Despite a variety of housing types, the City of Olympia’s housing challenge is the loss of existing low-income homeownership and a critical shortage of affordable rental units for the city's most economically vulnerable residents, according to a housing displacement risk study.
Uncommon Bridges conducted the Housing Displacement Analysis, which examined the contributing factors to housing challenges across Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater and Yelm.
At a city council study session on Tuesday, June 24, Community Planning and Economic Development Associate Planner Casey Schaufler presented the analysis, which found Olympia at risk of physical displacement — defined as eviction, acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition of property, or the expiration of covenants on rent or income-restricted housing.
The analysis noted that Olympia's displacement risk is uniquely characterized by the loss of existing low-income home ownership and difficulties in providing affordable rental units for very low-income households.
According to the study, Olympia's populations experienced:
According to the analysis, the trends suggest low-income homeowners may be struggling to keep up with rising house costs.
The rise in low-income renters may reflect some success in supporting renter households, but it could also signal a shift from homeownership to renting.
“It is possible that once homeowners have been economically forced to become renters, thus putting a strain on the availability of rental units,” the study notes.
Engagement data also showed how the market has handled the availability of single-family homes. Some residents point to the mixed quality of converting these properties to rental units, while others say the once affordable homes are falling into disrepair or being redeveloped entirely into units that cater to higher-income earning residents and visitors.
Olympia's housing policies show mixed progress. Some are categorized as "supportive" of housing goals by promoting innovative solutions like converting nonresidential buildings to housing and reducing regulatory barriers.
However, most housing-related policies are only "approaching" their goals. Many are partially meeting the city's goals and could be improved by addressing racial disparities, preventing exclusion and including anti-displacement strategies.
The analysis categorized Olympia's several housing policies within the Comprehensive Plan as "challenging" because the policies may unintentionally hinder housing development.
Some provisions requiring specific architectural designs or aiming to preserve neighborhood "character" could restrict housing production and limit housing choices, potentially exacerbating affordability challenges.
To address the issues, city planners propose removing vague language and introducing more flexible guidelines that encourage diverse housing options and increased housing production.
To further address housing affordability and equity, the consultants recommended the following policy initiatives:
The analysis also recommended aligning Olympia's Home Fund with the county's to improve coordination and effectiveness.
Looking ahead, Olympia will need approximately 14,000 new housing units by 2045, with a pressing need for 7,600 affordable housing units for low-income households.
Schaufler offered an example of the income gap that demonstrated the challenges of affordable housing.
"The average wage for somebody in accommodation or food services [is] $27,000 a year while a state government employee would be $80,000," Schaufler said.
The CPED will present the draft revisions to Olympia's Land Use and Environment Committee in July, followed by a Planning Commission public hearing in August.
13 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
This will continue so long as real estate is used as a savings account and municipalities support this worldview. No amount of “affordable” housing development will fix it. Abolish zoning. Buy bitcoin.
Monday, June 30 Report this
CobraCommander
SouthSoundGuy never once took an economics class.
Monday, June 30 Report this
jimLacey
"The average wage for somebody in accommodation or food services [is] $27,000 a year while a state government employee would be $80,000," Schaufler said.
Emotional responses to these kinds of statements are part of the reason Olympia keeps making poor decisions that lead to the problems they now have to solve.
I really like this option though: "Permit Single Room Occupancy housing in all multifamily zones to provide lower-cost housing options.". I always thought old fashioned boarding houses would be a nice way to provide affordable living in a compact area. But they only way it could work is to provide the owner or manager an effective way to deal with problem tenants.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
JW
America is something of an outlier when it comes to housing. Much of the rest of the world lives in dense and creative housing options. I like the idea of the single room occupancy options. There are ways to get creative and realize that the American dream of everyone having a house is a serious diversion from the norm of most of the world. Everyone having a house would be nice, but it is not realistic.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
BillString
Cemeteries and large lawns should be repurposed to build houses and grow food.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
sonshi
I'm convinced low income home ownership will continue to decrease. The house you bought for $250K ten years ago has more than doubled in assessed value and you are being taxed accordingly. Insurance has skyrocketed. Every year there will be expenses that are tough to absorb. Roof leaking, $10+K, basement leak, $10+K, electric problems, appliance [fridge, washer, oven] failure just to start. We recently had a bird hit and crack a window. That was over $1500 to replace!
We could *give* houses to low income folks and they still wouldn't be able to afford it.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
KarenM
Sonshi you bring up some good points. Broadly supporting home ownership is one thing. I don't think we should be aiming for everyone to own a home without considering their individual/family economic situation. This is a complex topic.
One example of a low income home owner: Some people who are home owners may also be low income, but they have a paid off mortgage. So their costs to keep their home do not include a monthly mortgage but they do include ongoing maintenance, taxes, insurance etc. Those costs can go up and they can also come in lumps such as a roof replacement. Eventually, even with the mortgage paid off, the low income home owner may have a difficult time keeping their home. The mortgage is only a part of the larger picture of home ownership.
Other home budget costs come into play as well. Owning a car is a big chunk of a household budget. Owning two vehicles is even more.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
Southsoundguy
Cobra, I literally majored in it. But even if I didn’t, who cares, 20th century economic beliefs are what brought us to this point.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
Southsoundguy
Bill string, cemeteries? Seriously?
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
BobJacobs
I question the value of studies like this for several reasons:
1) It treats the city as an island rather than a part of the regional housing market. It really doesn't help to know how our little part of the regional market is faring without knowing how the whole market is faring.
2) Referring to AMI rather than providing the definition of that term in dollars of income per year per household is unintelligible. The area median income is surprisingly high, resulting in subsidies for people I don't consider in need of assistance.
3) So much vague language -- "could", "might". Sounds like the authors don't really know what's going on.
Just another case of hiring expensive consultants to make it look like something is being done?
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
CobraCommander
Southsoundguy don't lie. You've never set foot in a college classroom.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
Southsoundguy
Is this really all you got? You seriously are not worthy of the name “Cobra Commander.” Beta Commander is a better fit.
Tuesday, July 1 Report this
GeorgeRobertson
I liked Karen M's comment
I think we need to seriously some much more radical tools if we are to house most people who may work here. My favorite is long term land/housing trust development and non profit co/op property management. This structure will make housing available at about half or possibly a third of market rates. It does so by terminating the effects of inflation and the constant refinancing and costs associated with frequent resales which occur at about every seventh year for privately owned homes.
I also like the notion of dramatically higher densities of homes either in or close to existing concentrations of retail and potential employment These high densities nodes, approaching 100 units per acre , in or adjacent to existing shopping center concentrations, create nearly instant 5to15 minute walking neighborhoods which if well inter-connected by public transportation, can reduce the number of automobile trips generated daily, and alter necessity of actually owning a car for some people. Making their housing cost there more affordable for them..
Combining those concepts is perhaps the most effective strategy for producing housing in the amounts and at prices that would solve our housing shortages best.
Thursday, July 10 Report this