Dear Weyerhauser Company Foundation,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Northwest Housing Oranization, a 501(C)(3) organization that works to increase low-income housing in the city of Seattle. Specifically, we build and support low-income housing programs in Seattle's Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Beacon Hill neighborhoods. Our organization intends to create safe and inclusive communities for individuals and families that are at risk of becoming or are currently homeless. For over twelve years we have successfully built and restored eleven high and low rise apartment buildings as well as six traditional houses in order to create what everyone fundamentally derserves - a home.
Currently, we are developing a plan that would create a fifty person apartment complex in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on the block of 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. This housing project will provide a safe environment for single parent families to live and create supportive community. As studies show, single parent families are four times as likely to become homeless as those supported by two adults. Additionally, homelessness for single family households has climbed 2% every year since 2006 within Seattle. The requirements to live in the 13th and Jefferson apartment complex would include: a past history of homelessness within the family, no criminal drug records, and a total family income of less than $25,000 a year. We intend to being building on May 26th, 2009 and finish by September 15th 2009.
Attached is a detailed form that provides a budgetary breakdown of how we intend on carrying out a greatly needed project. Please consider the information we have provided and the Seattle families that depend on organizations like our own, Northwest Housing Organization. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Grant Writing
In every nation, city, and small town we as a people recognize that each person deserves some basic fundamental rights. Some of thoses would include food and water, but what I am most concerned about is shelter. Despite the apparent and immediate need for housing in city's like Seattle, many people and families go without sufficient housing. While homes provide the most simple aspect of a person's livelihood, like having a roof over your head, they are also the centers of our worlds, of our existence as a family. Without proper housing, many people lose this sense of connectedness and are at serious risk socially, physically,and psychologically.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
Fashion Forward
I am Top Romine dinners. I am free ketchup packets at McDonald’s. I am “take what you can get from relatives that live nearby.” Above everything, I am a starving college student. Tooth brushes last too long and grocery store coupons litter the face of my refrigerator. Despite living in a house that rejects the heater to save on utility bills, I am high fashion. Marc Jacobs, Vivienne Westwood, Yves Saint Laurent, and Coco Chanel are all dear friends of mine – except for the fact that they do not know me. It is also a little problematic that two of my four “dear friends” no longer walk among us or the iconic celebrity models that they helped to create. What I am really trying to say, is that although I cannot afford high end threads nor fulfill my lifelong dream of spending Parisian nights in Indian silks, I live to learn, consume, and break down all things fashion. One may read this piece or know me personally and think, “She has no real experience in the fashion world” but I ask you, what is the fashion world? Is it defined by solid borders or is it a nebulous heaven-like place somewhere in Milan? And if you happen to find out, could you please take me there?
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
To Ms. Goodloe-Johnson:
To put a price on education is to jeopardize the future of our community's youth as well as that of the city. You sought the board's approval in late October to consider closing schools this coming June because of the state of our nation's economy. Have you considered however, that budding minds are priceless? The way that children develop, be it what they think or how they think, is not done quickly and we should not be as careless as to make any final decision regarding the future of our educational institutions in such a haste.
With such an outcry from the community, are you deaf to its passionate opposition? The issue cannot be resolved by way of numbers and digits. The issue is not quantifiable by counting funds and squeezing budgets. To address this issue, we must look at the quality of our chlildren's education. Instead of improving programs and rebuilding a deteriorating system, you choose to build on top of an un-sound foundation. Look to the roots of the problem, the struggling communities surrounding the closing schools, and what is at stake for our future.
To put a price on education is to jeopardize the future of our community's youth as well as that of the city. You sought the board's approval in late October to consider closing schools this coming June because of the state of our nation's economy. Have you considered however, that budding minds are priceless? The way that children develop, be it what they think or how they think, is not done quickly and we should not be as careless as to make any final decision regarding the future of our educational institutions in such a haste.
With such an outcry from the community, are you deaf to its passionate opposition? The issue cannot be resolved by way of numbers and digits. The issue is not quantifiable by counting funds and squeezing budgets. To address this issue, we must look at the quality of our chlildren's education. Instead of improving programs and rebuilding a deteriorating system, you choose to build on top of an un-sound foundation. Look to the roots of the problem, the struggling communities surrounding the closing schools, and what is at stake for our future.
