City project could force out thousands of low-income residents
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- The Seattle City Council will vote Tuesday on a controversial plan to transform the city's oldest public housing project, but members of the community are divided about whether the change would be a good thing.
The location at Yesler Terrace is considered prime real estate with great views and plenty of space. Some city officials want to bulldoze the 71-year-old development and replace it with a mixed-use highrise where the rich will outnumber the poor.
Kristen O'Donnell has called Yesler Terrace home for 39-years, but if the new plan is approved she could be forced to move.
"The uncertainty is really hard on people," she said. "It's going to break our hearts."
City officials say the development is outdated, run down and beyond repair -- and some residents agree with them.
Ana Villafane has lived at Yesler Terrace for eight years and said she welcomes the change.
"The house is old, there's mold and it's hard to park," she said. "I don't mind if I move, just as long as I get to come back."
But that's the sticking point. According to the city, the project would displace more than 500 families and could take as many as 20 years to develop. It's also unclear who would get priority in moving back first.
One thing that is certain is that the proposed highrise would do away with the backyards that local love so much.
"There's nothing out there that is going to replace having a yard of your own, to grow flowers in, to grow vegetables in, to have a place for your kids to play," O'Donnell said.
The Seattle Housing Authority plans to sell some of the project's 30 acres to help pay for it.
"As long as this place looks better and people have better housing and a better roof over their heads, I think it's a good deal," Villafane said.
If the city council approves the project, it would lead to thousands of new apartments and condos. It would also set in motion detailed relocation plans for current residents.
The location at Yesler Terrace is considered prime real estate with great views and plenty of space. Some city officials want to bulldoze the 71-year-old development and replace it with a mixed-use highrise where the rich will outnumber the poor.
Kristen O'Donnell has called Yesler Terrace home for 39-years, but if the new plan is approved she could be forced to move.
"The uncertainty is really hard on people," she said. "It's going to break our hearts."
City officials say the development is outdated, run down and beyond repair -- and some residents agree with them.
Ana Villafane has lived at Yesler Terrace for eight years and said she welcomes the change.
"The house is old, there's mold and it's hard to park," she said. "I don't mind if I move, just as long as I get to come back."
But that's the sticking point. According to the city, the project would displace more than 500 families and could take as many as 20 years to develop. It's also unclear who would get priority in moving back first.
One thing that is certain is that the proposed highrise would do away with the backyards that local love so much.
"There's nothing out there that is going to replace having a yard of your own, to grow flowers in, to grow vegetables in, to have a place for your kids to play," O'Donnell said.
The Seattle Housing Authority plans to sell some of the project's 30 acres to help pay for it.
"As long as this place looks better and people have better housing and a better roof over their heads, I think it's a good deal," Villafane said.
If the city council approves the project, it would lead to thousands of new apartments and condos. It would also set in motion detailed relocation plans for current residents.
Public Housing was created for working families way back in the day. Now, it is for the non working families and individuals. Those living in public housing pay 30% o their income to rent and the housing authority pays 70% of their rent. The standard social security disability payments are around 674.00 per month. That would make the rent payment for those who are receiving the subsidy approximately $202.00. There is also a utility allowance that is deducted from that figure. Lets just say it is 67.00 for a one bedroom unit. The tenant will pay $135.00 per month. Then there are the zero income households that pay nothing but receive a ua reimbursement each month. With the example above, you would then receive a ua check of 67.00 per month. That means that we pay you to live in your one bedroom unit. Now this is a bleak existence for those who choose to live this way but we are footing the 70% payment for them to live this way.
What - wait a cotton picking minute. I thought the liberals were all for the downtrodden and the poor. How dare they plow down these homes to make way so they can replace it with a mixed-use highrise where the rich will outnumber the poor.
@Donwanna Topher In response to Seattle's highrise plan that will put low income residents out of their government subsidized housing, liberals show that they are inconsistent and one way. Â
Low income housing = New Ghetto's.
