Seattle's attempt to build condos with minimal parking not working.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by emathias

Did you miss the "if two condos *cost the same*"? He didn't expressly state it, but it is only rational to assume he also means that the condos are functionally equivalent in every other way. So the parking one might cost slightly more in assessments, but otherwise why wouldn't you choose a place that, for whatever reason, basically included parking for free?

It's an absurd hypothesis, at least in San Francisco. You are not going to find 2 condos for the same price in the same neighborhood with the same amenities (pool spa, exercise facilties, security, concierge etc), square footage and grade of finishings except one has parking and the other doesn't. I can't happen so, yeah I ignored it as anyone should.

The point is that getting parking you do not plan to use, for which you will have to pay SOMETHING over and above an identical unit without parking, is not necessarily a bargain for you. It might only be such if you are allowed (by the CC&Rs and other circumstances) to rent it for more than a reasonable return (invested) on what it cost. I believe I could earn 8% or so on the $100,000 cost of a parking spot in a comparable building to mine. That's between $600 and $700 per month. Let's be conservative and call the return "only" 4% or around $350 per month.

Here is a graphic of what commercial garages are actually charging per month for parking in downtown SF:


https://spothero.com/san-francisco-m...xoCplwQAvD_BwE

So assuming you were allowed to rent the spot and found someone willing to rent it at the going rate, you might make roughly as much as you could get just keeping what the spot is costing you and investing the money. Or you might get as little as half as much.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It's an absurd hypothesis, at least in San Francisco. You are not going to find 2 condos for the same price in the same neighborhood with the same amenities (pool spa, exercise facilties, security, concierge etc), square footage and grade of finishings except one has parking and the other doesn't. I can't happen so, yeah I ignored it as anyone should.

From a cursory look in my neighborhood, parking spots cost O($30k) when they're not included with a building, and functionally equivalent (for my purposes) condos can be found within that price delta, so given limited supply, variance in building age/location/parking facilities and not completely efficient pricing, it's not unreasonable that one might be choosing between two properties that are about the same cost/location/perceived quality and one may have parking included and one may not. In which case even as a car-free person I would be tempted to choose the one with parking. It's the same as any amenity you don't need but still represents something of value. If it were required that parking spots were sold separately in multi-unit buildings, then that would be better (for the buyer, not necessarily for the seller) in 100% of case (and would lead to fewer parking spots being built). This is kind of a classic case of bundling I guess...

If a parking spot in your part of SF is worth $100k (not too surprising as property values are probably a factor of 3 higher there), then yes, it is less likely that you would be forced to make this hypothetical choice.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I find this odd, as Miami is so auto-centric, and almost every large tower sits on a giant parking podium.

Can you provide an example of a Miami highrise with zero parking? How does that even work?

The Loft, Loft 2, Centro, MyBrickell...etc. There is a public garage right next to Loft and Loft2 where I'm sure many rent parking spaces. The buildings just do not have their own dedicated garages. A good reason why they are far cheaper than most other downtown/Brickell buildings.

Loft2 for example is built on top of a transit station but next door to a public garage so you can choose to rent a spot if you want (I'm sure many do) or if you don't, then you don't have to pay for a spot. Most buildings like this are pretty lax on short term rental enforcement so they are almost hotels anyway. The parking-less buildings are cheap, good starter places for the young
Loft2: https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7762...7i16384!8i8192

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

I don't think that is realistic at this point. Seattle urban core isn't really all that big. A good chunk of the regions jobs are in the suburb or not transit accessible locations. Even if you work in a transit friendly location and can walk to most things, it is still nice to have access to the freedom and variety a car provides. Especially in a beautiful area like the PNW with a strong outdoor culture.

It's perfectly fine if Seattle does not want to do it. But the comparisons with Manhattan fly out the window because it is a legal/policy difference, not just people wanting parking spaces more in Seattle than Manhattan.

Another way to think about it is that Manhattan has proven that the condo market can thrive without dedicated parking spaces.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's perfectly fine if Seattle does not want to do it. But the comparisons with Manhattan fly out the window because it is a legal/policy difference, not just people wanting parking spaces more in Seattle than Manhattan.

Another way to think about it is that Manhattan has proven that the condo market can thrive without dedicated parking spaces.

