While the economic downturn may do wonders for housing costs in the next several years, it's likely that governments have a much more important role to play in helping individuals and families keep a roof over their heads. WorldChanging takes a look at how Seattle is addressing the issue, and why it should be part of our environmental conversations in cities like Richmond:
In a nutshell, when we don’t provide housing in urban areas for all residents, including those who work at or near the minimum wage, we are forcing sprawl, and all of its environmentally destructive consequences. Yet for a variety of reasons -- lack of pure market incentives for developers, limits on federal subsidies, and even NIMBY-ism -- creation of affordable housing doesn't come close to meeting demand.
So how can we take advantage of all of the growth currently happening in our city to provide more affordable units for workers and families? There's been a lot of buzz in the news recently about the City of Seattle's draft incentive zoning code provisions, a piece of legislation attached to House Bill 2984 (PDF) that is designed to promote the creation of affordable housing in Seattle.
The incentive, authorized by the City Council on December 15, works like this: Developers who want to build multi-unit dwellings that are taller or more densely populated than current zoning allows – a move that increases the value of their property by increasing residential space – can get the City's permission to do so by agreeing to sell or rent 20 percent of the new housing units at affordable rates. "Affordable rents" are defined by the City of Seattle as 30 percent of the income of Seattleites earning up to 80 percent of median income for their household size; "affordable ownership" is 30 percent of the income of Seattleites earning up to 100 percent of the median.
The WorldChanging piece examines the concept from several angles -- including that of Seattle residents who earn below the median, and that of critics of the initiative.
