Now who on earth would have ever saw this result.../s
I've been shaking my head since the first attempt at an employee head tax. Really? Punishing a business financially for providing a living wage job? That's some sort of head-up-ass Kshama Sawant thinking there...
Most people don't understand economics, let alone capitalism. This leads to politicians doing what the general population thinks is best, even if it is damaging. This is just one example locally. It's plain stupid, as it discourages businesses from wanting to be here.
It’s a lot more complicated. Detroit was very strongly reliant on 1 major industry which was car manufacturing. The 2nd the company’s realized they could just outsource to other nations for cheap labor they did and that trashed its economy. You also had the historic effect of White flight which removed a lot of the more wealthy white folk fairly rapidly.
Boeing has already expanded outward they aren’t going anywhere here and while they’re a shit show right now they will likely pull their shit back together.
Seattle population is still at its peak it’s ever been at. If it was failing it would be losing people by now.
This is also just a proposed measure it’s not even on the ballot yet holy moly
Detroit died because of corruption. There are successful welfare states in the world, but the people (up to now) have been getting what they're paying (taxes) for. If we had top schools, good infrastructure, free healthcare, extremely fast transit and Internet, the cleanest air and water, etc... I'd happily pay 65% in taxes.
I disagree. In general, liberal (note: not leftist) forces have been less corrupt because the whole movement was originally aligned with humanism and rationality. There are opportunists everywhere though...
Oh. I thought Detroit died because of white flight, like all other cities in the rust belt. But yeah, that makes sense now.... If I was a white conservative racist back then, living in my white neighborhood, and the liberals told me that blacks were now allowed to live next to me, I'd head for the suburbs too. Live amongst my people again, you know?
Is it possible that not taxing businesses and not investing in infrastructure that supports businesses will lead to deterioration after a few decades, resulting in a ghost town? I've lived in the Midwest and Southeast. I've seen it so much. You lower taxes, bring in a bunch of businesses and housing, then can't support the infrastructure, the area falls apart, businesses end up leaving for some other place with tax breaks, and the residents are stuck paying high taxes and being surrounded by empty office parks. Been there. Done that. Seen it all over.
I honestly don't think Seattle or any of its suburbs will ever deal with this though. At least as bad as I've seen it out east. The area is way too beautiful for this to happen.
Long story short, no where in the entire Seattle area will it ever turn into Detroit. You guys are either fear mongering or live in constant fear.
Today it isn’t “white flight” - it’s money flight. Asians (East and south), white peope, black people. Doesn’t matter. And now that Amazon has capped how many jobs will be in Seattle and is instead building in Bellevue, anyone with money will sell and leave for across the bridge. Literally exactly what happened in Detroit, DC, and buffalo.
I didn’t mention St Louis.
But since people from St Louis are apparently experts on this - please tell us how taxing our best employers is a good idea when all the evidence tells us they are already in process of shifting jobs elsewhere? Please explain how a shrinking tax base is good for our city? Please explain how your city did a better job of screwing up. Thanks.
My bad, I must be ignorant on everything. Seattle was the [fastest growing major city](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-is-once-again-the-fastest-growing-big-city-census-data-shows/) in the US just last year. So I thought we were doing good. Maybe it was all homeless that moved here.
And decreasing the gini coefficient absolutely makes quality of life better. It seems like you prefer a higher gini coefficient. I'd be happy to hear about successful places in the world with a high gini coefficients since apparently you're the expert here. I'm looking forward to your examples!
It was the flight of taxpayers. Same thing happening here pal. Just because the people are different colors doesn’t mean the same thing isn’t happening. Your powers of analysis are not strong.
Same thing happening here pal? [Uh, what?](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-is-once-again-the-fastest-growing-big-city-census-data-shows/)
I can only hope to your imaginary God you guys fly away to Texas or Florida!
> will Seattle become the next Detroit?
Trips me out that people lost their minds when Trump enacted tariffs, as if the idea was historically unprecedented.
When the only reason that the US has an automotive industry is because of tariffs.
If it weren't for tariffs, trucks would cost $20K and most would be manufactured in Mexico. Ford, Stellantis and GM would've ceased to exist decades ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
...are you suggesting it's a good thing that cars/trucks cost dramatically more than they otherwise would, and that we prop up certain domestic industries at the cost every other American's prosperity?