Manhattan is a hyper-dense area with millions of residents, commuters, tourists in a fairly small area. It's pretty easy to live their without a car. With a 24/7 subway, thousands of restaurants/bars, nonstop retail on pretty much every avenue, parks, theaters/museums in every neighborhood, a very extensive regional rail system, and transit options for the beach/hiking trips. Having a car is more of a pain than anything else.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

From the Seattletimes:



https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...to-be-failing/

Yeah I'd have to say, people in the condo purchasing game are much more likely to still own cars and want access to cars.

[Pedestrian]

Seattle seems determined to bring chaos to its housing markets and has now surpassed San Francisco in craziness (maybe because the weather is worse):

Seattle City Council unanimously votes to ban evictions in winter
POSTED 7:17 PM, FEBRUARY 10, 2020, BY STEVE KIGGINS

SEATTLE -- The Seattle City Council on Monday unanimously approved legislation meant to halt residential evictions during the coldest, wettest months of the year, despite Mayor Jenny Durkan warning against the move.

Councilmember Kshama Sawant’s legislation prohibits evictions from being carried out between Dec. 1 and March 1, with some exceptions. Sawant has called winter evictions cruel and inhumane.

Supporters say the ban is needed to combat homelessness and to keep people who are down on their luck from being forced outside during bad weather. They note evictions disproportionately affect women and people of color, and people can die without shelter.

Critics of the proposal say landlords need to make sure they can pay their bills, and argue Seattle should instead reduce the city’s evictions by connecting needy tenants with rent assistance.

The legislation would apply to tenants who fall behind on their rent and to tenants accused of violating certain lease terms. The council’s renters’ rights committee narrowed the ban last month. It wouldn’t apply to tenants engaging in criminal or nuisance activities, nor to owner-occupied properties.

https://q13fox.com/2020/02/10/seattl...ons-in-winter/

So, Seattleites--you can cease paying your rent between November and March, a great way to save for Chistmas or maybe a winter vacation.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Seattle seems determined to bring chaos to its housing markets and has now surpassed San Francisco in craziness (maybe because the weather is worse):


https://q13fox.com/2020/02/10/seattl...ons-in-winter/

So, Seattleites--you can cease paying your rent between November and March, a great way to save for Chistmas or maybe a winter vacation.

First off, I am tired of hearing POC. Just say black and hispanic. It is dumb to lump them together all the time. Second, if it impacted mostly white or asian people, would it be less of an issue?

[The North One]

Yikes, I get the idea behind that but it's really just a slap in the face to landlords. It'll also probably make housing more expensive.

People forget there are plenty of scummy, scammer tenants out there who will do gymnastics to get out of paying rent.

I really hope they don't think this is gonna help with their homeless problem, because it wont.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

First off, I am tired of hearing POC.

Okay, boomer.

[mhays]

Seattle has been piling on the renter-rights stuff. Yes it will make the city more expensive.

People aren't bright, generally speaking. They want to help specific cases, but don't think about the system being generally worse for more people. And any logic tends to get pushed off as coming from non-believers.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle has been piling on the renter-rights stuff. Yes it will make the city more expensive.

People aren't bright, generally speaking. They want to help specific cases, but don't think about the system being generally worse for more people. And any logic tends to get pushed off as coming from non-believers.

Whatever happened to “greatest good for the greatest number”?

[mhays]

Seattle likes to match bad with good.

We require millions in fees for any new building, which causes a six-figure number of market-rate buyers and renters to pay more in the long run by resetting the development go/no equilibrium, but we offset that with upzones...the result might be a wash for prices if we're lucky. We pile on renter rights, making rents higher in the long run, but we eliminate and reduce parking requirements, saving tens of thousands per unit (generally with great success for rentals, unlike the condo in the article perhaps!). We pile on entitlement process, but a basically-compliant project won't get turned away and we build twice the annual inventory as SF within city limits.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by craigs

Okay, boomer.

lol I appreciate that that term has filtered into this rather unhip forum but a boomer would favor "colored" more than black. Which is darn close to people of color. But, whatever.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle has been piling on the renter-rights stuff. Yes it will make the city more expensive.

People aren't bright, generally speaking. They want to help specific cases, but don't think about the system being generally worse for more people. And any logic tends to get pushed off as coming from non-believers.

