Exit133 Video: Candidate Forum - Part 2 (17. July 2007, 09:14 by Erik) ~ First Question
Jonathan Phillips and David Curry talk about gentrification, housing affordability, and the property tax abatement.
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
Good to see the candidates point out that building on an empty lot is not “gentrification.”
The issue is interesting and complex:
In fact, research by Lance Freeman, Columbia University Professor of Urban Planning, found that low-income residents were no more likely to move from gentrifying neighborhoods than those not experiencing gentrification. He found that many people valued other benefits more than low rents such as lower crime and restored amenities like shopping or better access to jobs.
...
The hot rhetoric spewed (perhaps appropriately) in San Francisco gets mindlessly repeated in cities that desperately need investment in their building stock.
Interesting.
I see more people getting “forced out” of their current living situations by the increases in property taxes in Tacoma than by the evil developers. Property taxes play a larger role on the cost of housing than most people think.
Someone needs to go back and do a comparison of the annual property taxes vs. mortgage payments for the average house in Tacoma 20 years ago and compare it to today. I think you’d be very surprised.
I have a handful of rental houses and it costs an average of 2.5 month’s rent just to pay the annual property taxes. I don’t have the actual statistics, but I remember the in 80’s it took around 2-3 weeks rent to cover the same payment.
Those costs all trickle down to the person paying the rent. If you want affordable housing, cut taxes.
3 | Posted by Erik K | Jul 17, 12:55 PM
Erik K…
Your policy ignorance is awe inspiring.
using the Socratic Method I shall proceed to unravel your reasoning:
1. If we cut taxes how will our public schools afford jackpot payouts to failed superintendent(s) and valid civil lawsuits?
2. Given the trend of NO.1, how will we be expected to continue to afford pumping money into our schools which seems to be the only solution to the “if all else fails lower your standards” WASL factory education fad?
3. Say we stop exploiting our less vocal citizens with no fiendish lobby backing them, do you expect us to start imposing taxes on our skittish, war profiteering businesses like Boeing, MicroSloth and Weyerhaeuser… ?
IN CONCLUSION:
If you learn to love being taken advantage of, then you’ll always be happy.
5 | Posted by RR Anderson | Jul 17, 05:47 PM
Observation after viewing the clip:
Is a curious thing that when politicians talk about gentrification in the context of holding down property values, it’s always referring to holding down property values in poorer working class neighborhoods and never their more affluent whiter areas.
“Affordable housing opportunities” aside, it seems a double standard that one would ask poorer property owners to take a hit in what is likely their largest/only asset, but not yourself or your neighbors.
At any rate, housing economics are driven by factors far larger than a single zip code or census tract, and in my experience, economic diversity (aka ‘gentrification’) makes a community healthier and more interesting anyhow.
7 | Posted by phil | Jul 18, 03:11 PM
phil,
Gentrification is really the opposite of economic diversity, not a synonym. It’s about pricing people out of their long-time homes because they can’t afford the new rent (or in some cases, much higher property taxes as Erik K notes).
In terms of downtown Tacoma, I think the concern is apartment buildings flipped into condos which the current residents can’t afford, whether that’s a low income building or not, the effect is still the same.
I believe there are some good ways to handle the problem of gentrification and it has a lot to do with your first observation about the unwillingness of politicians to dampen property values in rich neighborhoods.
I think that placing small amounts of low income housing in downtown, St. Helens area, Proctor, Stadium, MLK, and other neighborhoods (maybe 5 – 10% of the available units in the area) would be a really good start to really growing economic diversity and making all those neighborhoods a lot more livable for everyone.
Integrating the lower middle class and middle middle class (ugh! what a bad term) into Tacoma’s surrounding cities could help too. I’m not talking about low income housing, but many of the cities around us have bans in place on building more apartments, which keeps a large percentage of blue collar workers and families still establishing themselves out of those cities, which creates an uneven tax base and leads to a lot of other problems with school funding, etc.
8 | Posted by Erik Hanberg | Jul 18, 03:29 PM
Thanks for the dialogue, Erik.
I think that’s true, but only if the owner/renter ratios are top heavy to a certain % (which honestly I’m not certain what that magic # is—total urban studies/planning question). Until then, long-time residents, the ones who held on during the really dangerous years & now complain about their taxes (don’t we all?), stand to finally get money out of their investments.
I’m a big fan of the inclusionary zoning policies you mention above for a variety of reasons, including economic diversity in more affluent areas. I would imagine that would be the logical migration in terms of tax policy to incentivize development downtown, now that you no longer need to beg developers to build in downtown Tacoma.