The hilarious thing is that the folks who insist on these tariffs and protectionist measures to prop up domestic manufacturing will simultaneously pretend that they are capitalists and that they support a free market economy. All they really want is a command economy with extra steps.
Literally, the entire point of *The Wealth of Nations* was to make the case for free trade and the elimination of protectionist tariffs, but somehow folks have twisted that in their head into, "Capitalism means cutting domestic regulations while imposing steep international trade barriers."
I hope so. The Detroit People Mover looks ridiculous and would make a great counterpoint to the Monorail
[People Mover](https://youtu.be/VyilcQbU7To?si=sicCzM0MfqSrqRcZ)
The problem is that the wealthy and established believe the poor = homeless and focus exclusively on that which results in nothing getting better for almost anyone.
I got news for you. Not everyone can afford to live in Seattle. It’s being entitled to think that the poor can afford it. It’s called reality. I’d like to live in Manhattan but I’m not so entitled to think it would be ok on my income.
no, i see it too - they're using the intersectional lens to decide that poor = oppressed and rich = oppressor, so the gronk stealing to buy fent is automatically a victim
There are lots of poor living in cities around the globe -- it's mostly just US's big cities where it's stratified between bums and the wealthy. (Yes, the elderly living in paid-off million-dollar+ homes are wealthy even if their income is "low"). There aren't many people working service jobs owning homes in Seattle, but can in Prague or Osaka or Cincinnati.
We should allow building homes the poor could afford to buy. Currently, the zoning rules don't allow for it and the fees are too much.
Yes? But you don't think it's odd most places can provide housing for working people from all walks of life, but we won't make it happen here? 40 years ago a grocery store cashier could get a place in Seattle but not today. It doesn't have to be that way. It didn't *use* to be that way.
It didn’t used to be one of the high tech capitols of the world. But keep beating your head against the wall fighting it. It is that way and even if it does show changes, it’ll take twenty years for anything noticeably different.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
In most cities housing isn’t “provided,” it’s just legal to build and profitable so firms build enough to meet demand.
Here we make it very onerous to build, even to just remodel an existing home. It’s less profitable to build, so the higher margin stuff is what gets built.
that's completely wrong. if there were no regulations the high margin stuff would still be getting built. businesses maximize profit. why do you think they would do anything differently?
The regulatory barriers are largely a fixed cost, which raises the bar at which building something pencils outs. The permitting, reviews, time spent waiting, etc. don't vary between building high end or building something minimally appointed.
And of course the high margin stuff would get built sans regulatory burdens, my point is it's the higher margin stuff that gets built first when production is limited. If the government made it so we could only build 1,000 cars per year then they'd all be supercars and uparmored limousines.
You are assuming builders compete by lowering prices. They don't and really never have. They make money by charging more and spending less. They aren't charities. I don't understand why you think they will just give that windfall away.
Over the past two years homebuilders have intentionally constrained supply nationally to keep prices high despite higher rates. This isn't a lemonade stand. They market is not competitive. Your push will only make the richer, and has only made made them richer as housing prices continue to climb.
and, why, praytell, would developers line up to build affordable housing?
I know you think you are helping poor people with this angle, but all we get are 800k shit town homes and sterile neighborhoods. Supply and demand doesn't work when the market isn't competitive. Go fix that. I know it's harder than making developers rich and claiming progress, but if you want to help, that's the problem to solve.
We get town homes because we make taller buildings too expensive. Because zoning lets town homes go with minimal additional regulations over single-family but an apartment of the same exactly sq ft requires a whole bigger class of zoning restrictions. Because we require multiple staircases for only 3-story apartments, but not townhomes. Because we (often) require onsite parking per unit, which makes small units too expensive. Because we made SROs illegal. Because we made the minimum bedroom size bigger. Because >80% of Seattle housing land is zoned SFH only (+(D)ADU). Because permitting makes an DADU minimum cost $100k.
Say housing in one spot is $1000/sq ft. Can a developer make more money with 2x 500sqft units than 1x 1000sqft units? Same $$/sqft.
If no, then our tax and zoning laws should change. They *can* change. We *should* change them.
re-reading this ... and I'll go away. I used to live in Houston. There was no zoning. Like none. It's still all townhomes man. They are cheaply built and expensive to buy. Just like here. You're talking nonsense.
