Carl Shorett

To say this was vetted at the state level is disingenuous - the bill faced wide opposition by groups who objected to the broad and poorly crafted language. The bill died as consensus was that the State's lawsuit against RealPage should be resolved before muddying the waters w/ new legislation.

Hey I get that politicians have to politik, but at some point we as Seattleites need to come together and talk about we are actually going to get more housing built. I live here and want to solve this problem for my children, but status quo is headed in the wrong direction. 🤷‍♂️ Happy to chat offline.

Of course not, but we need to be honest with ourselves that the preponderance of large scale developers are leaning in on underwriting on deals on the Eastside and not Seattle. Due to lack of pre-emption in HB1217, capital has a strong preference for non-Seattle development.

Reform of landlord tenant regulations is key to getting more housing built in Seattle. Many development firms, ourselves included, can't justify the political risk of starting new Seattle projects with current regs. We built over 1,000 apartments in Seattle last cycle, but will not this cycle.

Or said another way, we don't borrow at a meaningfully higher rate than a municipality. The fundamental issue in the market today is a return on cost mismatch for development. Yes interest rates drove that, but it pushed up return expectations, not just cost of capital. Cheaper to buy than build.

I think there is a misnomer that government financing is some huge housing supply unlock. We can debate the merits of public housing separately, but our firm has some of the lowest cost of capital in the business (~5%) and we still can't make deals work. It's a cap rate issue, not a financing issue.

Does the bill mandate union labor or inclusionary housing? Those tend to be the poison pills that prevent developers from actually moving forward on building within these TOD up-zones.

California Legislature Passes Bill to Increase Multifamily ADUs - California YIMBY SB 1211 gives multifamily properties the flexibility to meet their ADU potential “ADUs are one of California’s success stories – this bill takes that success to new heights” Today, the California Stat...

Adoption of a multifamily ADU bill like California's SB 1211 that allows underutilized spaces (garages / storage / etc.) or excess land (parking lots, etc.) at multifamily properties to be converted to additional housing density that leverage existing infrastructure. cayimby.org/news-events/...

Take a look at this study out of California detailing what drives up costs relative to growth markets like Texas. Many of the same opportunities apply to WA - permitting reform / impact fee reductions / energy code reform.
www.rand.org/pubs/researc...

After taking a quick break after session I’m starting to think about housing policy for next session. What’s on your pro-housing wishlist? 📋✅

Limit municipal review staff from adding new review comments after 1st or 2nd response. Many of the delays in permitting are due to AHJ requirements added late in the game. Require a more thorough early review to avoid last-minute changes that derail schedules. Plenty of examples I can provide.

The lack of short-term lease options impacts folks that need housing flexibility like traveling healthcare professionals and academic researchers, younger people like students and interns, and even in my own family's case, grandparents looking to rent in the area to help care for a newborn.

This is purely an economic decision as turn costs and increased vacancy associated with short-term leases mean we are better off only offering 12 month terms, where we previously offered a full range of lease options, albeit at premiums (5%+) that allowed us to balance the economic impact.

I would encourage you to take another look at the MTM / short-term lease premium limitations that were part of HB 1217. A 5% cap is insufficient to incentivize offering variable lease terms and many firms (AVB included) are no longer offering short-term leases.

Who has authority to determine the threshold between IBC vs IRC?

Agreed - but industry perspective is that it is not good policy to pass legislation that you know is unworkable today on the assumption that it will be fixed in the future. I am no longer looking at sites in Lynnwood w/ extended timelines that will be impacted by this bill. Too much risk.

The Bellevue Chamber is likely opposed as the bill is poorly worded and clouds the picture for pending / future upzones. I can tell you from personal experience that no one, not the legislators or even the best land use attorneys fully understand how this gets implemented.

The problem is the bill is poorly constructed. The affordability requirement is a huge issue for less affluent suburbs like Lynnwood where costs are largely equivalent but rents are lower - meaning the benefit structure is not well calibrated.

This has huge implications for HB 1491 (TOD bill) so curious to understand where this lands re: trolley busses.

Correction: @eric.aderhold.us

Using the draft ordinance @eric.anderhold.us linked below, looks like the trolley bus system is included? Wouldn't that overrule the frequent transit service map? Or maybe this is an outdated ordinance?
seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=...

Super helpful - thanks

The map you linked is the current map and we expect a new map that will show less area as frequent service?

Inclusionary / affordable housing, particularly at lower AMI levels, are not financially feasible on their own and are subsidized by higher rents in the fair market component. The market will not bear the high rents required to subsidize these units in most locations.

The mandatory affordability at 60% AMI is a real deal killer, especially outside of high-rent markets like Redmond, etc.

Don't forget SB 5571 - small bill but big impact on facade regulations.

Haven't followed this closely - who was against? Fire depts?

Looks great, although feels strange they went with silver storefront window frames 🤷🏼‍♂️