«
»

Incentive zoning draws a crowd and strange bedfellows

Incentive zoning to create affordable housing had a lengthy public hearing tonight.

Labor likes incentive zoning saying that “development left unchecked [will] widen the gap between rich and poor.” That doesn’t sound very “pro-development.”

But Steve Williamson from UFCW Local 21 said “We are pro development.” But Williamson added that we “want shared prosperity” which means requiring housing for people making 40% AMI requiring union labor for construction.

Labor supports incentive zoning as 'Development with Justice'

Labor supports incentive zoning as 'Development with Justice'

Low income housing advocates are in favor of this as well seeing an opportunity for new housing units and new dollars from a pay in lieu element in the legislation.

But there are two unlikely groups aligned against incentive zoning.

The first is John Fox’s Displacement Coalition. Fox in a recent e-mail about incentive zoning he said that “for months, our Mayor and most of our City Council have been hashing over new programs designed to reward developers with tax breaks, more density, and other giveaways.” In the same e-mail Fox calls for a moratorium on growth.

The second vocal group tonight was the business community and developers. Steve Leahy of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce said that the proposal is actually a disincentive for new development. Up zones are incentive enough and the best way to create more affordable housing. They don’t see a giveaway here.

What do single family neighborhoods think of incentive zoning? On October 21st the City Neighborhood Council will be holding a meeting to discuss what incentive zoning might mean for single family neighborhoods.

Will single family neighborhoods join developers and the Displacement Coalition against incentive zoning? Do neighborhoods see incentive zoning as more density at their expense? Does the recent financial crisis make incentive zoning moot since credit has frozen and nobody can build or buy?

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted by Roger Valdez on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 11:17 pm and is filed under Government, Planning, Politics, Seattle lifestyle, Zoning. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • leero

    Why would single family neighborhoods be against incentive zoning? Incentive zoning won’t change things in SF zones – it would be in MF and mixed use zones. The CNC should be FOR incentive zoning since it funnels even more of our inevitable growth (moratoria notwithstanding) into urban villages. The apparently sacrosanct SF neighborhoods get to stay the way they are.

    We can’t have it both ways. If we want to keep density in our neighborhoods low, we need to increase density in urban villages. If we’re scared of density in urban villages, then we need to provide development capacity in neighborhoods.

    Simply saying that Seattle won’t or shouldn’t grow anymore is ignorant at best – at worst its a ploy to increase sprawl, pollution, and traffic in the name of cheap land in the hinterlands for developers.

  • Roger Valdez

    Leero,

    I agree with you about trying to have it both ways. I think the basis of opposition might be the keen interest single family neighborhoods take in adjacent multifamily zones.

    At some point single family advocates will have to tolerate more density in NC and other zones that ideally could accommodate more growth. We’ll see how the conversation on the 21st goes.

    Roger–

  • Jermaine

    I’m an organizer for the Laborers’ Districy Council, and we are very much in favor of development. The more that is built and the bigger it is, the more work we get for our members. Our current and future members live in the areas that are slated for the upzones, and we want certain labor standards attached to the upzones. The contractors that perform the type of construction that will take place in the upzones are shady at best. They’ll pay workers under the table, non-payment of overtime, cheating on “haz-mat” training, etc. Our communities deserve an opportunity to work on these projects, make a family wage, receive family healthcare and a defined pension plan. We will offer training throuhg apprenticeship programs and provide the contractors performing the work with skilled professionals. As it stands now the usual players in the market don’t provide training in any way, which leads to faulty construction and leaky condo scandals. If you would like to discuss this in person we would be happy to meet with you. My number in 206-841-6043

  • Pingback: SeattleScape » Blog Archive » Incentive zoning: Right solution, wrong problem?