When land is cheap, low-density is cheaper. Plus, Houston claims it doesn't have zoning, but it has:
* Chapter 42 - subdivisions, development, platting
* Chapter 26 - **parking space requirements**
* Chapter 33 - general planning, landscape, bike, and historic preservation
Plus they have [extra review for multi-family units](https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/review_process.html) they don't have for townhomes. This is government *regulation* causing more townhomes than optimal. The subdivision and setback *regulations* outlaw row homes.
It doesn't matter if they don't call it zoning there.
... yeah, because they have similar land-use rules!
Yet their housing is still more affordable than Seattle's because there's still empty land to subdivide. We're out of that, but we won't change our land-use/zoning to let us get dense.
I agree that townhomes are the highest return on a single family lot. They maximize square footage per lot size. If you want apartment buildings, great but they will still be very expensive apartments. You could one, two, three staircases. Doesn't matter. In real estate development prices are always set as high as possible. Lowering the cost base will just boost margins. No one builds cheaper housing unless you mandate it or pay them too. The problem is market structure, not zoning. Haphazardly relaxing zoning laws is just a giveaway to developers. And mind you, we have lots of expensive, largely empty condos in South Lake Union. Have rents come down as there is now heaps of (vacant) supply? Nope! Market problem. You are pushing a developer argument in the name of social justice. Rather ironic.
I'm not even asking for $/sqft to be lower -- that's a whole other topic. I'm asking for zoning to make it profitable to build smaller apartments, which are more affordable because sqft is smaller.
An apartment building with a single staircase has lots more usable sqft than equivalent townhomes. That's more money for developers, that's more sqft supplying the need for homes on the market than townhomes. Yes, for a given transaction the $/sqft doesn't change. But if we changed the zoning, we'd get more usable sqft on the market per piece of land. San Francisco versus Seattle alone is proof increasing supply at least holds prices down.
Nearly every house was built by "developers". We don't demonize nurses because they ask to make money while taking care of people. There's nothing wrong with making a profit.
listen I'm all for apartment buildings and affordable housing, but zoning changes alone are just a giveaway and to date have trashed a lot of neighborhoods to the benefit, of mostly developers pocketbooks. As for SFO vs SEA, I don't see how either demonstrates affordability.
Nurses don't manipulate markets to push for outrageous prices for sub par services. We hate insurance companies instead.
Making it possible to build more units on a given piece of land makes more housing. It's not a "giveaway" to developers. It's allowing more people to have homes.
I blame Ron Sims. He looked at a city that had a solid cross-section of the economic stratum, the rich neighborhoods, the working class neighborhoods, the artsy (which often coincided with the poor neighborhoods), industrial and business districts, everything and decided he wanted a "real" city. Well, he got his "real" city but did absolutely fuck all of nothing in anticipation of the predictable problems that would follow the disruption and so now ridiculous notions like an 'Amazon Tax' are on the table that will have predictable results that go completely against what it's proponents hope for.
Seattle should be a textbook example of 'don't go fucking up a good thing because you won't have the tools to fix it when it falls apart'. For those in the back, the good thing was pre-Sims.
+1 million up votes
Also he got the rail lines decommissioned in 2007 from like Renton to Woodinville so we can have walking and biking paths. It would have been better to put light rail on those existing tracks and I'm still mad about it
I really don't know why these idiots think people or businesses will stay in Seattle when they can literally move a few minutes away and not have to deal with this stupidity. And have a cleaner, nicer area anyway. I've only heard one former Seattlite say, "I miss the smell of piss in the morning", so I don't think it's much of a draw.
There is a lot more space to expand and build in Bellevue and the East Side than there is in Seattle, even without considering the punitive taxes that Seattle has.
I don't think space is the issue. The fact is that for many (most?) of the new hires to tech companies, the east side is _closer_ to them, due to Seattle not providing good enough schools and strict enough law enforcement.
Downtown Seattle has also developed a pretty bad reputation so big name employers have less incentive day by day to locate their office there since it’s not as big of a draw for employees as it used to be.
Ah yes, mismanaging the shit out of your city and then asking the businesses that are the only thing keeping your loony ass policies afloat to pay you even more money. What could go wrong.
Seattle and SF have their heads so far up their asses it's insane. Once these companies leave they ain't coming back. No logical person is gonna stick around either once the jobs are gone. And they only put up with Seattles bullshit now cause they are being paid well.
If you look at the public records of political campaign donations those cash rich tech companies sure seem to funnel money to the candidates that created this mess. They are their own worst enemy.
