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.