College Humor Lacks
If you want cookie-cutter humor, the College Humor Show has it. If you want juvenile pranks enveloped in lack luster dialogue, this is the place to be. Screaming, pies to the face, and the degradation of women drive this *NEW*EXCITING*INNOVATIVE* show hosted by (who else?) MTV.
Did I mention the degradation of women? The only significant role played by a female character, Sarah, is within in a cast of seven men. She is constantly being put down for her un-appealing and un-sexy looks. She is plain. She is built like a tomboy. She is...normal. While Sarah is often portrayed as the intellect of the group, what she says is disregarded - her presence is not important. Additionally, any other women within the show are portrayed as mindless "sexy" college girls who, at times, travel in zombie-like packs. The message that the College Humor establishment sends about women includes today's staff pick, "POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her." Real classy.
If we even pretended as if this was not an issue within the narrative the College Humor Show, there still remains the problem of an overall horrible production. Sure, its show makes us laugh (myself occasionally included) however, it has already been done. "Jackass," anyone? Office humor? Try the overwhelmingly successful show, "The Office." Done and done. The College Humor Show has been if anything, regurgitated to cling to what's left of the minds of today's budding university intellects. If we wanted to dig to the center of the show's core, we wouldn't get far. It's quality lies on the surface as an expected, slapstick shtick that degrades not only the role of women within society, but the overall quality of thinking and level of criticism within our minds.
Did I mention the degradation of women? The only significant role played by a female character, Sarah, is within in a cast of seven men. She is constantly being put down for her un-appealing and un-sexy looks. She is plain. She is built like a tomboy. She is...normal. While Sarah is often portrayed as the intellect of the group, what she says is disregarded - her presence is not important. Additionally, any other women within the show are portrayed as mindless "sexy" college girls who, at times, travel in zombie-like packs. The message that the College Humor establishment sends about women includes today's staff pick, "POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her." Real classy.
If we even pretended as if this was not an issue within the narrative the College Humor Show, there still remains the problem of an overall horrible production. Sure, its show makes us laugh (myself occasionally included) however, it has already been done. "Jackass," anyone? Office humor? Try the overwhelmingly successful show, "The Office." Done and done. The College Humor Show has been if anything, regurgitated to cling to what's left of the minds of today's budding university intellects. If we wanted to dig to the center of the show's core, we wouldn't get far. It's quality lies on the surface as an expected, slapstick shtick that degrades not only the role of women within society, but the overall quality of thinking and level of criticism within our minds.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stasis
Building more affordable housing throughout the city of Seattle will help to improve the failing economy. I argue that this is because it will 1). create more jobs in engineering and construction, 2). alleviate budgets of low-income individuals so that they have more money to return to the economy and 3). encourage the development of local businesses. Additionally, it will increase the flow of funds between non-profits, for-profit businesses, and the city government.
Debate Response
Not being one entirely educated on the viaduct controversy, I hardly know where to begin. I felt as though the in-class debate was extremly helpful in clearly explaining the opposing arguments of the issue. When it came to the vote however, I sided with James in favor of building the viaduct. This was mostly because of its opportunity to create more jobs. In doing so, people will be able to not only survive with rising costs of food, rent, etc but will also have the funds to put back into the economy. By creating more jobs, we are building better lives.
What concerns me however, is where the funds are coming from exactly. In order to more people that this is a good idea, I think that there needs to be a clear budget presented to the public. Is the money for the viaduct being taken from the public schools closing? I doubt that they are, but it is always important to be re-assured.
What concerns me however, is where the funds are coming from exactly. In order to more people that this is a good idea, I think that there needs to be a clear budget presented to the public. Is the money for the viaduct being taken from the public schools closing? I doubt that they are, but it is always important to be re-assured.