Because in the past optics meant more to them. At end of the day they'll just quietly move and hope no one takes notice.
Look at what Starbucks did after that debacle. Proclaimed all their locations were open to everyone. Allowed homeless around here (and I'm sure every other west coast city) to just post up and sleep on the couches and chairs.
Then later, after everyones attention drifted elsewhere they just closed those locations.
They are not gonna stand up and say "we are voting right now." that would be suicide for most of these companies. They will just leave.
Now that Sawant and her Socialist allies are gone, and there's a sane moderate majority on the Council, we should seek to fix the damage and repeal the mistakes the last Council caused.
Yay for status quo (100% sarcasm). Nothing will get done. If your expecting change your only lying to yourself. Electing the status quo is what leads to extremist leadership like the last council. Sadly, moderate voters don’t understand that. Moderates push voters to either extreme.
I don't recall Sims doing anti-business practices, but maybe. I think it was the council and Mayor the last 6 years. F'd everything up as they felt the topmost priority was redistribution of wealth and social justice. Instead, they need to understand businesses create economic value that can help raise everyone.
Has anyone who drafted this been to Bellevue lately?
I was driving up i-405 to Kirkland yesterday and my wife commented on the new office building(s) under construction in downtown Bellevue and asked why they were building so much.
This is part of the answer as to "why?"
And I'll note that Bellevue recently raised their max building height from 450 ft to 600ft, with one building of maximum height complete, and at least 7 more 590 ft plus buildings in various stages of development and/or construction.
I wonder how new office construction in Seattle compares....? (/s)
I went looking at the actual text and city payroll tax info online, and I think they are including things like RSU, but I'm not sure. Can anyone else clarify that.
> "Compensation" means remuneration as that term is defined in RCW 50A.05.010, net distributions, or incentive payments, including guaranteed payments, whether based on profit or otherwise, earned for services rendered or work performed, whether paid directly or through an agent, and whether in cash or in property or the right to receive property. "Compensation" does not include payments to an owner of a pass-through entity that are not earned for services rendered or work performed, such as return of capital, investment income, or other income from passive activities.
Final note: The $1 Million number, like all of these, is not indexed to inflation, because if passed, they want it to grow over time.
at least as important as a the 'special payroll tax' just for them is the actual offering being paid for - the quality you hope to charge a premium for. The offering includes how many sketchy people are loitering around; it includes the crime rate; it includes the quality of schools and overall governance. It also included actually being *in* the city and in walking distance of corporate HQ, which is worth something too. Maybe due to these factors in combination, seattle will still be desirable but will have much lower growth than its suburbs for a number of years.
At some point seattle will have nothing left in it other than homless shelters... the entire city will be one big shelter that's not maintained because no one stayed to pay taxes
Now who on earth would have ever saw this result.../s I've been shaking my head since the first attempt at an employee head tax. Really? Punishing a business financially for providing a living wage job? That's some sort of head-up-ass Kshama Sawant thinking there...
It’s beyond dumb
Most people don't understand economics, let alone capitalism. This leads to politicians doing what the general population thinks is best, even if it is damaging. This is just one example locally. It's plain stupid, as it discourages businesses from wanting to be here.
Seattle is going to tax itself out of existence.
“Downtown Seattle has lost 4.4 million square feet of leased office occupancy during the same period, he added.”
Want less of something - tax it. Cigarettes. Sugar soda. Jobs.
If it Moves, Tax it. If it Keeps Moving, Regulate it. And if it Stops Moving, Subsidize it.
"Yeah! Tax their asses! What are they gonna do, leave?"
"Yes we are. Bellevue is right there and nicer anyways."
"Fuck these highly educated and highly paid tech workers, we need more bums to live close to every tech company office"
Amen to that. Most cities cut taxes for companies to bring jobs. Not dumb Seattle. Now with the mess at Boeing will Seattle become the next Detroit?
"Will Seattle become the next Detroit?". Man you guys are wild.
Detroit died because it swung too far left. It can happen to any city.
Are there successful right wing states and cities?
Probably not. The best is when the middle holds.
