By Joan Bloom
Posted: December 8, 2024
When Edmonds councilmembers claim their draft Comp Plan, soon to be approved, includes “affordable housing,” are they lying or just ignorant?
The state defines “affordable housing” as the renter paying no more than 1/3 of their income on rent. See Definitions 1. here.
The State Department of Commerce (DOC) 12-1-24 newsletter in a new report on the “housing landscape” states: “Nearly half of renter households pay more than 30% of income on housing costs.”
Despite that the DOC required all income levels be reflected in the new housing bills, none of the bills includes “affordable housing” per the RCW definition. At our legislators’ town hall on March 18, 2023, Strom Peterson was quoted: “we’ve never claimed that HB 1110 will make housing more affordable.”
All of the housing built via the mandated housing bills will be market rate. The draft Comp Plan only includes reference to 0-80% adjusted median income (AMI) and no reference to those of “Extremely low income” i.e.: 0-30% AMI. Responsibility for providing “affordable housing” is left to nonprofits. But here’s a fun fact: Even the nonprofit Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) isn’t required to ensure renters pay no more than 30% of their income on rent. Unless a renter qualifies for Section 8 (a federal program) they’re lucky if their rent is slightly below market rate.
HASCO pays no property taxes and council increased Edmonds sales tax to allocate to HASCO toward future property purchases.
Another fun fact: Multi-family tax exemption (MFTE) buildings also use 80%-115% AMI, with no requirement to provide “affordable housing” per the RCWs. The 12 years of tax exemption granted the Henbart Westgate MFTE on all apartments for slightly reduced rent to 20% of renters, shifts the taxes Henbart doesn’t pay to “non-exempt” taxpayers.
Housing bills imposed statewide by our legislators are about increasing property taxes. They’re about giving free rein to developers to build without protecting our critical aquifer recharge areas and other critical areas. Except for Councilmember Dotsch, council is pushing forward with adopting the draft Comp Plan, dismissing public input. Council is giving height bonuses to developers who build “green” or provide a few below-market rate homes in the mix. How can council justify this? Why do any councilmembers believe that developers need incentives to build in Edmonds?
Council ignored Councilmember Dotsch’s proposal to focus development on 99 where our infrastructure can support it. They ignored John Zipper’s proposal of ADUs/DADUs as a third draft Comp Plan option. They have ignored Joe Scordino and the Edmonds Environmental Council’s plea to protect our environmental assets and attend to our aging infrastructure.
Whether councilmembers are lying or ignorant, the result is the same. The Comp Plan as written will benefit developers, realtors and others who profit from development. It will dramatically increase taxpayers’ burden through increased property taxes, cost to upgrade aging infrastructure and costs of lawsuits, which will inevitably be filed by developers intent upon building on or near critical areas.
Council’s motto: Feed Developers. Starve Taxpayers.
And, as always, those Edmonds residents who have the fewest resources to fall back on will suffer the most.
— By Joan Bloom
Edmonds City Councilmember 2012-2015