Final MAP
The American home is a brownstone in Brooklyn, a stucco two-story in Los Angeles, a studio in Portland, and a double-wide in Phoenix. It is brick walls and tiled roves, modern decorum and thrift store finds. Regardless of the physical make-up of a house, the memories, traditions, and values within it create a home. One could almost argue that the home is where we begin to define ourselves to ourselves as well as to greater society. Home is our last refuge after a long day at work, but also the centerpiece to family gatherings both large and small. We set our own visual narrative to the home through Norman Rockwell paintings, but also through images of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The American home however, sometimes struggles to exist. After Hurricane Katrina for example, many houses that were homes to the poor, the elderly, and the disabled were torn down out of necessity, but re-built for the middle and upper class advantage. In a December 2007 article about dangerous confrontations in New Orleans over housing demolition, The New York Times reported that “the federal government is beginning this week to tear down thousands of apartments in the city’s four biggest public housing projects” because, as some see it, “the government’s real aim was to keep the poor, mostly female, almost entirely black residents of public housing from returning to their city, to their homes.” Others argue that it was time for an economic boost in the area. The destruction of the American home however, does not always occur through natural disasters. With the help of an economic crisis, that has raised unemployment in Washington State to 7.1%, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, “Volunteers counted 2,826 people sleeping in vehicles, structures and doorways and under overpasses, among other areas.” These numbers indicate a 2% increase since the 2008 count. Additionally, South King County saw a 68% increase while numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Like a repetitive nightmare, America is seeing many of the same problems of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. While individuals and families on all economic levels are struggling, those who were already in the midst of personal financial crisis are beginning to feel the weight of a nation; they are losing their homes, their refuge and family strongholds.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why the demand for affordable housing is rising. Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. Regardless of whose interest is what, the issue of low income housing in Seattle takes shape through different definitions of community and how we may approach them to help those in need.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate income housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of the high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the site’s 481 low income-housing units and replaced them with 1,010 new homes which were created for moderate income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city. It was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs for low income residents almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act, as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, non-renewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income individuals will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy” that would also provide green jobs and improve energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have shown that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Wells believe that “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate that sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those who would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
Additionally, in not addressing their opponents’ arguments, the articles ignore the issue of “community” in terms of who defines it and in what ways. Yes, they argue for more low income housing and for valid reasons, but what specific effects will take place in the community? What about claims of rising crime rates? Will creating communities of low income housing keep families in poverty or provide support systems? Many people believe that in building large low income developments, criminals have a large pool of so-called victims to choose from. Moreover, it is also believed that individuals and families are not exposed to a wide range of economic opportunities and are basically trapped in “projects” apart from “the rest of” society. These articles merely introduced the need for housing in Seattle and did a fine job, but could have strengthened their arguments by citing success stories of low income developments that have been integrated into high income neighborhoods or even communities on the rise. As readers, we need to be better informed on where these particular communities are situated, what makes them successful, and why Seattle would benefit from an increase in their development.
In contrast, opponents to their articles do address the negative effects of increased low-income housing. Lyn Tangen, director of government and community relations for the Seattle based project management company, Vulcan Inc. argues that an incentive-zoning program to increase low-income housing could result in no redevelopment at all. This is, she claims, “because there would be no economic incentive to take advantage of the bonus.” Tangen worries that this program would slow business growth and create a decline in high-paid, skilled jobs. Additionally, she argues that the incentive-zoning program would not work in many parts of the city. Tangen supports her claims with quotes from Planning and Land Use Committee members, other city officials, and the mayor’s consultant, Heartland – all of which have issue with the program. She criticizes Mayor Nickels push for the plan last summer when the real estate market was “red hot” but does not offer much more concrete information other than “some Seattle condos have been put on auction for half of their asking price.” Overall, she believes that increased low-income development in particular parts of the city will deliver a stifling blow to economic development.
What is interesting about her argument however, is that she cites Vulcan’s contribution to low-income housing in the past - $6 million dollars to build a project in South Lake Union. While Tangen disapproves of certain low income development in specific parts of Seattle, she supported “housing needs and development rights for a building that will fit well in the gateway to downtown.” Her article is an example of the varying grey areas within the debate. As an advocate for the business community, Tangen is invested in creating economically sound developments based on location and community. The efforts of Vulcan and other corporations like it however, are hardly far-reaching. Some argue that their “community investments” a mere bones thrown to gain support. In focusing on economic cause and effect, or the loci of the existent, Tangen ignores the fight for the greater good. A problem still remains that could, I would argue, affect Vulcan’s future development. What if the city beats these businesses to land purchasing opportunities and excludes their interests entirely? Perhaps opponents to city-wide development should re-consider definitions of “community.” Should they help to spread low income housing throughout the city for the benefit of all, or create small contained developments that hinder economic growth in specific neighborhoods?
