“There wasn’t a county in the U.S. where a minimum wage worker clocking in 40 hours a week could afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment in 2019.” That’s according to a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This seems to be a sad reality. Right here in Jefferson County it is a very big concern.
Of course, politicians talk about affordable housing. They spout important- sounding proclamations. They empanel task forces and have meetings and churn out lots of paper about affordable housing.
What has all this wheel-spinning accomplished?
The only incorporated city in Jefferson County, Port Townsend, has spent a ton of money and donated valuable land in a pathetic attempt at a solution. I speak of the Cherry Street Project. It has been written about in detail on this website for going on four years. Cherry Street is a fiasco. In the end it will likely have to be demolished. It never did make any sense.
A while back the county donated land to OlyCap to build affordable housing. They rolled out plans for a costly multi-story apartment building. Nothing more has happened.
About the only thing happening is the growing homeless camp at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds.
Why is there so much talk and no meaningful action? Well, it would appear that government is not the answer. They can’t seem to get anything done. They have the land but they lack the skill set and/or the will to produce tangible results.
According to the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University there are four reasons for the lack of affordable housing.
The first is that incomes for many workers are just too low compared to the cost of housing.
“Some people think that full-time workers can afford housing, but that’s a myth. In some housing markets, only workers earning hourly wages of $30 or more can comfortably afford housing. In fact, there is no metro area in which full-time workers earning the Federal minimum wage can comfortably afford the costs of a typical 2-bedroom rental unit.
“On average, a worker needs to earn $20.30 an hour to afford a typical 2-bedroom apartment. In other words, someone earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would need to work almost three full-time jobs in order to afford a typical two-bedroom apartment. And the problem is getting worse, not better. Incomes for low- and moderate-income workers have largely stagnated while housing costs have risen.”
The second reason is closely related to the first: for-profit developers generally don’t respond to the demand for housing among lower-income households.
“It’s not because they don’t want to, it’s because they can’t. The rents and home prices that many households can afford to pay are too low to cover the costs of developing and operating newly constructed housing. Some households’ incomes are too low to cover even the costs of maintaining and insuring existing housing.”
A third problem is that certain types of government regulation raise production costs and reduce the overall supply of all types of housing.
“For example, limits on density restrict the number of homes that can be built on available land, and complicated and lengthy approvals processes can slow down the construction process and even cause developers to go elsewhere, making it difficult for the supply of housing to keep pace with increases in demand and rising housing prices throughout the entire housing market.
“It may seem counterintuitive, but it’s true: limits on construction of middle- and high-end housing also affect affordability in the lower half of the housing market. Too little building for moderate- and high-income households hurts people further down the income spectrum, because moderate- and higher income households end up driving up rents on units that would otherwise be relatively affordable.
“There are good reasons for many government regulations. But it’s important to remember that increases in development costs are often passed on to families. We should at least take a hard look at regulations that affect development costs to figure out whether they are unavoidable and the benefits outweigh the costs, which can run to the tens of thousands of dollars per unit.
“Reducing regulation will not lower costs enough to make new housing development for low-income households economical without government subsidies, but it could make housing more affordable for families in the middle.”
A final problem is a lack of government funding.
“To expand the availability of affordable homes, federal, state and local governments fund a range of programs that successfully house millions of families. Unfortunately, these programs are not keeping pace with the need. Federal housing assistance over the past 15 years has been stagnant or declining at the same time that the number of renters with very low incomes (less than 50% of AMI) is increasing. Currently, only about one in four eligible households with a housing burden receives government housing assistance of any kind.”
In considering these four issues it would seem that our local governments could encourage and promote economic development to support a better job base, lower the cost to build by easing land use regulations and contribute part of their tax revenue from increased growth to very low income housing
Neither the city nor the county have done much to promote economic development. In fact, they have severely restricted economic development through tight land use regulations. This action means that there are not enough family wage jobs to support a healthy community. Because there are not enough jobs there is also a lack of tax revenue that could go toward affordable housing. In addition, due to the restrictive land use regulations there is no good place to build affordable housing.
We do not lack the land. We lack the will in our government to actually solve this issue. It has been government policy and regulation that has created the affordable housing crisis here. Why does it continue? Because that is what the majority of voters keep voting for. All the talk of affordable housing, living wage jobs or family wage jobs means nothing as long as voters do not want real change. As a result, we will continue to turn Jefferson County into a place for only the well off.
My school motto is “Acta non Verba.” Deeds not Words. That is the only mindset that will make any difference in our affordable housing crisis.
Craig, you hit the nail on the head with the when you wrote, “We will continue to turn Jefferson County into a place where only the wealthy can afford”. I remember some years ago I heard someone say that Port Townsend wanted to be the West Coast Martha’s Vineyard. This seems to be true with the rise in rent and land sales in Port Hadlock and Chimacum. Quilcene and Brinnon are next. The trend has started in Port Ludlow, Shine and Kala Point. Who’s next? The employees that are working three jobs to survive are going to need a fourth job in the near future to make ends meet. I rest my case.
