Transit and Urbanism advocates are used to a defensive crouch when hearing news from Olympia. But buried in a supplemental budget earlier this spring, the Departments of Ecology and Commerce created a great new program.
The Governor’s Budget request included $7.4m for the Healthy Housing Remediation Program (HHRP) . Nonprofit organizations identify contaminated sites that would be good candidates for affordable housing, and the Program selects some to clear up to reduce costs of that development. The first round of applications was due Saturday. Scott O’Dowd of the Department of Ecology says that two applications are submitted, and three more requested an extension to tomorrow. They span the state from Kennewick to Bremerton, and include a project in Seattle’s Chinatown.
The prototype for this approach is happening at Mt. Baker. Ecology is cleaning up the legacy of a gas station and dry cleaner on behalf of Mt. Baker Housing. In addition to planning grants for the process described above, the appropriation awarded $6.2m for this. This will enable construction of Maddux: a 144-unit, $55m affordable project to begin in 2019 and open in 2021.
The Maddux is unusual: the process for nonprofits to get State grants requires them to go through their municipal government to create a “Redevelopment Opportunity Zone”, a process that few can complete. Historically, Ecology has cleaned up a site and then passed on the cost to a market-rate developer, resulting in less affordable units, O’Dowd said. The HHRP will dramatically streamline this process, though much depends on Ecology’s 2019 budget request this fall.
There’s no telling how many seemingly obvious development opportunities are wasting away due to these kinds of obstacles. It’s great to see the State stepping to up to address contamination issues that affect the entire community, since the actual perpetrators are long gone.
It’s great to see the State stepping up to do anything. Hope it’s habit-forming.
Mark
I love everything about this. Soil remediation is one of those huge but hidden costs that tips the scales in favor of sprawl. Kudos to the state for trying to level the playing field while also helping the environment.
I love everything about this except the 4-story building that will result from the process. Should be higher.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-high-rise-urban-america-history-cities
Concentrate on quality before you count the floors.
MD
I’m not seeing how the math works here. Remediation costs money which I’d assume is baked into the sale price of the land. My impression is that some property is negative value when remediation is factored in. So, how does spending tax dollars on remediation of an “under water” property benefit lower income housing more than simply doling out the money to another worthy project?
Also, I thought companies were on the hook for clean-up. Although I know that’s an issue when the original owner that created the problem is long gone and maybe not even in business.
You want to maximize the amount of housing adjacent to high quality transit, so simply investing the money properties elsewhere is not a direct substitution. The easy-to-develop land near Mt. Baker station is already built out, so this is what’s left.
So what you’re saying is it’s a way to buy high priced land for low income housing?
No, he’s saying it’s a way to buy lower priced land adjacent to transit for low income housing. As you said yourself, remediation costs lowers the land value, making it cheaper to acquire the property.
Not when you ad in the cost of remediation. It’s like buying a car for cheap only to have to pour a ton of money into repairs. Yeah you got the car cheap but in the long run you end up paying more in money and time. I do get that it’s a way to buy land in what might be a desirable area because nobody else will touch it. But I think the State (or City) should retain ownership of the land as a way to maintain control over it’s use in the future.
Ummm, no, the easy-to-build land around Mount Baker Station is not all built out. Take a walk around. Lots of old one-story buildings and parking lots waiting for owners to put them on the market. Much of the land is owned by the UW, and it’s past time for them to do something with it.
“So, how does spending tax dollars on remediation of an “under water” property benefit lower income housing more than simply doling out the money to another worthy project?” – it doesn’t. It’s simply another source of funding for low income housing development, in this case the Departments of Ecology and Commerce. The added benefit comes from cleaning up land that otherwise would continue to be contaminated & therefore either blighted or simply underdeveloped (I don’t think the parcels here are vacant).
I don’t think the properties are necessarily underwater, they are simply worth millions less than they would if they were not contaminated .
Does anyone know what the contamination issue is and why it affects just this property. I’m curious why the State and not the owners (or Feds) are responsible for the clean-up cost. If the State is paying the bill why wouldn’t the owners be able to sell at full market value? You hear a lot about Super Fund size sites but little about the local mom & pop properties that are affected. For example, in Ruston (aka Tacoma) people’s property values near the old smelter have been depressed for decades even though the State (and Feds) are spending billions on clean-up.
Under water would mean relative to their mortgage. I don’t see how that’s relevant here. The purchaser would simply pay the market price same as usual, and and mortgage remainder would be the responsibility of the old owner. But these properties were probably paid off long ago and don’t have mortgages, and their purchase price then would have been peanuts.
Right. I don’t think the seller is getting any additional sale value from this program?