This comment has been deleted
 @n9078jk4 From what I have seen the past several years, it looks like home ownership is a scam with no equity in it also.
This comment has been deleted
@n9078jk4 What else do you grow at home?
 @n9078jk4Â
They did the same thing in Bremerton. Here's the simple fix. There are millions of acres of unused state and federal land, open them up for homesteading for the poor.
"City project could force out thousands of low-income residents"...? Â Could? Â How about changing that to "Will". Â What o you expect to happen when Seattle starts to see a rebound? Â When you have thousands of poor people living on valuable land within walking distance of a vibrant downtown area? Â There are business professionals that would love to live in a sub city center that close to work. Â There are elderly that would love to live that close to the medical facilities and still be a part of the world they helped create. Â
Â
Count those poor people down and out, they are going to be displaced, promised the moon and then forgotten. Â That is just the way it is and that is the way it has always been. Â
This comment has been deleted
The owners may have that right, except that they shouldn't be able to use funds earmarked for building more affordable housing to do so. Also, if they are a non-profit, why are they wanting to build market rent units?
did everyone miss this?
Â
"It would also set in motion detailed relocation plans for current residents." It's not like they won't have anywhere to go. They'll simply have to go somewhere else, like any other person who is being transferred, or moves out of an area they can no longer afford. It's not like they're being thrown out on the street. They simply won't have a prime view and a backyard.
@chandler There's more to it than that. Find out about the funding that is being proposed to build the new project.
Its all about revenue for the city. They would not have to spend a dime to fix it up, they can sell the land and get tax revenue off the new buildings for yrs
"The location at Yesler Terrace is considered prime real estate with great views and plenty of space. Some city officials want to bulldoze the 71-year-old development and replace it with a mixed-use high-rise where the rich will outnumber the poor."
It looks like greed is trying to trump human decency again. These folks will be out in the street or worse if replacement housing is not built FIRST instead of five to ten years later, which is often the case. The rich can afford to slip money into the back pockets of those responsible for public housing to get their way. The poor cannot.
I have a friend that is in public housing now and it took three years of homelessness before she was able to move into low-income housing. Even then that was a lucky break. Try living off of $700 a month paying, rent, bills, food, clothing, etc and see how hard it is to make ends meet. Most of the occupants of Yesler Terrace are at or near that income level. Where are they to go????? There is at least a two-year wait list for public housing and it is not getting any shorter. If the buildings need fixing or replacing then do so but not by replacing them with high-end condos for the well off.There is plenty of vacant high end condos on the market around Seattle for that.
As for the person that wrote "Get a job or a better job I would like to see you do that when you are 92 years old.
my grandma lives along there and gardening is her daily exercise and she loves it! Her entire back yard is filled with beautiful flowers and food. Growing her own food helps alleviate her grocery bills. Without a lot of money, her rent is subsidized by the government.She is 92 years old, so to that one that says "get a job, get a better job" how many employers do you know would hire a 92 year old individual?!
"The location at Yesler Terrace is considered prime real estate with great views and plenty of space. Some city officials want to bulldoze the 71-year-old development and replace it with a mixed-use highrise where the rich will outnumber the poor."
Â
That says it all - start packing your bags. Seattle isn't about what's fair and/or right.Â
Holy cow. 39 years in public housing. That lady has lived there longer than I have been alive. I don't know much about this but do the people who live in those houses pay rent?
Â
"The house is old, there's mold and it's hard to park," she said. "I don't mind if I move, just as long as I get to come back." That lady is seriously stupid if she thinks she's gonna get to move back once the high rise is built. Don't you see what they are doing? Their pushing the low income out! That's prime real estate and I seriously doubt that the rich are going to want to live with the poor.
Â
Â
@Tattooed_Angel Yes subsidized rent very very very low. Goes off their income but I thought exact same thing 39 years?! Wow!
Why is someone allowed to live in public housing for 39 years? Get a job, or get a better job. Be proud of yourself and what you can do and move out!
