So the plan would be “at no cost to the City” while allowing developers to skip paying some fees?

Must be that ‘new math’ I don’t understand.

@1, really? We spend how much/year to mitigate what the high cost of housing does to our City and you’re going to cheap out on a few million dollars in development fees? Tell me you don’t want poor people in your neighborhood without actually saying that.

To be fair, the housing crisis in Seattle has developed and worsened under progressive government after progressive government.... Maybe, just hear me out hear, the "intent" of legislation isn't always the result of that legislation. Indeed, if it's touted as "affordable" or reducing costs, it's almost guaranteed to make it less affordable and increase costs (see, e.g. Affordable Care Act. see also Inflation Reduction Act). If progressive good intentions for 20-plus years have resulted in a worsening crisis, perhaps a radically different approach is called for. At least stop digging the hole we find ourselves in any deeper.

I'm disappointed Hannah didn't manage to include even a single reference to "greedy developers" in this post.

Considering how the last project, Morales authored turned out, the Black Brilliance project, I think the council has a right to be suspicious of her analysis on the outcomes. For those who may be unaware of that project, simply google “black brilliant project scc insight” for a thorough analysis

What is a "wider building"? If it has to do with encroaching on pedestrian right-of-way, then fuck that. Also, design reviews are a good thing. If the process is "arduous" then maybe work on making them less so.

That said, Sara Nelson sucks.

@1: If the buildings don't pencil, there are no fees paid. I think the point of the bill is that as things stand, those affordable developments aren't economically feasible, so fees = $0.

"Woo worried the bill made it too easy to qualify for the incentive. She also wanted to restrict the incentives for developers that build units for people who make 30% of the Area Median Income, instead of 80% AMI where Morales had set the bar."

That's a very valid concern, especially if the stated purpose of the incentive is to "curb displacement risk for marginalized people." It's hard to argue that someone making 80% of AMI is marginalized, but much easier to accept that designation for someone much nearer to the bottom of the income distribution (30% AMI).

Another red flag, as noted above, was the option to skip the design review process. That very much sounds as if safety standards may be compromised for residents of this low-income housing.

Doug dear, I think a "wider building" refers to a reduction of setbacks.

Tammy Morales has presided of hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for affordable housing in Seattle.

Results:
1. No affordable housing built
2. Tammy's friends and campaign contributors built numerous housing 'non-profit' organizations and paid themselves $250K/year helping solve homelessness

Plus, Tammy has driven LOCAL mom-and-pops out of the housing market. Seattle lost 10,000+ affordable apts in just 2022 alone (SOURCE: Seattle's Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance database). Those affordable apts were torn down and are now $950K townhouses.

Plus, Tammy's policies have cause all Housing Providers to increase rental requirements for prospective renters.

Tammy's policies have failed--and failed badly.

Glad to see that the new Seattle City Council understands Tammy's incompetence.

@8: "Design review" is about aesthetics. It does not touch safety standards.

@12: Thanks for the clarification. Bigger, uglier buildings which block more light will certainly make Seattle a denser ant-hil — um, MORE LIVABLE CITY.

So glad I moved away…

@14, No you aren't, or else you would stop complaining about everything that doesn't affect you since you did.

@15: Those of us who leave voluntarily have a different perspective than those who get thrown out and keep coming back, dear.

But you’ll just have to trust me on that.