This one project will definitely change the neighborhood.

Yes, Denny Faker stated to the New Tacoma Neighborhood Council that the Department of Corrections had been making placements there.

Shows what an active neighborhood group can do.

Is 402 St. Helens the long stay “hotel”/storage place?

That would be the one.

My main question … while it’s great for the neighbhorhood, and high concentrations of “problem” populations can definitely be an issue for affected neighborhoods — where ARE these people going to be placed next? They have to go somewhere. And yes, some will reoffend or not get their bleep together … but others just need a REAL chance. No matter, they are going to have to go somewhere. Having folks on the streets helps no one.

I know, it’s the unanswerable question … or so it seems sometimes.

I do celebrate this turn of events for the Stadium/St. Helens neighborhood — I just wonder if there will ever be a more permanent solution to the problem of where to put people who don’t fit the “ideal demographic.”

Hmm … I think that perhaps I’ve gone off-topic now …

Chichadee, You are right on target. You ask
Where Are these people going to be placed next?

The question shouldn’t be where do they go next, but why are they here in the first place? It is time, we as a city, move forward on the “Fair Share” issue.
This shouldn’t be about locating people to other parts of Tacoma, but back the the communities they originally came from. Tacoma has a duty to care of it own people, However, it is time the DOC stops using our tax dollars to subsidize moving populations from other counties and other parts of Pierce County to Tacoma. We have to fight hard every day in Tacoma to clean up other communities’ issues. We need a vision that attracts the best and brightest, not more reactionary plans on how to deal with outside influences.

I remember not many years back drooling over the seemingly impossible affordability of a $180,000 “dream” home and scrimping to nab a $150,000 mortgage.

As long was we have the antiquated off-street parking requirement downtown, we are going to have a difficult time getting investment.

The investment we do have is generally more expensive units and low density.

Even without considering the land costs, parking spaces can cost $30,000 each to build or more. Adding this cost to every unit downtown can make a large difference for more affordable units in the $150,000 to $250,000 range for condominiums.

As professor Shoup explains:

Off-street parking requirements harm low income and renter families because the own few cars but still pay for parking indirectly, and the hidden costs for all the required parking consume a greater share of their income.

Imposing hidden costs on the entire population to subsidize parking takes money from the poorest renters to subsidize richer homeowners.

High Cost of Free Parking Page 165. Amit Ghosh, San Francisco’ chief of comprehensive planning stated:

Parking requirements are a huge obstacle to new affordable housing and transit-oriented development in San Francisco. Nonprofit developers estimate that they add 20 percent to the cost of each unit, and reduce the number of units that can be built on a site by 20 percent. We’re forcing people to build parking that people cannot afford. We’re letting parking drive not only our transportation policies, but jeopardize our housing policies, too. We want to get away from the situation where people are forced to pay for parking regardless of whether they have a car.

Pg. 167.

San Francisco removed their off-street parking requirement after they conducted a study showing that showed it increased the cost of housing between 12 – 25 percent and reduced the housing supply and affordability.

However, there is another dynamic that is occuring as well. The off-street parking requirement requires one parking space downtown for every residential unit.

Thus, builders have an incentive to build larger more expensive units so the parking impact cost is lower per sq. ft.

Example: A 2100 sq foot penthouse requires one parking space. If it were split into three units, three parking spaces would be required increasing the cost of the building by $50,000.

Thus, the Tacoma’s off-street parking requirement is skewing the system toward the construction of large expensive units downtown, contradicting the Tacoma city policy we hear concerning “affordable housing.”

Allowing builders to build the parking they and their occupants want and desire would let people weigh the costs and benefits of spending an extra $25,000 – $30,000 on a parking space or alternative transportation.

...and just a follow-up. I totally agree the parking requirements are antiquated, hurt development, and need to go.

...and just a follow-up. I totally agree the parking requirements are antiquated, hurt development, and need to go.

The problem we have now is a City of Tacoma policy that unnecessarily increases the cost of housing making it hard to get much density and lowers the affordability.

The city should stay neutral on the issue of parking and let those who want to buy it do so.

The housing “market” is tough enough. The city should not make it more difficult by adding addition cost barriers which serve no public purpose and which cause harm to the urban design and liveabilty of Tacoma.

Other cities let the builder and residents decide how much parking they want to buy based on their priorities, decoupling housing and parking.

Also, Tacoma is not going to have much of a “renaissance” if all it does is build a relatively small number of large high end units disbursed between parking lots with garages facing pedestrians with driveways spilling over the sidewalks. All we will get is a sort of sleepy, exclusive, unattractive sprawl.

And just to clarify, my question about affordable housing was not meant to be downtown specific or a snark against downtown high-end condos. It was meant to be a citywide question. I’m sure the “affordable” projects are out there somewhere … you just don’t hear much about them, and I was curious.

And to return the question to Gorman, yes, there are plenty of apartment listings around town (again, I’m not just wondering about downtown.) But at what price range, and how many would actually accept different kinds of subsidized housing vouchers? I believe those sites are few and far between … I’ve heard tales of very, very long waiting lists for locations willing to accept such renters.

Basically, I know it’s hard for people who are just struggling financially to find a place that accepts assistance programs … I can’t imagine it would be easy for folks just out of jail, prison, whatnot. And I’d prefer to know where such people are rather than having them wander wherever with no incentive to “stay clean.”

For instance, Hilltop’s successful community building efforts have allegedly pushed certain undesirable activities to the East Side (or at least so I read) ... but I wouldn’t say that a cleaner, safer Hilltop is bad. Completely the opposite, it’s something to celebrate, and something for the East Side to use as an example — but once they succeed, where’s the next problem area?

It’s a chicken and the egg question, possibly without ever an answer. I just think it’s something to keep in mind.

In the mean time: Congrats to the Stadium/St. Helen’s community for banding together and succeeding! It is truly something to celebrate.

When you need public transportation to get around, living near transit hubs means you CAN get to school, CAN get to a job, CAN get to the food bank, CAN get to counseling, etc. Downtown living makes a lot of sense when you are poor. We expect people with very little in resources to navigate a LOT of logistical hardships. I would like to see zero low-income housing units lost from the downtown core.

But what about the folks in between … the teachers, police officers, copy editors, artists, nurses, grocery store checkers, and so many other professions and fields that are hardly crime-magnet populations? It’s obvious low-income folks are being pushed elsewhere for reasons I’m not trying to label right or wrong, but the discussion seems to be low-income and luxury-class … What about the middle-income folks who are being priced out? What about the “creative class” we apparently need to attract to have a thriving city … the way prices are going, the creative class is going to have to be bused in.