In developing and defining inclusive neighborhoods, all opinions must be taken into consideration. For example, business leaders who refuse to have a hand in helping to shape future projects risk government control that has proven to make more than a few missteps. In a Time article titled, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” author Madison Gray explores the government’s short comings in the affordable housing debate. Gray’s article does not necessarily oppose low-income housing, but is wary of state and federal programs, like Norman and Tierney’s, that put renters, businesses, and entire communities at risk. The programs are likely to give struggling building owners the opportunity to opt out of housing subsidy contracts in the wake of our economic crisis and mortgage meltdown. “According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as many as 13,000 Section 8 contracts,” those that support low-income development, “will expire by 2013.” Who will be affected? Madison cites Michael Bodaken, executive director of the National Housing Trust, who says that about 1.5 million apartments housing between three and five million people will be affected. But building owners and landlords nationwide say that they are suffering from “HUD fatigue” –frusteration with having to work through government bureaucracy in order to receive subsidies; payments which, many claim, are consistently late.
Again, we find that the debate over low-income housing is a gray one. Madison’s article does not openly oppose affordable housing. In fact, she supports it more than anything, but finds that government programs like those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development help to break struggling families’ backs by disregarding their needs and crumbling under economic pressures. Madison even argues by way of community activists that “a mass opt-out by landlords would leave many poor people with only one alternative of receiving HUD vouchers to help pay their rents.” The federal voucher system, she claims, has its advantages but the wait to qualify is extremely long and landlords are not required to accept them. Like all of the articles leading up to our final piece, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” presents a well defined argument but leaves out possible opportunities, partnerships, and solutions. Yes, there is an evident need for low-income housing nationally and locally, but how to you propose that we go about doing it? Should we rely on government developments? Federal subsidies and programs? Clearly not. Should we look to community business leaders for support? Not entirely. Madison’s article was a well written criticism that leaves us wanting more. Unlike Tangen, Madison includes the quantity loci but is not productive in igniting a fire beneath her assumed readers.
So what? We have heard from those who complain about business ethics and corporations’ lack of investment, those who question the economic benefits of developing low-income housing, and those who do not trust the government to serve its own people. It is evident that within our current financial crisis, there is a growing need to serve the struggling. Their faces and stories vary but their pleas are all equally important. They are seniors living on fixed incomes, working class individuals, families living on the edge of homelessness and they all need a roof over their heads. It is time to stop the finger point and begin a productive dialogue that suits the needs of all parties. There is opportunity enough for businesses to profit, non-profits to be served, and government programs to be strengthened.
Conversation needs to begin first and foremost by finding ways to feed the need and in a way that is financially sound. There is the possibility for the government to create programs for for-profit developers that involves evolving and profitable “green” construction. City centers like downtown Seattle can become more developed so that individuals can walk to work without jamming freeways. Additionally, with more people living downtown, the economy could be boosted by building more than just one or two grocery stores – or even businesses that do not catering only to the Belltown elite. Ultimately, the issue at hand and conclusion that we must come to is an answer to: How will we define community in Seattle by including low income housing? Already projects have been created by organizations like Capitol Hill Housing Project that have made this particular neighborhood inclusive when it comes to those living in both high and low income brackets. It is time to make this kind of development widespread through Seattle through the collaboration of both for and non-profits as well as federal, state and city government. In doing so, families will be able to survive, businesses will thrive, and the down-and-out will not be cast out of the community like the un-deserving.
Work Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment: December 2008.” United States Department of Labor. Released January 27, 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_01272009.pdf (accessed February 1, 2009).
Eaton, Leslie. “In New Orleans, Plans to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protests.” New York Times, December 2007, U.S. section, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial/14orleans.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=low-income%20housing&st=cse.
Eskenazi, Stuart. “City oversight of low-income housing project sought.” The Seattle Times, July 31 2001, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010731&slug=rainier31m.
Iwasaki, John. “Homeless count rises.” Seattle PI, January 30 2009, Local section, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/398138_homeless31.html.
Madison, Grey, “Low-income housing: Another crisis looming,” Time, September 18, 2009.
Navarro Wells, Mia and Myers, Rachael. “Preventing homelessness with economic stimulus.” The Seattle Times, January 23, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664331_opinc24wells.html.
Norman, Stephen and Tierney, Tom. “Wise to invest in public housing.” The Seattle Times, January 8, 2009, Opinion section.
Press Release October 10, 2007, “House of Representatives Passes Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act,” House Committee on Financial Services, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press1010072.shtml (accessed February 1, 2009).
