Seattle progressives like to wring their hands about the dearth of affordable housing within city limits. Which reflects an unspoken if hypocritical wish to eschew practicing the diversity faith they fervently preach, by buying into a minority Seattle neighborhood with cheaper homes and a relatively high proportion of minority residents (i.e. South Park, Delridge, Rainier Valley, Judkins Park). The "no affordable housing" plaint also betrays an ignorance of the effect - especially pronounced in other Seattle communities - of the basic laws of supply and demand under the heavy hand of regional growth management regulations. This latter factor is emphasized in USA Today's just-published residential real estate market profile of the Seattle market. The Seattle market, as I understand the term to be commonly used, includes major swaths of suburbia. In any case, many residents on the "urban" side of the magic growth boundary - suburbanites most definitely included - understand what the restricted housing supply on the rural side of the line means: it is one more force driving home prices up in "urban"/suburban King County.
"The restrictions on supply by growth management (are) forcing prices artificially up," says Bill Riss, CEO of Coldwell Banker Bain. One answer to building restrictions and rising home prices may be higher-density buildings. "We're in the beginning of a building boom in mid- to high-rise condominiums," Riss says.
This is all very well for empty-nesters, the wealthy, and those who got "in" to the single-family market here by the mid-90s and like myself, can appreciate the vibrancy brought to city neighborhoods when run-down or smaller vacant properties on arterial streets are redeveloped into mixed-use condo projects. But it's not so good now for younger families with children, whose needs represent a less-discussed piece of community sustainability. The result of loosening growth management restrictions here somewhat need not be an inexorable march of densely-packed subdivisions all the way to Ellensburg. A better balance must be found than exists now. One question: Where in Central Puget Sound (King, Pierce, Snohomish counties) would you advise a young family of four to look for a 2,000 square-foot home with a two-car garage for under $225,000, in a town with decent public schools? (I know: sadly that last part rules out Seattle).
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 06, 2006 07:40 PM | Email ThisThe can go to southern Pierce County which is an unregulated sprawl full of strip malls and small developements with cultiscas. Have to drive to everything. Ugly and unworkable. Would you like to trade?
Posted by: Erik on June 6, 2006 09:23 PMThese are the unwanted consequences of taking a concept like GMA and carrying it waaaaaaaaay too far.
The next thing that is going to happen is massive foreclosures once interest rates rise another point. An incredible # of buyers in Seattle have gotten into their homes with nearly 100% loans and Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
Look at California.
Foreclosures in the US are up 72% for the 1st Quarter of 2006 vs. 2005!!!!!!!!!
People are trying to convert ARMS to Fixed Rates but for some it is too late.
There will be more lay-offs of High Tech jobs....and Boeing may have some slack in some of the orders they have already booked.
Doom & Gloom???????????????
Reality!! Courtesy of GMA!
Well, Mexicans have children. And since western civers usually only have one at age 38 or so there really won't be a need for housing them for too much longer, eeh?
As for the tyrannist growth management types, I've never seen a three ring binder or a pdf file that made for good eating.
Posted by: Jericho on June 6, 2006 09:39 PMThat is so funny, your looking at the product of the growth management act and thinking that it is a result of unmanaged growth. That law had been in effect for the last 16years. What you see in southern Pierce County is a result of that act.
Posted by: Verne on June 6, 2006 09:43 PMI'm wondering if we hadn't killed off 50 million kids in the last 33 years how many entry level workers would we now have? About 25 to 30 million - that of course would take care of labor demand driven inflation and the desire by the corporates and elites for illegal laborers.
Posted by: Jericho on June 6, 2006 09:50 PMScrap Verne, put Matt in charge.
Posted by: Jericho on June 6, 2006 09:56 PMI have no idea, but they should get out of town. The old folks moving into the condos downtown don't like all the noise their kids make anyway.
Posted by: BananaLand on June 6, 2006 10:00 PMWho them? Screw'em. F***in breeders!
Posted by: huckleberry on June 6, 2006 10:06 PMNot so much the fashionable north end but the south/central Tacoma area has a large number of single family houses that actually have a lot bigger than a postage stamp to go with them. (Platted before growth management...)
