City Hears KWA's Take On the Olympus Hotel ( 1. October 2007, 16:58 by Whitney) ~ A Frank Discussion
Tonight the City Council Neighborhoods and Housing Committee heard from the Korean Women’s Association (KWA) in relation to their bid for the Olympus Hotel. The KWA stated their intentions to continue to use the Olympus Hotel for low-income housing and convert a few units to transitional use for victims of domestic violence as those units become available. They would use the revenue from the renting of the commercial space to support their programs, but would be reviewing the use of the commercial space. They are hoping to have a “concrete status” by the end of the year if all goes well.
The KWA manages other low-income housing projects and have a very good reputation for well-run operations. They stated that if they took over the Olympus they would be reviewing all of the tenants and units on an individual basis and if they did not meet the standards of the Association they would not stay. They also would have a staffperson on site 24 hours a day, like their other operations. Social services would be provided for residents but the building would not have a drop-in center.
Councilmembers Manthou, Stenger, and Fey, as well as community members, all raised questions about the project. The representative from the KWA claimed to have only recently found out about the controversy surrounding the area and the building.
As some of the questioners wondered, would a well-run Olympus Hotel actually contribute to a better 9th and Pacific? Or are there other issues that are more important?
Previously on Exit133
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.
I think the KWA has a real chance of making this a better place. If it is to stay low income only for the next 35 years, it would better be in the hands of an organization that seems to actually care about what goes on in their buildings. I have trust that the KWA won’t put up with bad behavior. I checked out their website, and I think I’ll drive by that other apartment building to see what it looks like.
1 | Posted by Christine | Oct 1, 06:58 PM
unless i’m completely out of touch Olympus and Winthrop need all the help they can get. Go KWA team!
2 | Posted by RR Anderson | Oct 1, 07:30 PM
They also would have a staffperson on site 24 hours a day, like their other operations. Social services would be provided for residents but the building would not have a drop-in center.
The KWA has the potential to improve the condition of the Olympus Hotel which is currently the subject of a lawsuit.
Good intentions alone are not going to help the Olympus. However, if the Olympus is run like KWA runs their other entities, there is a chance for an improvement. They are going to have to commit some significant resources to it.
This could be a really great thing! It would keep low income people right where they need to be – by the bus stop. It’s hard to get by if you don’t have a way to work and you’re 10 miles from the central bus stop. Hope this goes through, we do NOT need more condos here!
4 | Posted by Rebecca | Oct 2, 06:59 AM
Actually, Rebecca, there are almost no condos anywhere near the Olympus Hotel. The closest are several blocks away.
If you are just on an anti-development rant, let me counter it with this: full-time residents in the area of the Olympus Hotel increase the number of eyes and ears that are in that area at all hours of the day. Many members of the criminal element are less likely to do their business in heavily populated neighborhoods because of the increased chance that someone will catch them in the act.
So I say: Tacoma needs all the condos it can get!!!
I didn’t realize until I read the TNT story that the Olympus has to remain low-income housing for 35 more years. I guess that means the only argument here is whether it’s better to have a better operator but for some of those units to become transitional shelter, or to keep the current ownership, which hasn’t gone all that well. We’re stuck choosing the least worst option, which sounds to me like KWA. At first I thought those transitional units would be for transients who could downgrade the neighborhood, but if it’s going to be domestic abuse victims, plus have more multiuse businesses involved in the ground floor, that may actually be a small win for the neighborhood (and for the victims). I wonder if they would find greater support if they didn’t call them “transitional units” — that has a bad connotation in my mind.
actually the Olympus can be converted from low income to other uses but the tax credits would have to be bought out. it is one of the main obstacles to getting anyone besides the KWA to look at it seriously.
7 | Posted by urban explorer | Oct 2, 01:05 PM
I don’t see how disparaging more empty condos could be seen as anti-development. Downtown needs more affordable apartments, not more hugely overpriced condos that are NOT selling so that would counter your argument about full-time residents. And that is not just my “anti-development” opinion, read the TNT for the past six months. Most of the new developments are sitting half empty, or being redone because not one sold (Hanna Heights, anyone?). It’s time for Tacoma to rethink it’s priorities and make things affordable. THAT will get more eyes and ears on the street to deter crime!
8 | Posted by Rebecca | Oct 2, 02:21 PM
hate to tell you rebecca but the core of a successful downtown will usually be higher rent…..to include appartments….I believe in portland there are some developements north of the downtown core area that have income limitations on them….but the core…get real………
9 | Posted by rich | Oct 2, 04:31 PM
I have no problem with “affordable” housing whatever that extremely subjective term means – I have a big problem with more social services in an area that has way more than its fair share – and why in the world would you continue a failed model?