That being said, I would suggest that neighborhood stability in terms of public safety is only met when you have an owner/renter mix at or above 50%/50%. The TPD will tell you that during the worst years in Hilltop, the years that Crips were shooting at patrol cars from the street corners in broad day light, the owner/renter mix was completely out of balance, approx. 30%/70%. Then folks didn’t have the luxury of choosing whether to attend the monthly block watch meeting or taking their kids to soccer practice. Or the larger choice between their family’s safety and a screaming deal on a home. It was a different sort of ‘price point’.....the ‘what’s the price of my safety?’ price point.
If we’re there, then let’s start calling it gentrification. If we’re not, then every neighborhood needs to have folks who can hire lawyers.
Anyone know what a healthy mix is? I would like to see the CC get more sophisticated in handing out these generous tax holidays.
From what I understand, which isn’t much, surrounding cities negotiate with Tacoma to pay an apportionment towards their share of the social problems Tacoma supports on their behalf. Is that really healthy for Tacoma to be absorbing that # of high-risk/high-needs folks? Or would they be healthier, better supported, and better held accountable in their communities of origin?
Which begs the question: Does Tacoma have an Agency-Industrial Complex? Is it a more insidious form of environmental racism that 98405 has 246 sex offenders & hundreds of other returning felons under DOC supervision? I can tell you a vast majority are not African-American, but live in the center of the City/County’s African-American community. We could have several agency heads elected to the CC after this next election. Although I’m just thinking out loud, these questions beg to be asked. It’s your job interview, Tacoma!
9 | Posted by phil | Jul 18, 05:43 PM
Phil said “From what I understand, which isn’t much, surrounding cities negotiate with Tacoma to pay an apportionment towards their share of the social problems Tacoma supports on their behalf. Is that really healthy for Tacoma to be absorbing that # of high-risk/high-needs folks? Or would they be healthier, better supported, and better held accountable in their communities of origin?”
Tacoma pays a hefty price for an inordinate amount of high risk and ex-felon populations demonstrated in the large downtown population of grifters, horrific crimes like the murder of Zina Linnik, and the relentless national media coverage of Tacoma’s disturbing penchant for violent crime.
Erik Hanberg said “I think that placing small amounts of low income housing in downtown, St. Helens area, Proctor, Stadium, MLK, and other neighborhoods (maybe 5 – 10% of the available units in the area) would be a really good start to really growing economic diversity and making all those neighborhoods a lot more livable for everyone.”
Tacoma is an abject failure in “growing economic diversity.” This is played out daily in the dozens of downtown businesses that continue to fail at an alarming rate due to the city’s non-existent urban planning policy (lack of a coherent parking plan; reasonable regulations, incentives, and aggressive recruitment of office and retail space developers, and proactive policing of the streets). These are the elements that “grow economic diversity”and make a city viable, diverse, inviting, and safe.
10 | Posted by Laura H. | Jul 18, 11:47 PM
Sounds like we all share some of the same observations & passion. In the short-term, things downtown are trending against growing economic diversity. Such as 9th & Broadway. What’s up with that?! In a couple of months, all the small businesses will have closed (remember all those Gig Harbor Antique dealers who bet the house & moved onto Broadway?!) After 5pm, you’ll be left with with the DOC, Section 8, & Tullys. Get ready for a rough winter…..
11 | Posted by phil | Jul 19, 08:45 AM
Integrating the lower middle class and middle middle class (ugh! what a bad term) into Tacoma’s surrounding cities could help too.
The demographics indicate that the middle class and higher live in the suburbs and have abandoned downtown Tacoma despite the visibility of the new condos.
Its going to take many years of building (in most empty lots) before the demographics downtown come even close to average incomes for the rest of city.
In the end, downtown is going to become more functional when more people live in and around the downtown to support businesses. Thats why so many cities are working hard (even Federal Way) to re-populate their downtown core.
It all comes back to that Comp. Plan accident we like to refer to as South Hill & Graham, & its associated Tacoma divestment. Ah, remember the days before the Tacoma Mall, crack, gated communities with water retenetion ponds & Reagan filling our mental institutions with the criminally insane? Back when Tacoma used to win All-American City awards?
13 | Posted by phil | Jul 19, 10:14 AM
I agree with Erik B. — downtown needs more people living there to thrive. For years downtown Tacoma has had an odd assortment of businesses that seem to exist there because they can get by due to low rent. Cheesy gift shops and antique malls aren’t exactly the hallmark of a thriving downtown. But newer businesses like the PSP, the Matador, Blackwater, and several UWT area businesses show that quality businesses can thrive downtown, and the ability of downtown to support good businesses will only increase as more people move down there — starting with the occupancy of all the condos still under construction.
14 | Posted by michael g | Jul 19, 11:01 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