Admittedly, the price may be closer to the 250k range now and the public schools are nothing to speak of but there are a good number of private schools in the area to give some reasonable options.
Viva la revolucion. Be careful what you plan for Ron.
Posted by: Jericho on June 6, 2006 10:28 PM
The problem with Erik and his ilk was when GMA passed they decided to hammer on the counties but forgot the cities. The cities thumbed their elitist noses at the GMA and did business as usual.
Er, Matt, but aren't there subdivision after subdivision from here to E'burg now? I have heard of at least a half dozen people that make the commute from the east to west side everyday.
Posted by: swatter on June 7, 2006 07:28 AM1. Immigration laws exist, but the failure of government to correctly implement them has erased our border.
2. Elections laws exist in King County, but the failure of government to uphold them allowed thousands of illegal votes to elect Gregoire.
3. The Growth Management Act has both concurrency requirements and requirements to plan for 20 years of growth, but it is government's failure to implement those requirements that have created the infrastructure crisis we have and the short supply of housing that isn't satisfying demand.
Everyone needs to remember that governments make the laws and they are responsible to implement and enforce them as intended. When a law fails, we must look at whether the problem was the law itself, or the implementation of that law.
I know from personal experience that King County has never supported or responsibly implemented Growth Management, because frankly, King County is owned by the growth industry, and there is literally nothing this government won't do for the right developer.
Don't blame the Growth Management Act for our problems. It is a law created by a government that we know today never had any intention on controlling growth, but that was honestly more interested with managing the growth industry and helping its friends to maximize their profit through subsidies and policies that prevent supply from meeting demand.
BTW- that $225,000 home witn 2,000 square feet and a two-car garage that doesn't exist in Seattle today? Adjusting for inflation, did such a home exist in Seattle in 1980 for $85,000?
Posted by: MJC on June 7, 2006 07:52 AMIt's about control of property.
It's about deny the individual fundamental right to own property, land and material.
It's about making the individual dependent upon the state.
It's about the power for the elite.
Until those who believe in elitism, statism and ultimately communism are removed from power expect more of the same.
The fight should be to place those into office that believe in the fundamental rights of the individual. As long as the current minset remains in office and government we will continue on this course.
Posted by: JCM on June 7, 2006 08:36 AMWould a family forced to live in an apartment because they can't even begin to afford the increasingly astronomical prices of real estate in the area like to trade for a place they can afford, a place they can call their own.... even in a place like the one you discribed?
Tell me you're kidding, Erik.
Posted by: Hinton (Former Seattleite) on June 7, 2006 08:46 AMThe condos going up are definitely not family sized, and do not have family amenities (courtyards with big toys for example).
The reality is, a lot of people benefit from housing price inflation. It is a great source of cash for some, or a windfall to fund one's retirement for others, as long as they're willing to move to someplace cheaper. Also govt benefits: for example, the state real estate excise tax is adding up to a lot of money.
But a lot of people lose. The long-distance commutes, the huge mortgage payments and the risks associated with low or no down payment mortgages, or interest only, or adjustables, may have an impact on a lot of people.
In the Bay Area, where there's a limited supply of land, and also a great cost for long-time owners to sell in that they give up their low low low property tax payments resulting from Prop 13, the result has been very long-distance mega commutes of 90+ minutes, each way, each day. The equivalent here would be Ellensburg, Roslyn, Olympia, Belfair on Hood Canal, Mt Vernon or even Bellingham if your commute is to North King County, not Bellevue or Seattle proper. But real estate in Anacortes, Mt Vernon and Bellingham has all gone up significantly in the past few years also.
Our transportation system is definitely not set up for these types of megacommutes, which probably means more road congestion.
Posted by: Commentator on June 7, 2006 09:55 AMWe live in the other 25 percent.
That the patterns of changes in housing costs follow state (and sometimes city) boundaries shows unambiguously that state laws and regulations cause those differences in housing costs.
And people in New York (which has very high housing costs) wonder why people in Kansas (which has very low housing costs) vote for Republicans.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 7, 2006 11:09 AMExcellent reminder Pat.
