The Olympia Planning Commission wants to have an open discussion with local housebuilders and developers to understand their hurdles in building affordable housing better as part of its work plan for 2023, which it approved on Monday, January 23.
Joyce Phillips, staff liaison for the Planning Commission, said they reserved space in their work plan for a meeting with neighborhood associations or other organizations to discuss their concerns.
Commissioner Tammy Adams proposed a listening session with builders to discuss the challenges in working with the city.
"Affordability is a huge topic, and those guys [builders] feel like they can't create affordability with a lot of what's going on. I think that would be a great conversation to have so that we better understand what they go through," Adams explained.
Commissioner Aaron Sauerhoff welcomed the dialogue with the builders and specifically wanted to know the financial challenges in achieving affordability.
The commissioners also want to include the participation of neighborhood associations and business owners in the listening session they plan to hold.
Adams suggested that the possible topic for discussion would cover the costs and fees for building. "And why [Olympia] has one of the most expensive connection fees."
In the approved work plan, which covers April 2023 to March 2024, the commissioners will continue discussions on Housing Action Plan, Neighborhood Centers strategy, and Capital Mall Triangle Area plan to develop recommendations for the city council.
The commission will also review and provide guidance on Capital Facilities Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the commissioners will tackle sidewalk issues, including funding and policies, with the Transportation staff.
Phillips said that the commissioners would have briefings on various topics in the future, including:
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
psterry
Glad Tammy is on the board. She certainly has 'lived experience' in the housing world.
Thursday, January 26, 2023 Report this
BobJacobs
Look out! We taxpayers already subsidize the development of housing, while at the same time talking about "growth paying for growth". The process outlined here will include lots of sob stories from some developers and pressure for more subsidies. We taxpayers need to be involved. We pay our own way, and so should developers.
Bob Jacobs
ps I too am glad that Tammy is a Planning Commissioner.
Thursday, January 26, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
I would hope that the Planning Commission would also meet with others, not just builders and neighborhood associations.
The City has always held developer impact fees well below the cost to serve growth. It has also eliminated Fire impact fees, which could have paid for some of the equipment needs and the proposed 5th fire station on Yelm Highway.
But builders will give sob stories about the high cost of developing. Indeed the costs ARE high, but that is because the costs ARE high. To build water, sewer, park and road facilities is expensive, and all of these costs are caused by growth and should be paid for by growth. Otherwise those of us who paid for the existing system will have to subsidize growth.
Estimates of the costs of growth in excess of what is paid for by developers range as high as $80,000 per home. See Paying For Prosperity: Brookings Institution, and The Cost of Growth: Eban Fodor
This creates a very real housing cost challenge -- but not one that should be solved by forcing existing residents to subsidize developers who want to build new homes to serve new residents.
We have very expensive sidewalk, sewer, and other deficiencies caused by new development not making the needed investments to make their developments walkable, and to provide other needed facilities. The City of Olympia spends $1 million per year on sidewalk retrofits. We should not compound this deficiency by letting new homes be built without complete streets.
Thursday, January 26, 2023 Report this
warrenh50
WarrenH50
Please define "affordable" in your stories. I'm sure "affordable" is a bad joke to a guy in a tent.
Friday, January 27, 2023 Report this
Plymouth
"Affordable" is meaningless -- unless it's coupled with an income amount. We behave as though "affordable" means something a working class family can afford without risking everything else. That's not what it means.
Housing is "affordable" when it consumes 1/3 or less of the income of the renter or owner... So for the Olympia City Manager who makes $210,000 a year, a house is affordable at $5,800 a month. When the planners and politicians and journalists couple "affordable" with "for the family earning $XX,000 a year" and that number reflects a working class income say $40-60,000 then it will be clear that creating incentives for more "market rate" housing isn't going solve the housing crisis for working people.
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
The builders are still here waiting to be included in the conversation....
Wednesday, March 1, 2023 Report this