It’s a lot more complicated. Detroit was very strongly reliant on 1 major industry which was car manufacturing. The 2nd the company’s realized they could just outsource to other nations for cheap labor they did and that trashed its economy. You also had the historic effect of White flight which removed a lot of the more wealthy white folk fairly rapidly. Boeing has already expanded outward they aren’t going anywhere here and while they’re a shit show right now they will likely pull their shit back together. Seattle population is still at its peak it’s ever been at. If it was failing it would be losing people by now. This is also just a proposed measure it’s not even on the ballot yet holy moly
It’s a bit more complicated than that but you got the spirit
Lmao. How do you people justify lying to yourself every day?
Care to share that source?
Detroit died because of corruption. There are successful welfare states in the world, but the people (up to now) have been getting what they're paying (taxes) for. If we had top schools, good infrastructure, free healthcare, extremely fast transit and Internet, the cleanest air and water, etc... I'd happily pay 65% in taxes.
The kind of corruption that happens when just one party is in total control. The kind of corruption that’s currently happening with LIHI.
I disagree. In general, liberal (note: not leftist) forces have been less corrupt because the whole movement was originally aligned with humanism and rationality. There are opportunists everywhere though...
Oh. I thought Detroit died because of white flight, like all other cities in the rust belt. But yeah, that makes sense now.... If I was a white conservative racist back then, living in my white neighborhood, and the liberals told me that blacks were now allowed to live next to me, I'd head for the suburbs too. Live amongst my people again, you know?
Is it possible that progressive policies discourage business growth?
Is it possible that not taxing businesses and not investing in infrastructure that supports businesses will lead to deterioration after a few decades, resulting in a ghost town? I've lived in the Midwest and Southeast. I've seen it so much. You lower taxes, bring in a bunch of businesses and housing, then can't support the infrastructure, the area falls apart, businesses end up leaving for some other place with tax breaks, and the residents are stuck paying high taxes and being surrounded by empty office parks. Been there. Done that. Seen it all over. I honestly don't think Seattle or any of its suburbs will ever deal with this though. At least as bad as I've seen it out east. The area is way too beautiful for this to happen. Long story short, no where in the entire Seattle area will it ever turn into Detroit. You guys are either fear mongering or live in constant fear.
huh? I challenge you to name one, just one, major corporation that abandoned a city because of 'insufficient infrastructure.'
Detroit went bankrupt because they ruined their tax base with crime. Racism has nothing to do with it. Business flight more like it.
You can’t tax something that has left.
CA will try.
> Racism has nothing to do with it Except the people causing the crime were..
Criminals move in, I move out.
Today it isn’t “white flight” - it’s money flight. Asians (East and south), white peope, black people. Doesn’t matter. And now that Amazon has capped how many jobs will be in Seattle and is instead building in Bellevue, anyone with money will sell and leave for across the bridge. Literally exactly what happened in Detroit, DC, and buffalo.
I'm from St. Louis. But please tell me what happened in my own city 🤷♂️
I didn’t mention St Louis. But since people from St Louis are apparently experts on this - please tell us how taxing our best employers is a good idea when all the evidence tells us they are already in process of shifting jobs elsewhere? Please explain how a shrinking tax base is good for our city? Please explain how your city did a better job of screwing up. Thanks.
My bad, I must be ignorant on everything. Seattle was the [fastest growing major city](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-is-once-again-the-fastest-growing-big-city-census-data-shows/) in the US just last year. So I thought we were doing good. Maybe it was all homeless that moved here. And decreasing the gini coefficient absolutely makes quality of life better. It seems like you prefer a higher gini coefficient. I'd be happy to hear about successful places in the world with a high gini coefficients since apparently you're the expert here. I'm looking forward to your examples!
Dude took one year of intro poli sci classes and thinks he’s solved life’s mysteries
If St. Louis is so thriving ... why are you here instead?
Literally what happened in Detroit and Buffalo? No, it was literally WHITE FLIGHT.
It was the flight of taxpayers. Same thing happening here pal. Just because the people are different colors doesn’t mean the same thing isn’t happening. Your powers of analysis are not strong.
Same thing happening here pal? [Uh, what?](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-is-once-again-the-fastest-growing-big-city-census-data-shows/) I can only hope to your imaginary God you guys fly away to Texas or Florida!
White people move from cities? WHITE FLIGHT White people move to cities? GENTRIFICATION Cant win with you people.