McGavick and the R's should be POUNDING on Cantwell reminding people of this failed attempt of social engineering and make-believe economics!
It is a shining example of her failure to understand basic economics and not trust people with their own property.
I HOPE McGavick's troops do not miss this important issue...but they probably will.
The only way I could get a bigger house closer is to put the kids in day care and send my wife back to work, and I have Masters plus a professional certification so I make good income.
What I really want is to find a job in BFE, move the family there and drop a BA to King county on the way out.
Posted by: Dan on June 7, 2006 12:02 PMThe one thing that various socialist/environmentalist urban planners hate is the fact that most people don't desire to live in conditions that reduce them to being bugs swarming on asphalt and concrete. People want yards, space to themselves, green stuff growing around them, animals - not to be jammed into high-rise condominiums like so many sardines.
There is a reason we have suburban sprawl - people like it.
Posted by: H Moul on June 7, 2006 12:47 PMI suppose this is true. But honestly, I don't understand how people live in those new McMansion developments with zero lot lines. And unfortunately, that seems to be what is primarily built these days because of the limited amount of land available for development.
The land is clear cut to make room for as many houses as possible, and instead of being crammed into a downtown condo, they are crammed into a suburban development, complete with CCR's that tell you what kind of fence you can build and what color you can paint your house. To me, that is not freedom, but to each his own I guess.
This is why I live outside the urban growth boundary, and there are limits to the number of houses that can be built per acre. The GMA certainly has flaws, but I'm thankful for parts of it.
Posted by: Palouse on June 7, 2006 01:21 PMI wouldn't advise them to look for any such thing.
I would advise a young family of four, with utopian delusions of "decent public schools", who can afford $225K, but is too snobby to settle for something less than a nice, 2,000 square-foot home with a two-car garage in Seattle or Kirkland, to get real.
For a typical, working class young family starting out, looking for a home under $225K: I would suggest that they look for an older 1,100 square-foot home with a one-car garage, perhaps in South or East Tacoma, Parkland or Lacey; and look for work in Olympia, Tacoma or South King County. In a few years, when they're making more money and have built some equity, they can step up to something more prestigious.
Thank God for all that "...unregulated sprawl full of strip malls and small developements with cultiscas(sic). Have to drive to everything. Ugly and unworkable."
I wouldn't trade it for anything in Seattle. I love it all: the driving, the unregulated sprawl. I love strip malls. Maybe I'm a hick. I think my neighbors are - they act like it - kind of noisey, an occasional brawl - but they're great.
Maybe some people are eliter (snobbier) than we. Or maybe eliter people feel insecure outside of a highly regimented, heavily regulated, government controlled environment.
I like freedom. And I like free people around me. But sometimes free people do weird things. I love it.
Posted by: ken on June 7, 2006 02:18 PMI am a hick of the latter group....Wouldn't change it for the world. I will be downsizing to 2 acres in a few years, and my ten acres will be worth 15 times what I paid for it, and the stuck on woodstock buyer from california will think he stole it from me.
For just a hick, pretty smart aren't we.....
Posted by: Chris on June 7, 2006 03:01 PMAnd what do they propose? Infill developments of ugly snout houses that don't mesh with a neighborhood. Or they demand that government tax people to pay for affordable housing. They create the problem and then they want to create yet more bureaucracies to "correct" the problem they've created.
Truthfully, I think that these self-righteous elitists have all along wanted to use government to manage things to a point where they can profit by buying into neighborhoods, keep out dark-skinned people and increase their own wealth. Interesting how the media never suggests such a thing.
Posted by: Bob on June 7, 2006 10:16 PMShe never too Econ 101 I guess. But that doesn't stop Cantwell from being our Senatress (for a few mor months, anyway!).
You might not be a hick.
I'm not sure, but I think by today's standards, in the context of a liberal elitist, highly enlightened Pacific Northwest/Seattlist society - living on 10 to 20 acres miles from a gas station or strip mall, like you do...
...you might be a full-blown hillbilly.
Posted by: ken on June 10, 2006 12:44 PM