 @K00lGuy Would you hire my 92 year old frail grandma? AND not work her to death? >:(
 @K00lGuy Why is someone allowed to live in public housing for 39 years? For the same reason a person with a mental illness can roam the streets and shoot people. Or for the same reasons a lazy person inherits old money.
@Hehateme Your comment makes no sense.
 @Tattooed_Angel  @Hehateme It probably wouldn't to an Tattooed Angel.
Maybe they are disabled.
You don't say: that was the plan from the start. Seattle is a prime example of the 1 percent who controls the environment. They are developing new expensive buildings for the children of the wealthy.
39 years? WOW, just WOW.
@swansong68 She is probably disabled.Â
This article says nothing of one of the biggest concerns. As I understand it, the Seattle Housing Authority is wanting money from a housing fund that is earmarked for building new low-income housingânot replacement housing. They are also planning to sell some of their property. I believe that the Seattle Housing Authority is a non-profit organization, so why are they wanting to build market rate housing?
And how is it going to work? The article states that they would replace it with a "mixed-use highrise where the rich will outnumber the poor."
Â
Would the Seattle Housing Authority then be landlords for the rich? Would they sell condos? I don't see the rich wanting to live with low income...
Â
You know what I see happening? They are going to find alternative residences for all the 500 families in Yesler housing and sell the property to developers. That will prevent the poor from coming back after the highrise is built (since it would now belong to private developers) and Seattle Housing Authority will claim that it's ok since all the resident's who live there have all found other housing.
Â
That's my guess.
Getting higher value taxable real estate for Seattle is a good idea. I have always wondered why that prime location has remained public housing.
 @LockesChild "I have always wondered why that prime location has remained public housing."
Â
Because people live there.
@Sovereign @LockesChild To restate the question: If these properties are lived in by RENTERS, and a re-development of this prime realestate by the OWNERS would result in significantly greater tax revenue AND more both more total units of housing AND a roughly equivelant number of low-income housing, WHY would that redevelopment NOT be done? You get fewer people commuting (or commuting shorter distances), a higher tax base, greater density, yada-yada-yada that the left always is looking for, AND get a high-value re-development that those on the right and employers like contruction companies can appreciate. So it's a win-win for LOTS of people, and only a minor lose for the current residents (they have to move to other rent-controled housing, which IMO should be done away with totally, along with most zoning laws that limit property rights). So, why not?Â
 @Sovereign  @LockesChild So, basically, you are of the opinion that the property rights of the owners, the better interest of the surrounding community and area, the financial interests of the tax-payers of Seattle and King County, are ALL trumped by the inertia of the current residents? Wow, that's twisted, even for someone far to the left.
 @RN1  @Sovereign  @LockesChild My answer stands.
 @LockesChild It's called "buying votes." A long and *ahem* distinguished history. Take money from the successful, subsidize the less-well-off, and farm a grade-A crop of voters who owe you big-time.Also, it's a jobs program for the administrators of such programs, etc. It is, like so many tings, about power and control, and it has nothing to do with charity (which is giving of your OWN money to those in need).
All of you commenting here can go to hell. Â I am a Proud Reagan Republican. Â I got sick. Â I lost everything. Â Most recently I got an electric wheelchair because I can't walk down 7 stairs and across the street. Â I can't work. Â It took 2.5 years on a waiting list to get on to another list and maybe get a place in a year. Â You are not allowed to even comment on my situation unless you had to pay $60,000 in 2 years to the IRS. Â I paid into the system and there has to be a social safety net. Â I paid into it for 40 odd years. Â Humans get sick. Â People need help. Â Conservative Republicans are compassionate. Â And we need to fire politicians and policy makers who don't know how to plan. Â The other MORE important part of this story is why are you going to allow Seattle City Government to make a plan for 20 years for the development of ANY land with the horrible job they have done in the last several years. Â What are these plans for the residents that will take effect? Â Better find out. Â
 @bkburris  It is very sad and ironic that the only source of help for the honestly disabled is the government.  That is wrong.  The disabled should turn to PRIVATE charities, not the government.  But because the government taxes the heck out of the rest of us, we cannot afford to support the charities that would help you if their donors weren't taxed enough already.