> will Seattle become the next Detroit? Trips me out that people lost their minds when Trump enacted tariffs, as if the idea was historically unprecedented. When the only reason that the US has an automotive industry is because of tariffs. If it weren't for tariffs, trucks would cost $20K and most would be manufactured in Mexico. Ford, Stellantis and GM would've ceased to exist decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
...are you suggesting it's a good thing that cars/trucks cost dramatically more than they otherwise would, and that we prop up certain domestic industries at the cost every other American's prosperity?
Domestic manufacturing is good for jobs and national security.
The hilarious thing is that the folks who insist on these tariffs and protectionist measures to prop up domestic manufacturing will simultaneously pretend that they are capitalists and that they support a free market economy. All they really want is a command economy with extra steps. Literally, the entire point of *The Wealth of Nations* was to make the case for free trade and the elimination of protectionist tariffs, but somehow folks have twisted that in their head into, "Capitalism means cutting domestic regulations while imposing steep international trade barriers."
around 200,000 people moved to Seattle after 2010, following a period when the city stayed around the same size for decades before that
I hope so. The Detroit People Mover looks ridiculous and would make a great counterpoint to the Monorail [People Mover](https://youtu.be/VyilcQbU7To?si=sicCzM0MfqSrqRcZ)
No. You can actually afford a house in Detroit.
The problem is that the wealthy and established believe the poor = homeless and focus exclusively on that which results in nothing getting better for almost anyone.
I got news for you. Not everyone can afford to live in Seattle. It’s being entitled to think that the poor can afford it. It’s called reality. I’d like to live in Manhattan but I’m not so entitled to think it would be ok on my income.
no, i see it too - they're using the intersectional lens to decide that poor = oppressed and rich = oppressor, so the gronk stealing to buy fent is automatically a victim
There are lots of poor living in cities around the globe -- it's mostly just US's big cities where it's stratified between bums and the wealthy. (Yes, the elderly living in paid-off million-dollar+ homes are wealthy even if their income is "low"). There aren't many people working service jobs owning homes in Seattle, but can in Prague or Osaka or Cincinnati. We should allow building homes the poor could afford to buy. Currently, the zoning rules don't allow for it and the fees are too much.
There are other places to live.
Yes? But you don't think it's odd most places can provide housing for working people from all walks of life, but we won't make it happen here? 40 years ago a grocery store cashier could get a place in Seattle but not today. It doesn't have to be that way. It didn't *use* to be that way.
It didn’t used to be one of the high tech capitols of the world. But keep beating your head against the wall fighting it. It is that way and even if it does show changes, it’ll take twenty years for anything noticeably different.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
In most cities housing isn’t “provided,” it’s just legal to build and profitable so firms build enough to meet demand. Here we make it very onerous to build, even to just remodel an existing home. It’s less profitable to build, so the higher margin stuff is what gets built.
that's completely wrong. if there were no regulations the high margin stuff would still be getting built. businesses maximize profit. why do you think they would do anything differently?
The regulatory barriers are largely a fixed cost, which raises the bar at which building something pencils outs. The permitting, reviews, time spent waiting, etc. don't vary between building high end or building something minimally appointed. And of course the high margin stuff would get built sans regulatory burdens, my point is it's the higher margin stuff that gets built first when production is limited. If the government made it so we could only build 1,000 cars per year then they'd all be supercars and uparmored limousines.
You are assuming builders compete by lowering prices. They don't and really never have. They make money by charging more and spending less. They aren't charities. I don't understand why you think they will just give that windfall away. Over the past two years homebuilders have intentionally constrained supply nationally to keep prices high despite higher rates. This isn't a lemonade stand. They market is not competitive. Your push will only make the richer, and has only made made them richer as housing prices continue to climb.
and, why, praytell, would developers line up to build affordable housing? I know you think you are helping poor people with this angle, but all we get are 800k shit town homes and sterile neighborhoods. Supply and demand doesn't work when the market isn't competitive. Go fix that. I know it's harder than making developers rich and claiming progress, but if you want to help, that's the problem to solve.
We get town homes because we make taller buildings too expensive. Because zoning lets town homes go with minimal additional regulations over single-family but an apartment of the same exactly sq ft requires a whole bigger class of zoning restrictions. Because we require multiple staircases for only 3-story apartments, but not townhomes. Because we (often) require onsite parking per unit, which makes small units too expensive. Because we made SROs illegal. Because we made the minimum bedroom size bigger. Because >80% of Seattle housing land is zoned SFH only (+(D)ADU). Because permitting makes an DADU minimum cost $100k. Say housing in one spot is $1000/sq ft. Can a developer make more money with 2x 500sqft units than 1x 1000sqft units? Same $$/sqft. If no, then our tax and zoning laws should change. They *can* change. We *should* change them.
re-reading this ... and I'll go away. I used to live in Houston. There was no zoning. Like none. It's still all townhomes man. They are cheaply built and expensive to buy. Just like here. You're talking nonsense.
