently to propose some fixes to the problems?”

True, more and more of my money is going to Renton and Tukwila, it’s a lot easier and safer than going downtown.

jcdk —

Livability, balance, quality of life, and organic growth have been missing in southeast Seattle and in Seattle planning, in general. We need to re-learn to value those elements and plan neighborhoods which put quality of life ahead of developer incentives.

One by one, our unique communities are being re-developed, poorly, by pro-development city leaders who ignore the failures of other big cities.. First it was the Fremont neighborhood, then Capitol Hill, then Ballard. West Seattle could be next. Southeast Seattle is under even greater development pressures than any other community because of light rail. Will density for the sake of a train overrule good planning?

Not so long ago Seattle was named the #1 “Most livable City” in the United States. Do you think we’ll ever earn that recognition again?

Here’s some information you might find interesting:

http://sites.google.com/site/livableseattle/

“Gidge” said, “I think density is a good thing, so long as it’s balanced with quality open spaces, good zoning codes and planning oversight, sufficent community involvement, etc. ”

No argument there. I share your viewpoint. Unfortunately, the city does not share this viewpoint. Open space, good zoning codes and planning oversight are completely missing in so many recent developments. Residents are forced to undertake extreme measures such as appealing to the Hearing Examiner to get open space included in developments here. City leaders are micro-managing development in some instances and abdicating all control to the developers in other examples. Community involvement only occurs if you are part of the ‘right’ community –that is, if you support the city’s predetermined agenda then you may have a seat at the table (so long as you behave and say ‘yes’ when they look in your direction).

Regarding density; if you build it they won’t necessarily come unless density includes a Trader Joe’s and lower crime. We have neither in southeast Seattle. Density IS the problem in southeast Seattle. We’re already denser than West Seattle. We’re one of the densest neighborhoods in Seattle and also the poorest. Not a good combination. Poverty has it’s own problems and making poverty denser is a recipe for disaster. We’ve been down this road before.

I understand your concern about demonizing the social services, but let’s face reality, there is a problem in southeast Seattle and the concentration of social services exacerbates the problem. Non-profit agencies like HomeSight are so poorly managed that they can no longer afford to build housing because of their exhorbitant admin costs. Instead of shutting their doors and quietly going out of business HomeSight has morphed. Their new mission is “community organizing”, funded with your tax dollars. HomeSight is organizing new groups that support the Nickels agenda and directly oppose grassroots community groups that have been here for decades. It’s like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. HomeSight is creating redundant groups in order to support the Nickels agenda. Again, if you’d lived here longer you’d recognize what’s going on.

The mistakes of the past are being repeated here. Pledges to disperse low-income residents throughout the city have been reneged on by SHA. The concentration is returning to southeast Seattle, up 19% since 2007 for a total of more than 40% of the Section 8 population now residing here in just two of the city’s twenty-eight zip codes. I’ll repeat that for emphasis: Over 40% of SHA Section 8 Vouchers are concentrated in 2 out of 28 city zip codes. Since when was it okay to create a slum for political convenience? In truth, our city leaders abhor poor people and they scrupulously protect every other city neighborhood from the poor and people of color. Therefore, there is the impression that something is wrong with being poor or of color. It appears to be instiutional racism if you ask me?

Don’t get me started on gentrification. Gentrification is a bad thing in southeast Seattle but it’s celebrated in Ballard and Queen Anne. What gives? The city bemoans gentrification in southeast Seattle but it’s merely an excuse to flex their muscle and interfere in neighborhood planning, forcing more “affordable” housing is their answer to solving gentrification. It’s the city’s only answer for southeast Seattle. City leaders don’t really give a damn about gentrification. If preventing the evils of gentrification was a a genuine goal you’d see more people of color and more low-income housing options in Queen Anne, Green Lake, and Laurelhurst. Stopping gentrification only becomes an issue when city leaders want to intervene in the development of southeast Seattle, even reversing THEIR own plans and ordinances. Is this any way to run a city?

Too bad you weren’t here before 2000. Stick around a few more years and you’ll see for yourself how screwed up Seattle politics has become. Your time in Seattle parallel’s the Nickels era, our worst Mayor in history. You weren’t here during the Jim Diers era. He’s the guru of neighborhood planning. He wrote the book on neighborhood planning (an actual book). Nickels first act as Mayor was to fire Diers. Since then, the ugly politics has trickled down to neighborhood planning. Most of the bad zoning and development can be attributed to Nickels and the feckless City Council that cowers in Nickels shadow.

Pray for change in November.

“Gidge” said: “In fact, I frequently get a seat at the table even though I disagree with the powers-that-be.”

I’m glad that you have a seat at the table. You must be both charming and patient? I’ve been deeply involved in community planning for fifteen years and I’m not invited, ever. It sure would be nice if we had city leaders that didn’t fear criticism but rather embraced all voices and every person with something to contribute? Since you have a seat at the table I encourage you to always question the assumptions of those who lead the discussions about planning.