Tangen, Lyn. “Seattle’s proposal to boost affordable housing would in fact discourage it.” The Seattle Times. December 15, 2009.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why the demand for affordable housing is rising. Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. Regardless of whose interest is what, the issue of low income housing in Seattle takes shape through different definitions of community and how we may approach them to help those in need.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate income housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of the high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the site’s 481 low income-housing units and replaced them with 1,010 new homes which were created for moderate income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city. It was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs for low income residents almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act, as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, non-renewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income individuals will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy” that would also provide green jobs and improve energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have shown that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Wells believe that “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate that sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those who would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
Additionally, in not addressing their opponents’ arguments, the articles ignore the issue of “community” in terms of who defines it and in what ways. Yes, they argue for more low income housing and for valid reasons, but what specific effects will take place in the community? What about claims of rising crime rates? Will creating communities of low income housing keep families in poverty or provide support systems? Many people believe that in building large low income developments, criminals have a large pool of so-called victims to choose from. Moreover, it is also believed that individuals and families are not exposed to a wide range of economic opportunities and are basically trapped in “projects” apart from “the rest of” society. These articles merely introduced the need for housing in Seattle and did a fine job, but could have strengthened their arguments by citing success stories of low income developments that have been integrated into high income neighborhoods or even communities on the rise. As readers, we need to be better informed on where these particular communities are situated, what makes them successful, and why Seattle would benefit from an increase in their development.
In contrast, opponents to their articles do address the negative effects of increased low-income housing. Lyn Tangen, director of government and community relations for the Seattle based project management company, Vulcan Inc. argues that an incentive-zoning program to increase low-income housing could result in no redevelopment at all. This is, she claims, “because there would be no economic incentive to take advantage of the bonus.” Tangen worries that this program would slow business growth and create a decline in high-paid, skilled jobs. Additionally, she argues that the incentive-zoning program would not work in many parts of the city. Tangen supports her claims with quotes from Planning and Land Use Committee members, other city officials, and the mayor’s consultant, Heartland – all of which have issue with the program. She criticizes Mayor Nickels push for the plan last summer when the real estate market was “red hot” but does not offer much more concrete information other than “some Seattle condos have been put on auction for half of their asking price.” Overall, she believes that increased low-income development in particular parts of the city will deliver a stifling blow to economic development.
What is interesting about her argument however, is that she cites Vulcan’s contribution to low-income housing in the past - $6 million dollars to build a project in South Lake Union. While Tangen disapproves of certain low income development in specific parts of Seattle, she supported “housing needs and development rights for a building that will fit well in the gateway to downtown.” Her article is an example of the varying grey areas within the debate. As an advocate for the business community, Tangen is invested in creating economically sound developments based on location and community. The efforts of Vulcan and other corporations like it however, are hardly far-reaching. Some argue that their “community investments” a mere bones thrown to gain support. In focusing on economic cause and effect, or the loci of the existent, Tangen ignores the fight for the greater good. A problem still remains that could, I would argue, affect Vulcan’s future development. What if the city beats these businesses to land purchasing opportunities and excludes their interests entirely? Perhaps opponents to city-wide development should re-consider definitions of “community.” Should they help to spread low income housing throughout the city for the benefit of all, or create small contained developments that hinder economic growth in specific neighborhoods?
In developing and defining inclusive neighborhoods, all opinions must be taken into consideration. For example, business leaders who refuse to have a hand in helping to shape future projects risk government control that has proven to make more than a few missteps. In a Time article titled, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” author Madison Gray explores the government’s short comings in the affordable housing debate. Gray’s article does not necessarily oppose low-income housing, but is wary of state and federal programs, like Norman and Tierney’s, that put renters, businesses, and entire communities at risk. The programs are likely to give struggling building owners the opportunity to opt out of housing subsidy contracts in the wake of our economic crisis and mortgage meltdown. “According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as many as 13,000 Section 8 contracts,” those that support low-income development, “will expire by 2013.” Who will be affected? Madison cites Michael Bodaken, executive director of the National Housing Trust, who says that about 1.5 million apartments housing between three and five million people will be affected. But building owners and landlords nationwide say that they are suffering from “HUD fatigue” –frusteration with having to work through government bureaucracy in order to receive subsidies; payments which, many claim, are consistently late.