And why, why, why would you restore a beautiful, historic building then stand by and watch it be trashed by people, many of which have little or no respect for people, property, or the law.
A downtown is supposed to reflect its best and brightest – others invest – taxes are paid – everyone, including the less advantaged, benefit.
10 | Posted by Laura Hanan | Oct 2, 06:21 PM
Re: Laura @10 “I have no problem with “affordable” housing whatever that extremely subjective term means…”
The typical definition of affordable housing is housing (and utilities) that does not exceed 30% of one’s income.
A study was done not too long ago that determined a person needed to earn $15.15 per hour to be able to afford the standard “market rate” two-bedroom apartment in Pierce County. It also determined that the average worker earned only $10.68 per hour. This leaves an obvious short fall. If a worker is earning minimum wage, they would have to work about 83 hours per week to afford that apartment.
I hope you understand the distinction between “affordable” and “low-income” housing.
Also, “low-income” does not equal criminal. There are plenty of poor people in this community that are honest, upstanding, and respectful. Likewise there are plently of affluent people in this community that are not so decent.
11 | Posted by Mary | Oct 2, 09:59 PM
“Also, ‘low-income’ does not equal criminal. There are plenty of poor people in this community that are honest, upstanding, and respectful.”
Low-income does equal poor, unsafe design, mismanaged properties, and stigmatization of the “honest, upstanding, and respectful” people.
And many ex-felons and drug dealers prey upon those upstanding people in these vertical ghettos.
13 | Posted by Laura Hanan | Oct 2, 10:43 PM
That figure ($10.68) was taken from my handwritten notes during a meeting with the Tacoma/Pierce County Affordable Housing Consortium.
The following paragraph is a portion of the text from the Pierce County “Housing Affordability” study released in March 2007:
About 64% of households in Pierce County are homeowners, and about 34% are renters. For both groups, housing is considered affordable if the household pays no more than 30% of its income for shelter costs. The “housing wage,” that is, the wage necessary to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Pierce County and still pay no more than 30% of income for shelter costs, in 2005 was $14.88 per hour ($30,950 annually, working full-time). At the same time, the median hourly wage for renters was $10.67 per hour ($22,381 annually), and the minimum wage was 7.63 per hour ($15,870 annually).
This comprehensive (127 pages) report was conducted by the Pierce County Affordable Housing Task Force. I am working from a hard copy of the report. I am sure the full report is available on Pierce County’s website.
I hope that helps.
14 | Posted by Mary | Oct 2, 11:13 PM
I’d like to add a point of clarification to my previous posts…that wage is for renters not homeowners.
Sorry for the drift.
15 | Posted by Mary | Oct 2, 11:25 PM
But let me ask this, it seems that people feel like they are entitled to live downtown. Well, if you can’t afford to live downtown, get a better job…….not to be mean about it, but come on…why are you entitled to live there? and why should everyone jump through hoops to ensure you can?…its like going to the Hyatt and telling them that they have to let you stay in one of their rooms for $25 a night…… Even the appartments that are built in the core, are going to be higher rent…..you think right now is bad, if this town finally gets its butt in gear the cost of living downtown will rise even more, not decrease…..supply and demand……..
16 | Posted by rich | Oct 3, 04:29 PM
thanks Mary for defining “affordable”…in Tacoma. and uh, oh boy, Laura on post 10…And why, why, why would you restore a beautiful, historic building then stand by and watch it be trashed by people, many of which have little or no respect for people, property, or the law.
A downtown is supposed to reflect its best and brightest – others invest – taxes are paid – everyone, including the less advantaged, benefit.
—*—-*—
Your sense of love and compassion is underwhelming. Let us hope you don’t get in a big car crash and end up with brain damage and have to live in public housing collecting SS and/or disability…Let’s hope you stay just the way you are !! And, are you saying only the best and the brightest invest? what? money? so money defines the Best and the Brightest? What handbook is that from?
17 | Posted by Violet Vodka | Oct 3, 05:48 PM
Well said Violet. I can think of at least 4 people in the building I lived in that could not work at a well paying job (because of health, criminal past, etc.) but they all did what they could to contribute even though they were low income. They helped keep the building and grounds clean, were quiet and friendly, etc. But getting back to what I was talking about in my original post – it sounds as though the KWA are very particular with who they will keep in the building and are on top of any troublemakers. That’s all it takes! If the buildings OWNERS are hands on and proactive with problems, just like in a market rate apt building, this could be a great thing. The building I lived in was not “low income” but the rents were very low and as a result we had many low income people. But the owner and the managers made people behave! The difference between my building and up the street at 402 St. Helens was astounding. Now THAT is the criminal element at it’s best!
18 | Posted by Rebecca | Oct 4, 06:58 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