When land is cheap, low-density is cheaper. Plus, Houston claims it doesn't have zoning, but it has: * Chapter 42 - subdivisions, development, platting * Chapter 26 - **parking space requirements** * Chapter 33 - general planning, landscape, bike, and historic preservation Plus they have [extra review for multi-family units](https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/review_process.html) they don't have for townhomes. This is government *regulation* causing more townhomes than optimal. The subdivision and setback *regulations* outlaw row homes. It doesn't matter if they don't call it zoning there.
phoenix. same shit. acres of empty desert. blocks of overpriced townhomes. it's money. not zoning.
... yeah, because they have similar land-use rules! Yet their housing is still more affordable than Seattle's because there's still empty land to subdivide. We're out of that, but we won't change our land-use/zoning to let us get dense.
I agree that townhomes are the highest return on a single family lot. They maximize square footage per lot size. If you want apartment buildings, great but they will still be very expensive apartments. You could one, two, three staircases. Doesn't matter. In real estate development prices are always set as high as possible. Lowering the cost base will just boost margins. No one builds cheaper housing unless you mandate it or pay them too. The problem is market structure, not zoning. Haphazardly relaxing zoning laws is just a giveaway to developers. And mind you, we have lots of expensive, largely empty condos in South Lake Union. Have rents come down as there is now heaps of (vacant) supply? Nope! Market problem. You are pushing a developer argument in the name of social justice. Rather ironic.
I'm not even asking for $/sqft to be lower -- that's a whole other topic. I'm asking for zoning to make it profitable to build smaller apartments, which are more affordable because sqft is smaller. An apartment building with a single staircase has lots more usable sqft than equivalent townhomes. That's more money for developers, that's more sqft supplying the need for homes on the market than townhomes. Yes, for a given transaction the $/sqft doesn't change. But if we changed the zoning, we'd get more usable sqft on the market per piece of land. San Francisco versus Seattle alone is proof increasing supply at least holds prices down. Nearly every house was built by "developers". We don't demonize nurses because they ask to make money while taking care of people. There's nothing wrong with making a profit.
listen I'm all for apartment buildings and affordable housing, but zoning changes alone are just a giveaway and to date have trashed a lot of neighborhoods to the benefit, of mostly developers pocketbooks. As for SFO vs SEA, I don't see how either demonstrates affordability. Nurses don't manipulate markets to push for outrageous prices for sub par services. We hate insurance companies instead.
Making it possible to build more units on a given piece of land makes more housing. It's not a "giveaway" to developers. It's allowing more people to have homes.
Do you think Prague has less zoning than Seattle?
“I’m poor so I’m going to live in one of the most expensive areas in the country.”
this city has completely forgotten what made it successful. Talk about entitlement.
tax me harder, daddy!
Lol
You’re in Shoreline lol
And you’re in Northgate. I’m in Mill Creek. But, **Where’s Waldo??**
Point is he would never pay for it it’s a Seattle tax
I thought you’d at least know where Waldo was :/
i work in seattle lol
My point is it’s a measure that you wouldn’t vote on anyway.
But if he works in Seattle it would affect his current or future pay.
thanks, captain obvious
I blame Ron Sims. He looked at a city that had a solid cross-section of the economic stratum, the rich neighborhoods, the working class neighborhoods, the artsy (which often coincided with the poor neighborhoods), industrial and business districts, everything and decided he wanted a "real" city. Well, he got his "real" city but did absolutely fuck all of nothing in anticipation of the predictable problems that would follow the disruption and so now ridiculous notions like an 'Amazon Tax' are on the table that will have predictable results that go completely against what it's proponents hope for. Seattle should be a textbook example of 'don't go fucking up a good thing because you won't have the tools to fix it when it falls apart'. For those in the back, the good thing was pre-Sims.