Again, we find that the debate over low-income housing is a gray one. Madison’s article does not openly oppose affordable housing. In fact, she supports it more than anything, but finds that government programs like those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development help to break struggling families’ backs by disregarding their needs and crumbling under economic pressures. Madison even argues by way of community activists that “a mass opt-out by landlords would leave many poor people with only one alternative of receiving HUD vouchers to help pay their rents.” The federal voucher system, she claims, has its advantages but the wait to qualify is extremely long and landlords are not required to accept them. Like all of the articles leading up to our final piece, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” presents a well defined argument but leaves out possible opportunities, partnerships, and solutions. Yes, there is an evident need for low-income housing nationally and locally, but how to you propose that we go about doing it? Should we rely on government developments? Federal subsidies and programs? Clearly not. Should we look to community business leaders for support? Not entirely. Madison’s article was a well written criticism that leaves us wanting more. Unlike Tangen, Madison includes the quantity loci but is not productive in igniting a fire beneath her assumed readers.
So what? We have heard from those who complain about business ethics and corporations’ lack of investment, those who question the economic benefits of developing low-income housing, and those who do not trust the government to serve its own people. It is evident that within our current financial crisis, there is a growing need to serve the struggling. Their faces and stories vary but their pleas are all equally important. They are seniors living on fixed incomes, working class individuals, families living on the edge of homelessness and they all need a roof over their heads. It is time to stop the finger point and begin a productive dialogue that suits the needs of all parties. There is opportunity enough for businesses to profit, non-profits to be served, and government programs to be strengthened.
Conversation needs to begin first and foremost by finding ways to feed the need and in a way that is financially sound. There is the possibility for the government to create programs for for-profit developers that involves evolving and profitable “green” construction. City centers like downtown Seattle can become more developed so that individuals can walk to work without jamming freeways. Additionally, with more people living downtown, the economy could be boosted by building more than just one or two grocery stores – or even businesses that do not catering only to the Belltown elite. Ultimately, the issue at hand and conclusion that we must come to is an answer to: How will we define community in Seattle by including low income housing? Already projects have been created by organizations like Capitol Hill Housing Project that have made this particular neighborhood inclusive when it comes to those living in both high and low income brackets. It is time to make this kind of development widespread through Seattle through the collaboration of both for and non-profits as well as federal, state and city government. In doing so, families will be able to survive, businesses will thrive, and the down-and-out will not be cast out of the community like the un-deserving.
Work Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment: December 2008.” United States Department of Labor. Released January 27, 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_01272009.pdf (accessed February 1, 2009).
Eaton, Leslie. “In New Orleans, Plans to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protests.” New York Times, December 2007, U.S. section, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial/14orleans.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=low-income%20housing&st=cse.
Eskenazi, Stuart. “City oversight of low-income housing project sought.” The Seattle Times, July 31 2001, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010731&slug=rainier31m.
Iwasaki, John. “Homeless count rises.” Seattle PI, January 30 2009, Local section, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/398138_homeless31.html.
Madison, Grey, “Low-income housing: Another crisis looming,” Time, September 18, 2009.
Navarro Wells, Mia and Myers, Rachael. “Preventing homelessness with economic stimulus.” The Seattle Times, January 23, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664331_opinc24wells.html.
Norman, Stephen and Tierney, Tom. “Wise to invest in public housing.” The Seattle Times, January 8, 2009, Opinion section.
Press Release October 10, 2007, “House of Representatives Passes Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act,” House Committee on Financial Services, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press1010072.shtml (accessed February 1, 2009).
Tangen, Lyn. “Seattle’s proposal to boost affordable housing would in fact discourage it.” The Seattle Times. December 15, 2009.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Underdog Vs. Husky Tradition
To be the underdog is to not be held up to dazzling expectations and shining moments in history. To be the underdog is to be beaten, discouraged and ignored. If Seattle University's men's basketball team expects to make it in DI, they should also expect to remain the underdog for a while longer. They will walk into the spotlight and be shamed. They will dance on the basketball court time and time again, but lose game, after game, after game. Not all is lost in losing, however.
Each time that the bigger team takes the win, SU's basketball team will learn why. In struggling as the underdog, they will see what makes a success versus a failure. The team is proud to climb the division ladder and should remain so as they are shown what it takes to succeed in D1. Surviving as the underdog means struggling with head above water until breaking through with a fresh breath of air.
