Last week, the unelected Sound Transit board unanimously voted to send its $54 billion dollar scheme — (ST3) — to the November ballot. Already, liberals are looking for ways to help sell the multi-billion-dollar boondoggle to voters.
One of their latest tactics is to claim ST3 will boost affordable housing in areas marked for the new light rail stations. In fact. Sound Transit chair and King County Executive Dow Constantine has done his share of championing the claim. City Living Seattle:
The package also passed with an amendment requiring that four-fifths of the surplus land bought around future light rail stations be offered first for the development of workforce housing serving people making less than 80 percent of the average median income.
“It is a comprehensive, exclusive and forward-thinking package. …” said Ellicott Dandy, economic and environmental justice advocacy manager for OneAmerica. “… It will increase our region’s affordable housing supply.”
Only, according to a recent study, ST3 will not help improve affordable housing — not even a little.
Estately, a Seattle-based real estate firm, compared data on the median cost to buy a home within a mile of each existing and forthcoming Link light-rail station with data of other home values nearby. The Seattle Times highlighted the results:
The results were clear: Take the Capitol Hill station, which just opened in March. Already, homes sold near the station are going for a median price of $505,000, or $35,000 more than the rest of the neighborhood.
On Beacon Hill, south of the stadiums, buyers near the station paid a typical price of $516,000 this year, an extra $61,000 compared with other homes in the area. In Pioneer Square, the extra cost near the station is $78,000.
Looking for something cheaper? In Tukwila, the cost to buy a house near that city’s station this year has been $340,000, or $88,000 more than the rest of town.
How about the forthcoming light- rail stations on the Eastside, where communities are already planning for new homes in transit villages? In Bellevue, houses near four of the five coming stations have sold this year for a typical price of $775,000 to $800,000, vs. $710,000 citywide.
Economist Matthew Gardner told the Seattle Times that, if ST3 is approved, property values “would ‘absolutely’ rise near the stations included in the expansion, which would stretch to West Seattle, Ballard, Issaquah, Tacoma and Everett.”
It appears that either liberals are — once again — placing all their trust in government regulations rather than rationally considering basic market-based principles. Or, their affordable housing claims are just another ploy to sell a scheme they know voters are not excited about.
We’re willing to bet it’s the latter.
You see, the liberals touting ST3’s links to affordable housing always preface their claim concerning lands around the stations with the word “surplus.” Given the notable qualification, there are pertinent questions that must be posed.
As the Seattle Times points out, property owners sitting on land near proposed stations stand to make a lot of money if voters approve ST3. We here at Shift never begrudge anyone from making smart investments.
However, it is relevant to ask, how many major Sound Transit donors/supporters have purchased land around transit stations? And, are these people also donating to the likes of Sound Transit board members, and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) cheerleaders, Constantine and Claudia Balducci?
Comrade Tensor should really love Sound Transit and ST3: what a perfect way for the socialists in Puget Sound to control where people live than to do it thru public money!!!
However, it is relevant to ask, how many major Sound Transit donors/supporters have purchased land around transit stations?
And if they turn out to be major Republican donors who publicly oppose Sound Transit, I’m sure Shift will be the first to out them as speculating hypocrites.
Nobody has any doubt you’ll beat Shift to the punch on that one, comrade. No matter how tenuous the connection, you’ll beat that dead horse into the ground.
Wouldn’t the land where there is an intent on putting the light-rail ALREADY purchased? At this “stage” of the game, unless someone has VERY “inside” information, there is NO certainty their land will be within the range of the stations. ONLY someone on the “inside” could predict this, and even those predictions can be false. There are too many things that can change a station development, right up to when ground is broken, and even then, sometimes something like an Indian Burial Ground crops up, and kills all future development on that land.
Now, the most important question: Since WHEN does a government project have “Surplus” land in a deal? Any lands that aren’t used during primary considerations, are almost always retained for “future growth”. And while they are more than happy to sell said lands, there is ALWAYS a “Eminent domain” clause added to the sale, in that IF the land is needed in the future, they are going to TAKE IT from you. Who wants a piece of THAT action?
Except in those cases when noise becomes a problem, land near mass transit stations is always worth more than the land father away because of the convenience factor. The buyers may not know the exact route of the train, but the number of potential routes in this area are extremely limited so the buyers can come very close even without having inside knowledge.