So for you to not be rent burdened (30% of your income or more goes to rent), your household income needs to be ~$80,000, afer taxes, so more like ~$100,000 before taxes.
Median household income in WA is about ~$100,000.
So basically half the people in the state are rent burdened.
So no, no, this is not already making housing more affordable.
Maybe its laying the groundwork to eventually do that, maybe, if we also did a whole bunch of other stuff as well.
I’m not saying the revising parkings minimums is bad.
I’m saying a whole lot more needs to be done, for that headline to approach being accurate.
It’s similar to the tax breaks given to builders for making affordable units. Most of the units are rentals.
Plus why in the hell give any tax breaks to builders for building HERE of all places. They’re making money no matter what.
There’s space in town (aside from the area where the massive new warehouses are going in) to build. I’m all in favor of having a hard look at how much parking should be required. Not so much in favor of just letting each developer decide if they’d like to have parking or not.
Local jurisdictions in the state are actually at the point of turning away from industries and just want to build housing because it’s the only thing that’s reliable. Especially small rural towns. They can’t do transit though so rural roads are getting jammed with more and more traffic.
And a lot of the business parks and warehouses that came up the last 5 years were contracts from years ago, often pre-covid, being fulfilled.
LOL, I heard on NPR that housing affordability strategies now include multi generational housing… No, that doesn’t mean that you live with your parents and gramps. It means you, Gramps and parents all work to pay rent.
Average rent in WA is currently ~$2000.
So for you to not be rent burdened (30% of your income or more goes to rent), your household income needs to be ~$80,000, afer taxes, so more like ~$100,000 before taxes.
Median household income in WA is about ~$100,000.
So basically half the people in the state are rent burdened.
So no, no, this is not already making housing more affordable.
Maybe its laying the groundwork to eventually do that, maybe, if we also did a whole bunch of other stuff as well.
I’m not saying the revising parkings minimums is bad.
I’m saying a whole lot more needs to be done, for that headline to approach being accurate.
It’s similar to the tax breaks given to builders for making affordable units. Most of the units are rentals.
Plus why in the hell give any tax breaks to builders for building HERE of all places. They’re making money no matter what.
There’s space in town (aside from the area where the massive new warehouses are going in) to build. I’m all in favor of having a hard look at how much parking should be required. Not so much in favor of just letting each developer decide if they’d like to have parking or not.
Agreed on the BS headline.
Local jurisdictions in the state are actually at the point of turning away from industries and just want to build housing because it’s the only thing that’s reliable. Especially small rural towns. They can’t do transit though so rural roads are getting jammed with more and more traffic.
And a lot of the business parks and warehouses that came up the last 5 years were contracts from years ago, often pre-covid, being fulfilled.
We’ve been sleepwalking a decade.
LOL, I heard on NPR that housing affordability strategies now include multi generational housing… No, that doesn’t mean that you live with your parents and gramps. It means you, Gramps and parents all work to pay rent.
IE. Not affordable housing.
Just like every other potentially meaningful and transformative concept… capitalism fairly quickly turns everything into a marketing slogan and brand.
Affordable Housing TM, brought to you by … I dunno, Greystar, Lennar, whatever.