Each time that the bigger team takes the win, SU's basketball team will learn why. In struggling as the underdog, they will see what makes a success versus a failure. The team is proud to climb the division ladder and should remain so as they are shown what it takes to succeed in D1. Surviving as the underdog means struggling with head above water until breaking through with a fresh breath of air.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
MAP Rough Draft
The American home is a brownstone in Brooklyn, a stucco two-story in Los Angeles, a studio in Portland, and a double-wide in Phoenix. It is brick walls and tiled roves, modern decorum and thrift store finds. Regardless of the physical make-up of a house, the memories, traditions, and values within it create a home. One could almost argue that the home is where we begin to define ourselves to ourselves as well as to greater society. Home is our last refuge after a long day at work, but also the centerpiece to family gatherings both large and small. We set our own visual narrative to the home through Norman Rockwell paintings, but also through images of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The American home however, sometimes struggles to exist. After Hurricane Katrina for example, many houses that were homes to the poor, the elderly, and the disabled were torn down out of necessity, but re-built for the middle and upper class advantage. In a December 2007 article about dangerous confrontations in New Orleans over housing demolition, The New York Times reported that “the federal government is beginning this week to tear down thousands of apartments in the city’s four biggest public housing projects” because, as some see it, “the government’s real aim was to keep the poor, mostly female, almost entirely black residents of public housing from returning to their city, to their homes.” Others argue that it was time for an economic boost in the area. The destruction of the American home however, does not always occur through natural disasters. With the help of an economic crisis, that has raised unemployment in Washington State to 7.1%, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, “Volunteers counted 2,826 people sleeping in vehicles, structures and doorways and under overpasses, among other areas.” These numbers indicate a 2% increase since the 2008 count. Additionally, South King County saw a 68% increase while numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Like a repetitive nightmare, America is seeing many of the same problems of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. While individuals and families on all economic levels are struggling, those who were already in the midst of personal financial crisis are beginning to feel the weight of a nation; they are losing their homes, their refuge and family strongholds.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why is the demand for affordable housing rising? Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. The debate has been divided down the middle, to build or not to build, but there still remain complexities that take the controversy into all areas of grey.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the sites 481 low-income-housing units and replaced them with 1, 010 new homes, which were targeted at moderate-income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city; it was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low-income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate-income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate-income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low-income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, nonrenewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low-income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income people will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy, providing green jobs and improving energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have be proven to show that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Well believe that, “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate-income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate the sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low-income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
We must ask what kind of a response the writers were seeking to evoke anyway. In my opinion, the two articles address the same topic and seek similar goals but were written for different audiences. For example, in “Wise to invest in public housing” Norman and Tierney were writing, I believe, for an audience of city officials and the citizens of Seattle who would be able to affect legislature through the vote. Their piece appealed to the emotional through the loci of the quantity, “Public housing serves more than 3 million people nationally.” They rely on “disparity” and the idea of inequality to generate an awareness for a need. Perhaps they write to bring about a feeling of guilt, the idea would make a voter or city official think, “Gee, I have my home and safety net but 3 million people plus rely on public housing and more remain on waiting lists!” Norman and Tierney do not fail to mention the kinds of people affected by homelessness and a lack of housing - seniors living on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, low-wage workers and families with children.
Wells and Myers on the other hand, have created a more ambiguous piece that argues for the movement of Congress, but do not provide any vehicles for readers to use in order to take action should they agree with their argument. Yes, Congress should use this money in this fund
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why is the demand for affordable housing rising? Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. The debate has been divided down the middle, to build or not to build, but there still remain complexities that take the controversy into all areas of grey.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the sites 481 low-income-housing units and replaced them with 1, 010 new homes, which were targeted at moderate-income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city; it was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low-income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate-income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate-income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low-income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, nonrenewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low-income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income people will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy, providing green jobs and improving energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have be proven to show that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Well believe that, “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate-income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate the sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low-income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
We must ask what kind of a response the writers were seeking to evoke anyway. In my opinion, the two articles address the same topic and seek similar goals but were written for different audiences. For example, in “Wise to invest in public housing” Norman and Tierney were writing, I believe, for an audience of city officials and the citizens of Seattle who would be able to affect legislature through the vote. Their piece appealed to the emotional through the loci of the quantity, “Public housing serves more than 3 million people nationally.” They rely on “disparity” and the idea of inequality to generate an awareness for a need. Perhaps they write to bring about a feeling of guilt, the idea would make a voter or city official think, “Gee, I have my home and safety net but 3 million people plus rely on public housing and more remain on waiting lists!” Norman and Tierney do not fail to mention the kinds of people affected by homelessness and a lack of housing - seniors living on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, low-wage workers and families with children.
Wells and Myers on the other hand, have created a more ambiguous piece that argues for the movement of Congress, but do not provide any vehicles for readers to use in order to take action should they agree with their argument. Yes, Congress should use this money in this fund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)