MIA #1

At one point or another, many of us have heard or seen the phrase “Home is where the heart is” and would also generally accept it as true. After all, “home” is where most people create their first memories of childhood or yearn to return to after a long day at work. When it comes to the debate over building low-income housing in downtown Seattle and its surrounding neighborhoods however, opinions are divided around the legitimacy of these specific homes and to what effect they would have on the community. On one side of the street so to speak, city politicians and housing advocates argue that housing affordability is a fundamental right that should be shared across the board. Opponents however, such has for-profit developers and specific groups of residents and business owners, believe that low-income housing proposals and tax levies are government infringements that only provide “modest answers” to a much larger, even nebulous, problem.

Even as our economy dwindles, the need for affordable housing will continue to grow and remain as an imminent dilemma. For example, the City of Seattle spends about $40 million annually to address the issue of homelessness; a problem that could be tackled by creating affordable homes for families and individuals alike. The 2008 One Night Count of the Homeless in King County found that there had been a 15 percent increase from 2007. Neighborhoods that were once affordable are witnessing a transitioning “face lift” that tailors to a more gentrified, upper-middle class. Additionally, family shelters are turning away families on daily basis due to a lack of space. Will we change our fundamental value to rest on “My car is where the heart is” or “Underneath bridges is where the heart is?” Doesn’t sound quite right, does it?

As a believer in increasing affordable housing, I argue that we should utilize city proposals and tax levies as a means of supporting non-profit organizations working with low-income housing. This will also include for-profit developers in an evolution of thought and business practice. Since 1980, Seattle residents have consistently supported city tax measures that help to soften the impact of rising rents. Why should we continue to do so? First, because we can all agree that having a home is a necessity as well as an individual’s and a family’s fundamental right. Secondly, increasing low-income housing within the city gives people more immediate access to their needs like groceries, banks, and hospitals without having to rely on cars for transportation. Finally, developing more homes and apartments for people who make less than $43,000 annually (80% of median income) within an urban atmosphere allows for more employments opportunities. Select residents and for-profit developers should realize that this is not a city just for them, but for all citizens who deserve a certain standard of life.

While many people agree that everyone deserves an equal standard of livelihood, others feel strongly about what they have and still do work for. Opponents to an increase in low-income housing feel as thought city taxes and proposals for development directly infringe on their rights. As a doubter of such measures like the 2008 affordable-housing proposal, which collected $20 million from commercial and residential developers, I believe that government puts too much responsibility on hard-working citizens and should not control private business interests. “Incentive zoning” is an interference on commercial practices that does not offer any incentives to add affordable units. They could even drive businesses away and deter potential home buyers from considering certain neighborhoods and developments. Already, some residents have objected to a disproportionate share of lower-income housing in their neighborhoods because it could lower the value of their own homes or change the face of their existing communities.

In a December 2008 Seattle Times piece by Emily Heffter, she supports measures that increase affordable housing in Seattle but criticizes the way in which the city manages funds collected by commercial and residential developers. Her article addresses the existing problems, but also realizes many shortcomings of both its supporters and opponents. For example, Heffter writes that while taxes have been collected to begin the many projects for low-income housing, city officials have worked inefficiently with both time and money. Heffter responds to the question of “So now what?” The city has its funds to support its programs, but problems does it still face? In my opinion, articles by the Time and P.I. are largely in support of increasing low-income housing, but many of their readers who respond with online comments remain skeptical and critical. Although some funds have been collected and there is substantial support behind affordable-housing projects, there still remains an existing conflicting and a mismanagement of details.