Council Kills Morales' Affordable Housing Bill, Arguing for More Process and Delay
Morales had been working on the program, called the "Connected Communities Pilot," for two years.
By Erica C. Barnett
The Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to kill legislation sponsored by Councilmember Tammy Morales aimed at helping community organizations with "limited development experience" build small-scale affordable housing developments and "equitable development" projects, such as health clinics, day care, and retail space.
Morales had been working on the program, called the "Connected Communities Pilot," since 2022. The five-year pilot would have helped as many as 35 community organizations build larger, taller buildings, as long as they preserved a third of their rental units for people making 60 percent or less of the Seattle's area median income (AMI), or built homeownership units for people making 100 percent of Seattle AMI or less.
It would have also allowed community groups to build apartments in areas of the city that have historically been reserved for single-family houses, and exempted certain projects in historically redlined areas from design review and parking minimums, two requirements that can add significant time and cost to projects.
The council's land use committee, which Morales chairs, voted against her bill last week, citing vague concerns that the bill had been rushed and that there were more appropriate avenues for building affordable housing.
At Tuesday's meeting, Morales' new colleagues repeated those claims, suggesting that the city should instead provide affordable housing through the comprehensive plan, the housing levy, or some unspecified future legislative route.
"After the comp plan process is finalized, we can determine if additional legislation is needed to achieve our housing goals," Councilmember Maritza Rivera said on Tuesday. "In addition, the city just passed a nearly $1 billion [housing levy] and we do not yet know how these funds will be implemented. ... Finally, given our housing shortage and the slowing down of recent development, we need to consider how to incentivize all development, rather than singling out some investments over others."
In fact, as Morales pointed out, the city does know how the Housing Levy funds will be spent. And the comprehensive plan update is a set of policy guidelines, not legislation—the city can still pass housing legislation and incentives before finalizing the update, which might not happen until next year. "This is just another tool to help us meet our housing shortage, which we all acknowledge we have," she said.
Tanya Woo, who was appointed to fill an open seat after losing to Morales last year, offered that as an "affordable housing developer," she believed the income thresholds in Morales' bill were too high. (Woo's family owns the Louisa Hotel, which they renovated and turned into affordable housing under the city's Multifamily Tax Exemption program.)
"Are we just throwing numbers out there?" Woo said. "As an affordable housing developer, I believe that the devil resides in the details. I urge everyone to read the legislation firsthand and also seek insights from those entrenched in the battle against gentrification and displacement, which I have spent my whole life fighting."
Morales responded to most of the objections, noting that her bill received five committee hearings, where the council discussed the income requirements and many of the other issues her opponents were bringing up. "We don't have nearly enough housing, so we need more options for people, and this [is] one tool for increasing the amount of affordable housing," Morales said. "That's how we prevent displacement—by giving residents more affordable housing options."
Councilmember Dan Strauss proposed an unsuccessful amendment that would have rolled back the proposed density incentives, reinstated minimum parking requirements, and required all developments in the pilot to also participate in Mandatory Housing Affordability, a program that requires market-rate developers in certain parts of the city to help fund affordable housing. After that amendment failed, Strauss cast a seemingly reluctant vote for Morales', initially muttering "sure" off-mic, then clarifying, "yes," when the council clerk asked him to speak more clearly.
Earlier this week, Morales expressed her disappointment and frustration that in its first four months, the council's centrist supermajority has proposed no substantive legislation and has chosen to focus instead on unwinding the work of the previous, more progressive council.
In response, Councilmember Cathy Moore threatened to use the council rules of conduct to silence Morales, who Moore claimed (based on no apparent evidence) that Morales called her colleagues "evil" "corporate shills" with "no concern for our fellow human beings." Moore did not make good on her threat.
"After that amendment failed, Strauss cast a seemingly reluctant vote for Morales', initially muttering 'sure' off-mic, then clarifying, 'yes,' when the council clerk asked him to speak more clearly."
Brutal. I can't believe that we let this doofus run unopposed from the left.
Why are you promoting “killing”?