No, people are savvy when landlords start explaining why for the sake of the good of most people they can't wait til spring to throw a family out on the streets. We've heard these kind of 'cold market logic' arguments before to explain why workers shouldn't have unions, or why we shouldn't raise the minimum wage, or why welfare spending depresses economic growth. There's no empirical data to back them up. Plenty of countries have very strong renter protections, whereas America's are virtually nonexistent. Those countries (Germany, Italy, France, Scandinavia) are by and large doing better on affordability, not worse.

The economic health of cities depends on ordinary working people, not on non-productive landlords. And political support for expanding the housing supply and investing in urban neighborhoods will depend on what level of security we guarantee to those people and families. At the moment in the US, that's virtually zero. Upzoning and development almost always mean gentrification and large-scale displacement of longstanding members of the community, while we're building almost no affordable housing.

So folks will continue electing people like Kshama Sawant to City Council. But go ahead, call them stupid.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

No, people are savvy when landlords start explaining why for the sake of the good of most people they can't wait til spring to throw a family out on the streets.

lol so you admit the fatal flaw in this bogus policy. If Seattle gave a shit about homeless families they would invest in public housing, transitional housing or provide rent assistance. Instead they go with performative politics while taking a massive dump on common landlords to promote the illusion that they're doing something.

This kind of stuff doesn't discourage slumlords because they ignore the rules and wait for the city to litigate them costing more in public resources. Meanwhile middle class folk who decided to invest in a rental property get seriously fucked.

This is the same Seattle city council that decided to go easy on Amazon, the quintessential rent seeker. Spare us the faux liberal garbage.

[Encolpius]

1. Terminology: I'm not a faux liberal, since I don't claim to be liberal. Kshama Sawant, who authored this legislation, is a Trotskyite. You might want to look up the definition of 'rent-seeking'.

2. Could Seattle possibly, I dunno, build public housing and also protect renters' rights? Or should they not try and legislate about 'this kind of stuff' since they might then have to take a slumlord to court?

3. Banning evictions in December and January is 'taking a massive dump on common landlords'? Okay...

Honestly, given the type of political opinions you usually post, I'm rather surprised to read this strident defense of the 'common landlord', and uh, his or her right to toss an entire family's belongings out on the curb during the coldest and wettest months of the year. By any chance, did you happen to recently make a bad investment on some rental property?

[The North One]

Why would you be surprised that I support social housing programs, subsidized housing and public housing over pointless policies that conveniently allocate no resources what-so-ever to homeless/low income people?

I don't see how banning evictions in January protects renter's rights, it sounds nice and fuzzy on the surface but it simply delays their eviction and leaves property owners with a burden. If you have a problem with the capitalist/allodial system (which is valid) then that's a whole different story. Did you ever think of the outcome that this will make it even harder for people in bad circumstances to obtain housing in the first place?

If you don't see how performative this is (which the faux liberal west coast loves more than anything, the illusion of progressiveness, patting themselves on the back while bending over for mega corporations like Amazon, not necessary directed at you) and how much it doesn't help renters and especially not the homeless then there's not much I can convince you of. This policy is not at all comparable to welfare, unions or minimum wage so let's not be disingenuous at least.

[mhays]

It's an easy, foolproof way to get free rent for a couple months. That will be common.

To make up for that risk, rents will rise, particularly at the low end.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by The North One

...
I don't see how banning evictions in January protects renter's rights, it sounds nice and fuzzy on the surface but it simply delays their eviction and leaves property owners with a burden. If you have a problem with the capitalist/allodial system (which is valid) then that's a whole different story. Did you ever think of the outcome that this will make it even harder for people in bad circumstances to obtain housing in the first place?

If you don't see how performative this is (which the faux liberal west coast loves more than anything, the illusion of progressiveness, patting themselves on the back while bending over for mega corporations like Amazon, not necessary directed at you) and how much it doesn't help renters and especially not the homeless then there's not much I can convince you of. This policy is not at all comparable to welfare, unions or minimum wage so let's not be disingenuous at least.

I'm not sure it's a particularly relevant law in any of the major cities of the West Coast states.

However having a limit on winter-month evictions would make sense in the Upper Midwest/Upper Plains states and/or any city with harsh winters. And I don't believe it would actually create that much burden for a landlord.

Because a) if it's well-known, it's easy enough to plan around. And b) in really cold regions, rental activity plummets in the cold months anyway.