The housing shortfall has grown for people below 40 percent of county-wide median and the King County 2008 Housing Benchmarks Report shows similar growing gap for Seattle's very low income households.

• By contrast there is a surplus county-wide of rental units serving those at 80 percent of median of 100,000 plus units at that rent level.

• In Seattle, 81 percent of all rentals are affordable to those at 80 percent of median - for a surplus of over 30,000 city-wide at that rent level.

• But for the 40,000 households in Seattle earning at or below 40 percent of median, there are only about 10,000 units affordable to them at that rent level - for a shortfall of more than 30,000 units. 

• The crisis grows for those at the bottom and that's where our priority should remain.

We are hearing from several sources that our mayor may seek to shift our upcoming Housing Levy dollars away from the poor and very poor in order to 'incentivize' production of "mixed income" and units for those at 80 percent of median. He calls these "workforce" units even though at those rent levels, they would be hundreds of dollars above what most working families could afford.

The county's report and recent data from the 2007 American Community Survey (US. Census updates) shoots down the mayor's claim that we have a lot of housing for the poor in Seattle and very rich but "not enough in between."  We don't have enough for the poor and the problem is growing.   And if the mayor cares about workers "in between," then he needs to reach further down and serve those at 60 percent of median or even a bit less.

Access the county's 2008 Housing Benchmark's Report may be accessed here.
Click on "public dollars spent on low income housing" and go to page three where you'll see that 81.6 percent of 150,000 Seattle rental units (or 122,400 units) are affordable to those at 80 percent of median.

According to the 2007 American Community Survey there are about 26,000 households in Seattle earning between 50 and 80 percent of median leaving a considerable surplus of units affordable to this income group. Click here for Amercian Community Survey Data.

By contrast, the 2008 county's benchmarks data shows that only 7.4 percent of Seattle rental units are affordable to households with incomes at or below 40 percent of median (or about 11,100 units). However there are over 40,600 households with incomes at or below 40 percent of median (Source 2008 American Community Survey ACS Data) leaving a shortfall of about 30,000 rentals for this income group. 

The 2007 ACS data also shows there are 36,033 hh's earning $20,000 a year or less in Seattle - at or below 35 percent of median (assuming 2007 ACS median of $57,000).  Fully 82 percent or 29529 of those households are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent.  Only 2 percent of Seattle households whose incomes are between 50 and 80 percent of median, pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. 

Also, drawing from ACS Data and the 2006 and 2008 Housing Benchmarks Report, we put together some comparison tables which highlight the growing need in Seattle and county-wide for those at the bottom and the corresponding surplus of units affordable at 80 percent of median.  Click here to view data tables.

For data on average worker wages (closer to 52 percent of median) and what they can afford in rent compared to rents offered at 80 percent of median, click here.

And for a full list of all workers earning less that 80 percent of median - the vast majority -click here.

Our conclusions and thoughts on all this:  Stop incentivizing, which means giving away our tax dollars,  to developers who build units at 80 percent of median that we would get anyway without the subsidies and expand our commitment to serve those at the bottom. Our mayor and housing department continue to push for more tax breaks, upzones, and use of our tax dollars for developers who set-aside a handful of units affordable to those at 80 percent of median or even above that figure. 

However, most of the area's workforce earns an income between 50 and 60 percent of median according to data taken directly from Washington State Employment Securities. 

Our recent survey of new buildings and buildings built within the last eight years indicates that most new rental developments include units priced at or near 80 percent of median or as they age will soon offer units at that income level.  So why give these developers subsidies to do what they already are doing?

The mayor's aim is to 'incentivize' still more market or near market rate development in communities around Seattle particularly around transit stops and in especially in Southeast Seattle - doing so without regard to the impact of that growth on the existing truly affordable character of those communities. When our mayor calls units at 80 percent of median (or even higher) "workforce housing," it's simply a euphemism used to disguise the mayor's pro-developer pro-density agenda.

But here is an even bigger rub - How much more housing serving those at or below 40 percent will be lost to increased demolition, conversion, and speculation due to the mayor's 'incentivizing' of units at 80 percent of median?  We may get a handful of units for those at that income level but at the direct expense of hundreds of units we need for the most needy in our community.

From 2005 through 2007 (and halfway through 2008), we broke records for new housing construction. Our mayor pushed for and obtained upzones from a compliant city council and more incentives to the tune of millions in deferred taxes were given away to developers  During that period (from 2004-2007), we reached 50 percent of our 20 year growth targets.

But we also saw an unprecedented loss of existing low income and very low income units - far more than we could ever replace with our limited public housing dollars - over 5000 units lost to demolition, conversion, increased rents, and speculative activity directly traceable to the development boom.

While the city's liberal elites were extolling the virtues of the "Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness," they ignored these housing losses and homelessness grew at an exponential rate.

To repeat: the mayor's incentive schemes are simply giveaways to stimulate still more of this kind of growth disguised as "workforce housing." We need workforce housing in addition to more low and very low income but most workers earn in Seattle and the county at or below 60 percent of median.

Before any more upzones and tax giveaways to developers, we must first put into place mechanisms that prevent loss of existing low income units or developers must foot the bill for replacing 100 percent of the units they remove.  And with respect to use of the limited public dollars we have - especially our housing levy dollars - the emphasis must continue to remain on serving those at the bottom - below 40 percent of median with most of that serving those below 30 percent of median.

For more information, contact John V. Fox for the Coalition 206-632-0668.