 @bkburris If you paid $60k in 2 years to the IRS one of two things happened. One, you failed to pay taxes, or two, you made a TON of money.
 @K00lGuy Yes, the 90's were good to me (and the 80's) which is my point.  It didn't last for me as my physical problems also had taken a toll on my mental capacity and and earning ability.  I played by the rules.  But money runs out and I paid into the system. Â
 @bkburris Sorry if you had some bad luck, but how, exactly, does your bad luck translate into a requirement for me to subsidize you? I understand you may need a hand, but isn't that what private charity is for? Asking the government to take part of what I worked for under threat of force (they will take my house if I don't pay the property taxes) to support you is moral... how, precisely? I quite understand it's a fine and wonderful thing for me to donate to various charitable organizations when I can, but compelling me, when I'm out of work, to pay to support your bad luck, after I *have* paid tens of thousands to the IRS...?
 @rn1:Â
Oh, so you think *charity* is the answer? Try again.Â
Â
Charities all over the country of every sort are turning people away because not enough people are supporting the charities. So, pray tell, how the hell are they to take care of everyone?
Â
The social safety net was put in ;place for that very reason - because "charity" cannot help everyone.Â
Â
Should those who cannot gete help from charities simply crawl off somewhere & die because people like you feel they should not have to help support the social safety net?
Â
I am in a similar situation as bkburris - on SSI due to bilateral amputations. I needed an ADA apartment - but because of my age I am considered "too young" to qualify - the minimum age is 55. I am 51 - I have worked, paid taxes & contributed since I was 14. I have applied for nearly 1000 jobs since losing mine in Feb 2009 - yet only been able to secure 3 interviews. I pay 75% of my SSI on rent alone - after utiliteis are paid, I am left with less than $200 a month for everything else - medical co-pays, prescriptions, gas, vehicle maintenance, groceries. I cannot take Metro because I cannot get up the stairs to board them, nor can I walk for blcoks to get to the stop. I continue to look for work everyday, applying for ANY job I am qualified & experienced to do.Â
Â
Yet, using your thinking & pothers like you on here., because I get SSI I am a "parasite". Because I qualify for DSHS for my medical, I am a parasite living off the govenrment & the hardworking taxpaying citizens. Well guess what? I would LOVE to be working full time, making what I was making when I lost my job, pulling my own weight & contributing so others who need assistance would have it. I was not rivch, but I had disposable income once the bills were paid - I could go out to a moview once in a while, take my Mom out to dinner, buy my son a birthday present. I can do NONE of those things now.
Â
You have NO idea what people like bkbubrris, myself or others like us are like. You think we are all louses not trying to better ourselves, that we simply sit & collect welfare and are lazy good-for-nothings. Well, you are wrong. I'd love to see "people like you" try to live like we have to live. Maybe then you would have a little bit of compassion & empathy for those who through no fault of their own are low income & in need of public assistance.
 @LocalLady Sounds like you did the right thing- you fought it with YOUR personal resources, and continue to be productive (even if jobless). That's outstanding. BUT, you are quite wrong when you say "it didn't cost anyone anything." It DID - your insurance company. But that is what they are there for, the spread and amortize risk and cost. I fully support private insurance coverage, and would like to see it made much more competitive (and, therefore, cheaper). But I do NOT support folks living on the taxpayers dime getting anything but the rock-bottom basics, if that.
Â
Life isn't fair, and there is no limit to how much of other people's money some folks are willing to spend to try to rectify that, and that's how the road to hell is paved - just look at any communist nation.
