Seattle City Council Strikes Down Proposed Pilot Program to Create More Affordable Housing

by Lauryn Bray

The Seattle City Council rejected proposed legislation Tuesday, April 30, to create more affordable housing by streamlining development standards, similar to city laws already on the books.

Councilmember Tammy Morales' Connected Communities ordinance (CB 120750) sought to make affordable housing development easier by adding new sections to the Seattle Municipal Code and establishing the Connected Community Development Partnership Bonus Pilot Program, which would've ended in 2029 or after 35 qualified projects have applied.

The legislation would have allowed the development of affordable housing units at 60% to 80% of area median income (AMI) for renters and 100% AMI particularly for areas identified by the City as harmed by "historical racially restrictive covenants or areas," which includes large portions of District 2.

"Seattle is in a housing crisis, and as policymakers, our actions speak louder than our words. We need to create more affordable housing now, and my proposal would have done just that. To wait until the Comprehensive Plan update is transmitted to Council at the end of this year is not taking our housing crisis seriously," said Morales in a statement released by her office following the vote.

The bill had the support of affordable housing developers Master Builders Association and the Complete Communities Coalition, which includes the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, a staff report said.

For many, the outcome may have not come as a surprise, considering that during the April 17 meeting of the Land Use Committee, which Morales chairs, her initial motion to pass the bill was not seconded, to which she responded incredulously, "I'm the only one on this committee who understands that we have an affordable housing crisis?"

Councilmember Dan Strauss responded to Morales' question by apologizing for being unprepared. "I apologize for not getting my amendments in order — that's why I was not comfortable voting on the bill today. I am taking complete ownership of not having my amendments correct," he said.

Eventually, Councilmember Cathy Moore seconded the motion. "I want this bill to be resolved today. I don't think it's fair to the chair or to the rest of the members in this committee to engage in committee time on this issue, so I want to facilitate a fair discussion, presentation, and a vote. So I will second it for that purpose," said Moore.

In the meeting on April 30, Strauss did have his amendments prepared. Strauss proposed an amendment that would modify Morales' policy to mirror the religious institutions bonus bill, which modified City development standards for property owned or controlled by religious organizations.

Councilmember Robert Kettle proposed to send the bill back to the Land Use Committee, requesting that the bill get a committee recommendation. "Given the background of the committee, the question of why four committee members couldn't get to 'yes' was not looked at, apparently, and not accounted for. That's troubling in its own sense," Kettle said. "As this council meeting is turned into a committee meeting, I believe that [both amendments to the bill] should be sent back to committee for reflection."

After the council voted down Strauss' proposed amendment, 7-2, with Saka and Strauss voting "yes," the council then voted 5-4 against the bill's other amendment, proposed by Morales. After rejecting both amendments, the council proceeded to vote on the original bill. In a 7-2 vote with only Morales and Strauss voting "yes," the legislation failed.

For some councilmembers, it was the issue of time pushing them to vote against the ordinance. "I believed and I still believe this bill could have used more time in committee, and that is why I did not second the bill while we were in committee, because I thought we needed more time," said Strauss.

Councilmember Tanya Woo echoed this concern when she addressed the council to defend her impending "no." "While I like the intent and goal of Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Strauss' idea, I believe it's almost there, but not there yet, and I would have liked more time," she said. Woo also wanted the AMI lowered to 40% and for the program to be opened up to the entire city.

Morales disagreed with the notion that the Land Use Committee did not spend enough time on the issue. "To Councilmember Strauss' point about not having enough time: This particular piece of legislation is not that complicated, but I understand that in the Land Use Committee, things can get pretty technical and dense, which is why we had five committee meetings about this piece of legislation. Typically in city council committees, we hear something twice and then we vote on it and it's done. So we didn't talk about this bill for an extended period of time," she said.

Councilmember Maritza Rivera said she voted against the bill because Morales' Connect Communities pilot would bypass the City's upcoming comprehensive planning.

"There is no question that we need and should support housing of all types across Seattle from affordable to market rate. Our efforts, however, must be part of a cohesive plan that leverages all of the City's investments and strategies. This is best accomplished through the 20-year Comprehensive Plan that the City and we are all currently engaged in, which is due later this year," she said. "This plan will help guide changes to land use and zoning laws to accomplish our housing goals across the city. The proposed Connected Communities pilot bypasses this process and creates a divided system after the Comp Plan process is finalized."

Morales responded, "The Comprehensive Plan sets a policy guideline — the way we implement it is to pass legislation. My Connected Communities legislation would have produced more affordable housing, commercial affordability, and anti-displacement measures right now. I'm incredibly disappointed in its failure to pass today."

📸 Featured Image: The Ethiopian Village on Rainier Avenue opened last fall, featuring 89 affordable units for low-income seniors, as well as street-level space for Cafe Avole, offices, and community meetings. (Photo: Ronnie Estoque)