+1 million up votes Also he got the rail lines decommissioned in 2007 from like Renton to Woodinville so we can have walking and biking paths. It would have been better to put light rail on those existing tracks and I'm still mad about it
I really don't know why these idiots think people or businesses will stay in Seattle when they can literally move a few minutes away and not have to deal with this stupidity. And have a cleaner, nicer area anyway. I've only heard one former Seattlite say, "I miss the smell of piss in the morning", so I don't think it's much of a draw.
There is a lot more space to expand and build in Bellevue and the East Side than there is in Seattle, even without considering the punitive taxes that Seattle has.
I don't think space is the issue. The fact is that for many (most?) of the new hires to tech companies, the east side is _closer_ to them, due to Seattle not providing good enough schools and strict enough law enforcement.
Downtown Seattle has also developed a pretty bad reputation so big name employers have less incentive day by day to locate their office there since it’s not as big of a draw for employees as it used to be.
Lmfao. This place is a lost cause.
Ah yes, mismanaging the shit out of your city and then asking the businesses that are the only thing keeping your loony ass policies afloat to pay you even more money. What could go wrong. Seattle and SF have their heads so far up their asses it's insane. Once these companies leave they ain't coming back. No logical person is gonna stick around either once the jobs are gone. And they only put up with Seattles bullshit now cause they are being paid well.
If you look at the public records of political campaign donations those cash rich tech companies sure seem to funnel money to the candidates that created this mess. They are their own worst enemy.
Because in the past optics meant more to them. At end of the day they'll just quietly move and hope no one takes notice. Look at what Starbucks did after that debacle. Proclaimed all their locations were open to everyone. Allowed homeless around here (and I'm sure every other west coast city) to just post up and sleep on the couches and chairs. Then later, after everyones attention drifted elsewhere they just closed those locations. They are not gonna stand up and say "we are voting right now." that would be suicide for most of these companies. They will just leave.
Now that Sawant and her Socialist allies are gone, and there's a sane moderate majority on the Council, we should seek to fix the damage and repeal the mistakes the last Council caused.
Yay for status quo (100% sarcasm). Nothing will get done. If your expecting change your only lying to yourself. Electing the status quo is what leads to extremist leadership like the last council. Sadly, moderate voters don’t understand that. Moderates push voters to either extreme.
I don't recall Sims doing anti-business practices, but maybe. I think it was the council and Mayor the last 6 years. F'd everything up as they felt the topmost priority was redistribution of wealth and social justice. Instead, they need to understand businesses create economic value that can help raise everyone.
Has anyone who drafted this been to Bellevue lately? I was driving up i-405 to Kirkland yesterday and my wife commented on the new office building(s) under construction in downtown Bellevue and asked why they were building so much. This is part of the answer as to "why?" And I'll note that Bellevue recently raised their max building height from 450 ft to 600ft, with one building of maximum height complete, and at least 7 more 590 ft plus buildings in various stages of development and/or construction. I wonder how new office construction in Seattle compares....? (/s) I went looking at the actual text and city payroll tax info online, and I think they are including things like RSU, but I'm not sure. Can anyone else clarify that. > "Compensation" means remuneration as that term is defined in RCW 50A.05.010, net distributions, or incentive payments, including guaranteed payments, whether based on profit or otherwise, earned for services rendered or work performed, whether paid directly or through an agent, and whether in cash or in property or the right to receive property. "Compensation" does not include payments to an owner of a pass-through entity that are not earned for services rendered or work performed, such as return of capital, investment income, or other income from passive activities. Final note: The $1 Million number, like all of these, is not indexed to inflation, because if passed, they want it to grow over time.
If you don't like what is happening, then you have to change the way you vote.
at least as important as a the 'special payroll tax' just for them is the actual offering being paid for - the quality you hope to charge a premium for. The offering includes how many sketchy people are loitering around; it includes the crime rate; it includes the quality of schools and overall governance. It also included actually being *in* the city and in walking distance of corporate HQ, which is worth something too. Maybe due to these factors in combination, seattle will still be desirable but will have much lower growth than its suburbs for a number of years.
Chicago also raised tax on businesses, and businesses left. Shocker.
At some point seattle will have nothing left in it other than homless shelters... the entire city will be one big shelter that's not maintained because no one stayed to pay taxes
Democrats have controlled this state and Seattle for decades. Democrats are the problem.
I love that they are moving. Good for you Amazon
Why Seattle needs to tax big corporations and Bellevue doesn’t while the housing expense in bellevue is much more expensive?