Friday, February 16, 2007
How we taxpayers pay people to build apartments in Lakewood
I don't know a lot of folks who think we need even more apartments in Lakewood. Lots of folks would say that people who come to town already have plenty of apartments to choose from. The latest stats I've seen say that 52 percent of households in Lakewood are renters, versus, for example, 45 percent in Tacoma. And we all know some apartment complexes are not well-managed, and can cause problems.
Here's a funny and sad thing: Lakewood provides tax incentives to people who build apartments in the central part of town.
Here's a funny coincidence: On a recent Monday, we had a study session about this tax incentive. I was the most vocal critic, calling for one more public hearing and then a vote. I said my preference was to eliminate the tax incentive, though I am certainly always willing to hear from people. But most everyone else in the council chambers encouraged further study, arguing that the tax must be a good idea since Tacoma has it. I don't necessarily blame them. The feeling was based on the best information we had at hand.
So here's the coincidence. Guess what Peter Callaghan's column was about two days later? He did not know about the Lakewood discussion; he was reflecting on the Tacoma experience. As you read his column, you can swap out the word Lakewood for Tacoma when he describes how the tax incentive works.
Here's the column.
Among the selections from the article that jumped out at me:
"Some of the tax savings go to owners of pricey condos while poorer people pay full taxes. It also has been used to subsidize some lousy developments, especially in the Tacoma Mall area."
"Other cities in Washington and Oregon demand some affordable housing elements (Seattle, Kirkland and Portland), or design review (Eugene), or protection for historic buildings (Eugene again), or don’t subsidize four-plexes (Everett, Auburn and Portland). Tacoma (read: Lakewood) has no restrictions."
"Even schlocky four-plexes around the mall, many without curbs or sidewalks, are deemed by the council to deserve the tax break."
"...the Federal Way School Board to ask the city to repeal its exemption program. The board argued that it will shift tax burdens from exempted property owners to everyone else."
So ... should you the taxpayer be subsidizing people who bring more apartments to Lakewood? Do we need to follow Tacoma's example when we already have a much higher percentage of apartments than Tacoma does?
I still say no.
Forward this post
Here's a funny and sad thing: Lakewood provides tax incentives to people who build apartments in the central part of town.
Here's a funny coincidence: On a recent Monday, we had a study session about this tax incentive. I was the most vocal critic, calling for one more public hearing and then a vote. I said my preference was to eliminate the tax incentive, though I am certainly always willing to hear from people. But most everyone else in the council chambers encouraged further study, arguing that the tax must be a good idea since Tacoma has it. I don't necessarily blame them. The feeling was based on the best information we had at hand.
So here's the coincidence. Guess what Peter Callaghan's column was about two days later? He did not know about the Lakewood discussion; he was reflecting on the Tacoma experience. As you read his column, you can swap out the word Lakewood for Tacoma when he describes how the tax incentive works.
Here's the column.
Among the selections from the article that jumped out at me:
"Some of the tax savings go to owners of pricey condos while poorer people pay full taxes. It also has been used to subsidize some lousy developments, especially in the Tacoma Mall area."
"Other cities in Washington and Oregon demand some affordable housing elements (Seattle, Kirkland and Portland), or design review (Eugene), or protection for historic buildings (Eugene again), or don’t subsidize four-plexes (Everett, Auburn and Portland). Tacoma (read: Lakewood) has no restrictions."
"Even schlocky four-plexes around the mall, many without curbs or sidewalks, are deemed by the council to deserve the tax break."
"...the Federal Way School Board to ask the city to repeal its exemption program. The board argued that it will shift tax burdens from exempted property owners to everyone else."
So ... should you the taxpayer be subsidizing people who bring more apartments to Lakewood? Do we need to follow Tacoma's example when we already have a much higher percentage of apartments than Tacoma does?
I still say no.