SO by your thinking, I should have just let the bone infection spread, curled up, and allowed myself to die. Never mind that I was & am the sole support of my son, who was still in high school at the toime. So while yhou may think that me dying would have been "cost effective", it would not have been so since the state would then have to care for my son as there would have been nobody else to do so.
Â
ALL of my "expensive" medical care was covered by insurance - I paid for COBRA for the full 18 months I was allowed. So my "expensive care" did not cost anyone anything.
Â
Personally, I fought to live because I am a contributor (no matter what you may think). I give to charities (time, tithe & talent), I continue to support my son while he continues his education. Your premise is flawed that it's a "one way" transaction - only taking or only giving.
@LocalLady @rn1:
Life isn't fair. A friend of mine worked hard, paid taxes, had a lot of talent, was well liked, died mid-30s of AIDS. Bummer. I didn't want to see him go, but spending a half-mil to extend his life a couple of months wasn't worth it. We could save everyone, but the real question is AT WHAT COST? What if (note: this is a hypothetical) the money spent on you could have been spent more efficiently privately, and saved two people? Â Or three? That would mean your treatments killed, net, one person (or two). If you live another 25 years, and require lots of extra care that you haven't even begun to cover paying into the system, how many more might have been saved if that was spent elsewhere? Sometimes, life sucks. But spending on one thing means it's not spent on another; there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Has it occurred to you that the reason private charity is drying up is because our pockets are getting sucked dry to government taxes, administered by a LOT of folks (meaning they take a sizable chunk of the revenue before passing it on to you)? And, for every person in the safety-net legitimately, there are others who are scamming the system; why should we support them? If there was one scammer for every two legits? One-to-one? 90% scammers? What's an acceptable loss ratio? with private charity, I'm working with them or the organization directly, and I can cut funding any time it looks like it's a bad deal. not quite so easy with tax dollars.
 @LocalLady  @rn1: No local lady you sound like you have more class than I did.  You have more class than I do.  I gave up a long time ago.  Good luck and see you in the blue zone ;-)
 @RN1  @bkburris RN1, your point of view, while certainly not uncommon, horrifies me. You are basically saying that bkburris, who worked hard and paid taxes for many years and then became sick should now become a beggar so that charitable people can support him and you do not wish to be charitable toward him.
Who is going to be that charitable person? Doesn't sound like you would help anyone.
You remind me of a person I worked with who shot down the idea of the office sponsoring an unknown child from one of those Christmas trees, simply because she believed the mother of every child on the tree was a whorish welfare queen. My coworker preferred I spend money on dumb presents for her in a stupid secret santa thing.
Â
@two loons @bkburris It horifies you that I expect people to be indipendant? Wow. How terrifying.A strong and comfy social safety net destroys families, because people stop having them - kids are expensive, and a LOT of work, and if you can depend on someone ELSE to do all the hard work of raising kids, and then retire and make THEIR KIDS to both support you AND raise the next generation, well, then, that civilization collapses: too many non-workers, not enough workers. OTOH, a strong bottom-level social-network safety net of family, friends, and faith STRENGTHENS families, because they are required to survive, ars-holes without friends or community don't get support when karma bites them, and doing good deeds comes back (not always perfectly, but it's a LOT less prone to catastrophic abuse than any government program). Without strong families, you can't have a strong nation, or even a lasting nation.
If you take $20 from me at gunpoint, and give it to a homeless man, neither you nor I are being charitable. There is little moral difference between that and you taking my income via taxes and giving it to someone else who may or may not be in need, but filled out the forms right. But, it does allow YOU, who does not bear the cost, think better of yourself, while at the same time encouraging the very behavior you proclaim you wish to discourage (people on welfare). My family and I give what we can, where and when we can, while still making sure that we take care of ourselves. Any number of studies have shown that the political left give far less out of their own pockets to charity than those on the political right â why? Because conservatives believe in the effectiveness of private charity and hard work, AND the strong beneficial effects that negative feed-back has on those making bad choices.
