There are several frustrating components to that debate about "air condos," beyond even the basics covered in the original story.
I live right in the corridor of county land near Ash Way north of Lynnwood discussed in the article as a focal point for this sort of growth. Between "air condos," townhouses, and traditional homes it's been a building frenzy.
Why? Snohomish County's population is booming, faster than other big counties in the state. Meanwhile, cities continue to reject adding density to give that populace someplace to live, thus it gets built on county land within the Growth Management boundary (which on last check with the Legislature isn't going anywhere for a while):
"It's awful what's happening," said Edmonds Mayor Gary Haakenson. "County policies are allowing for twice the unit growth and the density growth that the cities would allow."
Haakenson is a popular and effective mayor, and he like most city officials around the county are simply responding to constituent pressure; itself a polite version of NIMBYism. But they're wrong.
The County Council is taking heat from some quarters for allowing such density, but what was their alternative, approve the moratorium proposed by the cities? What do cities think that will do to housing prices?
I'm a classic example of the problem. My so-called affordable housing as a first-time homebuyer is a very modest three bedroom condo. It only has that many rooms because they're all tiny (my office is smaller than many walk-in closets). Even that cost me $220,000 in early 2005. And that price was on the low end of a market that has obviously since gone up - as indicated by the prices discussed in the article - even amidst recent churn in housing. Anything under $300,000 in the neighborhood is now a rarity.
Do city officials think they're doing a good job of creating a community when young families are increasingly heading north of Lynnwood or east of I-5 to find affordable housing? Then they want to talk about a moratorium? Ridiculous. The County Council was right to reject such talk.
The same Snohomish County insert from yesterday's Times ran an article about budget cuts in the Edmonds School District. One of the factors cited was declining enrollment. Might enrollment be declining because families with children increasingly can't afford to buy homes in the area?
Posted by Eric Earling at April 26, 2007 07:16 AM | Email ThisThe best part - an energy efficient home with adequate parking, modern conveniences, and a much better floorplan.
Perhaps if the Puget Sound region was a much less desireable locale, with rampant unemployment and a high crime rate we would all be living on 3 acres, but I don't think we'd enjoy it near as much as a lot of people think....
Posted by: H Moul on April 26, 2007 08:13 AMIt's yet another Puget Sound ripoff.
I also challenged P-I Reporter Aubrey Cohen yesterday as to why Seattle prices "magically" stay aloft while the whole entire country is experiencing 10% declines (and that's just the beginning).
Where is a journalist when you need one?!
Eric, see my comment on Stefan's link- same topic.
Cities have been snubbing their collective noses at GMA since its inception. It goes back to a deal the cities made with the county that high density to them were large lots sizes. The cities made their population requirements by annexing county land. This includes Lynnwood and Edmonds.
1000 Enemies of Washington and Pilchuck Audubon Society then concentrated their efforts on the counties, Skagit, Whatcom, Snohomish and Chelan, and prevented them from creating denser housing.
It was funny when I attended a meeting in Chelan with Lowry as the speaker, in which he got skewered. It seems Chelan wanted more area to develop, but the gods in Olympia said they needed more forest, even though 83% of the county was in the national forest. I wish Chelan had had the gumption to fight through pressure. If they had gone to court we wouldn't have had a GMA. Can you imagine? The gods in Olympia dictating local land use policy as if they knew what was better for the locals than the locals. It was kind of like when Al Gore and Clinton were playing with the idea of a national growth management system.
Posted by: swatter on April 26, 2007 08:57 AMRegards
Jeff Sax
Maybe Cato has a solution to where those people are going to live, if they don't "pay $360k + to live in those pre-fab death traps"?
That's the problem. Can't put the density in the cities, don't want to allow the counties to put them in, where are these people suppose to live - Chelan or Yakima county? Commuting by light rail from Centralia, no doubt.
I mean, doesn't Lynnwood still have a moratorium on high density apartments and desire to go to keep their large lots?
Posted by: swatter on April 26, 2007 03:00 PMHousing prices are driven by three fundamental components directly related to the law of supply and demand.
Big, little, close together or far apart it doesn't matter.
1) Cost of raw materials.
(land, building supplies/labor, and compliance)
2) Demand (Economic viability-jobs, interest rates)
3) Time (actual availability of homes to buy at various price points that can be delivered when desired)
Adversely impact any or one component beyond a state of equilibrium and prices will increase or drop accordingly. How hard is that?
The prospect of affordable housing in a market where the cost of raw materials are being forced higher by gov't action and a booming economy is driving increased demand the desired result can not occur.
Affordable housing sounds good but! Until, or unless existing home owners vote for tax subsidies to provide it, the economy faulters, interest rates profoundly rise and/or the gov't reduces land and compliance restrictions the housing price elevator has no where to go but up!
Not to worry- these laws will be ignored too.
Posted by: cardio on April 26, 2007 03:14 PM
Housing prices are driven by three fundamental components directly related to the law of supply and demand.
Big, little, close together or far apart it doesn't matter.
1) Cost of raw materials.
(land, building supplies/labor, and compliance)
2) Demand (Economic viability-jobs, interest rates)
3) Time (actual availability of homes to buy at various price points that can be delivered when desired)
Adversely impact any or one component beyond a state of equilibrium and prices will increase or drop accordingly. How hard is that?
The prospect of affordable housing in a market where the cost of raw materials are being forced higher by gov't action and a booming economy is driving increased demand the desired result can not occur.
Affordable housing sounds good but! Until, or unless existing home owners vote for tax subsidies to provide it, the economy faulters, interest rates profoundly rise and/or the gov't reduces land and compliance restrictions the housing price elevator has no where to go but up!
Not to worry- these laws will be ignored too.
Posted by: cardio on April 26, 2007 03:15 PM
I would agree with your comments about the first comprehensive plan adoption in 1995. Drewell and the Council at the time (peter hurley et al)created the Snohomish County Tomorrow process to provide political cover for a electeds' at the time. The SCT process morphed into a quazi planning agency that empowered the City electeds' with the belief that they had authority to make decisions. The County Council held all the power but Drewell and the Mayors used SCT as a club to give the Cities what they needed to promote cooperation, collaboration and coordination (and Bob's re-election!). This amounted to a comp plan that led us to the debacle we currently have to live with in 2007.
Today we have people who live in the City that don't understand that the GMA requires them to accept density and redevelopment. They have been artificially protected from the negative side of GMA (the rural land owners and farmers have bore the brunt for the last 15 years)until now. The regulations are now so stringent and the price of land is so high that the only economically viable alternative is to start buying up 1/4 acre to 2.5 acre urban lots and redevelop at 6-20 units per acre.
The folks in Edmonds, Bothell and Brier think this is bad news. The truth of the matter is that it is the wave of the near term future until the societal memory of 5 acres horse lots in Brier disappears and the 3-7 story urban boxes are where the planners will have us living.
I must add that everything I have written here makes me sick. We have traveled down a very bad path, however without some new thought processes and leadership in the Gov's office, we will continue on the trail to grandma's house.
Best to all,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Sax on April 26, 2007 04:25 PMAnd Monroe, which is in your area, accepted the extra growth and the electeds (yourself included) get hammered at election time. Go figure.
Posted by: swatter on April 27, 2007 07:21 AM