Regarding gentrification, I appreciate your definition. For lack of a more accurate term I’ve used gentrification to describe the phenomenon that Seattle has been experiencing in the last decade or so. “Displacement” just doesn’t seem adequate and “social engineering” is not accurate in most cases to describe the scouring-out effect that rising incomes and rising rents is having on lower middle-class and the working poor in every Seattle neighborhood.

Rising property values citywide have forced low-income people to leave. The screwed-up building code, which is increasingly more complex day by day, adds many thousands of dollars to the cost of new construction. These and other factors put pressure on apartment-condo conversions which are quicker and easier than building from the ground up. Affordable rental housing all over the city has been converted to condos. These pressures are displacing the lower end of the workforce, forcing renters and many working people south, and out of the city entirely. We’re becoming a city of the wealthy and the very, very poor. (The very, very poor exist almost exclusively in 98118).

Seattle is losing affordability faster than San Francisco, according to comparative data. Bad city planning & zoning policies are making a natural phenomenon much worse. In City Hall they are completely clueless to the effect of their actions. It’s reminiscent of the million-dollar portable toilets the city bought. Many smart people warned that the large, private toilets, with room for two or more people, would invite mischief, public sex, and drug transactions. City Hall pooh poohed the naysayers. Guess what? The naysayer were correct. The city has since sold the toilets for pennies on the dollar and the problem of no restrooms in downtown remains. Whether it’s million-dollar public toilets or multiple new builder incentives during the worst recession in 80 years, such is the failure of Seattle’s leaders to exercise good judgment. (How did eliminating plastic garbage bags rise to the top of city priorities?)

The root of Seattle’s problems can be traced to City Hall. The new building has rules of conduct etched on the glass at each entrance to remind you that you’re entering a temple where free speech is less than free. The leaders who occupy City Hall behave as if they were annointed rather than elected. Like Bush, they’ve earned “political capital” and they feel entitled to implement their own agenda, the public be damned. To begin to get a handle on Seattle’s problems will require a major attitude adjustment, starting at the top. Next November should bring welcome change.

Regarding SHA, you are justified in loathing them. Your instincts; “I would hypothesize that there are a lot of other factors involved in the high % of Section 8 tenants in our area”, is very keen. SHA is selling-off properties they own in neighborhoods north of downtown. Last year they condemned (using eminent domain) two apartment buildings in southeast Seattle, taking more market-rate apartments out of the rental pool. These will now become more subsidized units, further skewing southeast Seattle’s demographics.

Rents are another factor. If SHA would increase their voucher payments renters could live anywhere they pleased. If you want to steer people away from nicer neighborhoods you need only limit the value of vouchers so that they are compatible with the artificially low rents in 98118. (I realize this isn’t gentrification, it’s social engineering.) Why are people not protesting the low voucher amounts? Why shouldn’t the value of vouchers be increased to allow dispersion of low-income people in every neighborhood? Low-income residents don’t choose to live in southeast Seattle, they’re manipulated and steered here. I wonder what HUD would say about SHA’s policies based solely upon the outcome of those same policies?

On density; you need amenities for density to succeed. Trader Joe’s is often mentioned to illustrate what the local residents keep asking for (endlessly the community requests Trader Joe’s). If you build a Trader Joe’s a younger, hipper crowd will follow. Amenities are critical to neighborhood survival. Othello and the rest of southeast Seattle have precious few amenities, except for some amazing parks along the Gold Coast. You need to improve the quality of life when you increase density and Seattle leaders don’t know how to do that. They only know how to up-zone and increase density. We need more open space & parks in the center of the valley. We need better schools. We need more businesses and jobs. Trader Joe’s isn’t coming to our community because we lack any amenities and they don’t want to be a pioneer here. Trader Joe’s will follow but they won’t lead. Without these amenities, which enhance the quality of life, density alone will result in a slum.

BTW, I enjoy your posts.

“Medita Wheatley” What she said!

But it goes beyond for-profit business. The most powerful lobby in Seattle is the non-profit housing lobby.

According to the IRS, the housing non-profit housing providers are recognized as a business. The profit motive may be missing but they are still a business. For-profit or non-profit, it’s all about special interests.

Medita Wheatley for Mayor!!

“The section 8 program is a rental voucher, and people with those vouchers can use them at almost any apartment building. There’s a city law that states landlords cannot discriminate against tenants based on their Section 8 status. I would hypothesize that there are a lot of other factors involved in the high % of Section 8 tenants in our area, including more rental properties available and a location more desirable for some tenants.”

But there is no law that a Landlord has to lower rents to accommodate the voucher holders which is what would have to happen in most other neighborhoods.