The County’s own Five Year Homeless Housing Plan (Resolution 63-19 dated 18 Nov 2019) identified an average of 180 homeless people over the five years prior to the Plan. Of those, an average of only 110 were Unsheltered.
The Plan identifies roughly $1,500,000 in what appears to be annual funding for homelessness. The total includes both government and private non-profit organizations (pages 15-16). (To be fair, some of the funds are for special needs.)
Recently, fees to record documents at the County were increased substantially in order to help the homeless.
Do we really need another 0.1% sales tax to generate an additional $600,000 each year to help the homeless?
And even if we do, do we really trust the County to use the funds to build housing, especially considering things like the Cherry Street project or the Hadlock Sewer project?
I wouldn’t trust this county’s government to operate a lemonade stand. Loosen up zoning and land use regulations and the housing problem for working homeless individuals and families may take care of itself. I would advocate for privately owned and managed tiny home parks (rentals) as one solution.
As for the drug addicts and criminals squatting at the county fairgrounds, there needs to be another solution for them, a solution that includes options for mental health treatment and work camps or prison for incorrigible criminals.
All good comments and a good article. The one aspect not accounted for is that the number of folks needing housing is not fixed. The fifth aspect is population influx outpacing any new supply. I speak with many many people from outside the area that want to live here now or eventually. Many folks here now with needs were those people last year or years ago. Hopefully we don’t get to a nasty them and us mentality. However new arrivals will continue. Last week I spoke with a couple from the fire ravaged area of California that listed their house and sold it within days. They moved to the area the next week, with no shortage of cash. Our downside regarding housing does translate to more appeal for many, seeing less population and relatively low prices compared to where some are coming from. This statistically includes most reading this. You probably were not born here. There is no magic date that if you were here before that date you belong more. Is there?
We do have our specific issues and problems as described here. We do share a regional problem as well.
The Seattle area has exploded with opportunity, I think there, or Sequim, or most places affordable housing is an issue with prices driven by demand and income. Demand here will only grow with people I meet now being able to work from home via the internet, and those looking for the good life in retirement. I joke with many that they took careers that trashed where they came from to come here where no jobs or industry left us relatively livable.
Similarly it seems with the homeless, cities are not wanting to be the best place for homeless people, more and more hear of good conditions and services and head to where they are better off.
No judgement, no real answer to the fifth element. All should understand it. That’s all. If we bail out a gallon and two flow in we don’t make headway. Perhaps the powers that be understand this. Perhaps the water tight door is secured to keep their compartments livable.
Personally I could add a few mobile home rentals on my land with mitigation of preservation if zoning were different. I think we are all taken by the tiny home trend but need to understand those living conditions are not really long term for most. No storage or real personal space for more than one. Single mobile homes like a few parks in Hadlock have, even older ones give a little better long term living conditions. Yes to more parks done with thought and planning with a new sewer system. That pencils out as the most cost effective answer. Just don’t let anyone know about it. Supply and demand will drive prices.
Another problem is that the city seems to insist that every time low cost housing is built it has to be mixed use. They keep talking about building mixed use housing in the area they want to develop by Goodwill.
Which means, they want apartments that are market rate and subsidized and low income, above retail businesses. Pretty much like downtown is.
But they never seem to talk to anyone who currently lives downtown or who has lived downtown. Having apartments above retail shops is not a good system.
First and foremost, the residents downtown and in these mixed use neighborhoods, are typically given nowhere to park. Generally, low income and subsidized housing, is made for elderly and disabled people, not just those with addictions and those who are struggling with mental illnesses. Which means, and elderly or disabled person could go get groceries or supplies, and have to park a half a block away or more from their home, and carry everything that far from their car up to their second or third or fourth floor apartment. That is too much to ask of elderly and disabled people who are already frail.
Meanwhile, shop owners get angry at residents for parking on the street because residential parking gets in the way of their customers being able to park. Immediately, and us versus them situation is created. It never goes well. For anyone.
Last but not least, low income housing these days, forces the elderly and physically disabled to live with those with severe mental illness and severe substance abuse. Before everyone began refusing to pay their taxes to help out those at the bottom of society, those with severe mental illness and severe substance abuse addictions, lived in their own houses, generally referred to as halfway houses. Now, elderly and disabled people have to live amidst the chaos of the fighting, the destruction of property, the screaming, yelling, the police being called the insanity that comes with substance abuse and some mental illness. It is hell for old people to live in this situation.
There needs to be inpatient and outpatient clinics all over this peninsula because we have a raging substance abuse problem here. We also need housing specific to severe mental illness and substance abuse problems. If that were the case, there would be plenty of low income and subsidize housing available for the elderly and disabled. But as it is, apartments are being given to and absolutely destroyed by people who should be living in care homes with 24 hour residential directors and orderlies. Many of these people need to be living in mental hospitals or halfway homes, not in low-income or affordable housing, and certainly not at the fairgrounds.