 @two loons  @RN1  @bkburris I think all "required" giving and donations at Christmas should be banned. Secret Santa is the stupidest idea known to mankind, and I want to sponsor my own children. Not some unknown kid.
 @RN1 Did you go to school?  I paid for it.  Do you use my roads?  I paid for it.  Did you or a relative ever need a Fireman or a Policeman?  I paid for it.  You know those folks in  the middle east wearing a uniform?  I paid for that too.  Do I think the government pays out too much....absolutely.  I paid for your life to be as good as it is.  And the chances are that you will continue to need what I paid for.  You can thank me if you meet me.  It's how our society works.  You will, with any luck, reach a point where you are beyond the ability to give back.  I did.
 @bkburris Unless you were paying LOTS of taxes in a different state, pre-90s, you didn't pay a dime for my education. As for "paying my share," I've had to write a number of checks to the IRS that were well into five figures, and a couple that were in six, none of which was penalties or interest. Right now, I'm paying for my own kids school, because I paid a lot of property taxes before I had them, and I'm sure I'll still be paying long after they graduate.And your desire to pick my pockets to pay for your bad luck tells me you are more about power and coercion than freedom and independence. No, thanks.Â
 @RN1  @bkburris Thank you for your post.  It explains SO much.  And thank you for making my point for me.  YOU owe  $51,152.53. right now.  It is the present debt you owe for living here.  You have no choice in the matter. Your parents did not cover the cost of your K-12.  My parents covered mine because I went to a private school.  But all the rest you CAN'T cover the cost.  But sport, I did pay for you.  If you don't understand the concept you might think about a refund on some of that money you spent on "education".  You are not an island and you OWE all of us.  It's the cost to be an American. Â
@bkburris
Well, that gave me a good chuckle. And I thought I was arrogant.
Â
YOU paid for it? REALLY? I thought my parents taxes paid for my k-12 education, and I paid for my college on my own (out of state full-price admission on private loans I paid back, and the New GI Bill), so I was wearing that uniform my taxes helped pay for. I paid a pretty good chunk of taxes in my time too. If I didn't have so much taken in taxes in the last couple of decades, I'd be a LOT closer to retirement right now. I depend on myself, family, and friends. When that runs out, *I* run out. I'll never allow myself to be a parasite on the government. Redistribution of wealth is how FAILING societies work. Generating greater wealth, and rewarding success is how strong societies last. Feeding parasites only hastens a civilizations downfall, whether those parasites are at the top or the bottom.
 @bkburris Good points. Letting bureaucrats develop real estate is a recipe for corruption and failure. Just sell it to developers and let them take the risk.
Â
As for the specific location, it has become too valuable to keep as public housing. By selling much of it to developers and relocating residents the city can (possibly, if they don't screw it up as usual) gain more needed revenue and maintain the same housing space with better quality.
 @LockesChild Do you want the real ironic thing here?  At the birth of Seattle, Yestler used to log that very land and drag the logs down that very road for export all over the world for sail masts on old ships.  That was the origin of skid road, where loggers would party and it was a seedy part of town.  Poor people and bums laid claim to that very land decades ago....lMAO.
 @bkburris Not suggesting you live on the street. But using prime real estate this way costs the city double--once for any leasing revenue (if they choose not to sell it) and once for increased property taxes. A big improvement over getting nothing for it right now. There are other places that public housing can be located that won't cost the city so much.
 @LockesChild I know that...my comment was purely to show that it was ironic.  I thought it was funny.  As far as the real estate potential I remind you of Sand Point Naval Air Station.  Prime Lake Washington real estate and under your theory (and I agree) we screwed up on.  Make a plan but not this one.  Not until alternatives can be found.  I don't deserve to live on the street.
 @bkburris I know that. And my great-grandfather lived in that poorer neighborhood as well.
Â
But times change and now that land is very valuable, just as the downtown city blocks owned by the UW is much more valuable than it was when granted. By keeping that real estate as low income property there is a real and measurable cost to the city; money that could be used for other purposes.