Environmentalists: Getting Drunk and Angry

By Josh Feit, Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM
View Comments

This week’s theme continues in Olympia: The Greens got the blues

After passing a pseudo carbon cap bill and gutting I-937 (the voter-approved renewable energy initiative) earlier this week, it now looks like Democratic leadership here is going to kill Rep. Sharon Nelson’s (D-34, W. Seattle, Vashon) smart growth bill. The bill mandated dense and affordable housing around transit stations. 

Today is the last day for bills to make it out of either the House or Senate, and the “transit oriented communities” bill—as the environmentalist and housing activists call the bill—appears to be stalled. 

Indeed, last I heard, one of the environmental community’s most influential lobbyists, Cliff Traisman, was pleading with Democratic leadership in the House to bring the bill to a vote. 

But it doesn’t sound like Traisman was successful. Because about 20 minutes after hearing the Traisman rumor, I got an email from another green lobbyist titled: “All but dead. We’re going to get drinks.” 

Drinking away their blues at 2 O’clock in the afternoon is perfectly understandable. But the greens also seem uncharacteristically angry. 

The Washington Conservation Voters sent out a fuming email to their members yesterday about I-937. I’ve posted it below the jump.

P.S. Education advocates, however, who are a dominating presence in the halls of the Legislative building today—wearing their blue “It’s Basic” stickers—are  more hopeful. They’re confident that an amendment from Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48)—which will align basic high school requirements with college prerequisites—will pass, upgrading the limp Senate version of the bill. The debate on the education bill is slated as the last bill to be voted on today—cut off day. 

Email alert from Washington Conservation Voters:

Last night, the state Senate voted to pass a bill that significantly weakens Washington’s renewable energy standard. You may recall that in 2006, we worked together to pass I-937 in order to promote investments in new renewable energy such as wind and solar. ESSB 5840, the bill passed by the Senate yesterday in a 27-21 vote, severely undermines this initiative.

Weakening Washington’s renewable energy standard doesn’t make any sense—especially at a time when we are making significant progress with new investments in wind power and when our leaders at the national level are focusing on a new green economy.  Please take a moment to view the roll call for this vote—it tells the story of who voted to weaken I-937 by voting “YEA,” and those who refused to go along with this effort by voting “NAY.”

The bill now moves to the House where a battle is brewing. If this bill passes, our state would be the first to actually roll back renewable energy standards.

While the other Washington looks to spring ahead with innovative efforts to promote new investments in renewable alternatives, there are attempts in our Washington to turn back the clock. Don’t let that happen.

Let’s stand together and make sure that our legislators represent us, not the special interest utilities and the large consumers of our power. Please take a moment to call your state Representatives at 800-562-6000 and urge them to support I-937 when this bill comes before the House. Once you’ve made the call, please emailshannon@wcvoters.org and let her know how the call went.

We’ll keep you posted on more ways that you can help protect I-937 as this legislative session progresses. 

Thanks for your commitment to clean energy and to a healthy environment.

Sincerely, 

Kurt

Kurt Fritts, Executive Director

  • you got to have alcohol to have a good time. otherwise your stuck looking at ugly people all night.
  • Sara
    kt - 80% rents are a lot lower than the market rate in the new-builds that we will see in station areas throughout the region. Most new-builds hit the market at 120%-150% AMI. We need programs for deeper affordability, yes, and the bill would have provided some mandates and incentives to reach that...but the 60% and 80% is critical too.
  • kt
    80% of median sets my teeth on edge as the rents are higher than much of what is available in Seattle in places very well served by transit. Plus, the builder gets to build 25% more so it subsidizes them twice over.

    Seattle already has two incentive programs along those lines. Small builders won't use them because of all the paperwork involved. They wouldn't have used this either. So you are only playing in areas where there is nothing built to begin with, big empty land or big lots for sale.

    Might work out better in suburban areas.

    Getting into 60% and lower is really great and effective.

    Hope we get bills passed apart from the TOD bill. We must provide housing for all. Period. Housing authorities should just buy it and build it IMHO.

    Here is the charts for Seattle:
    http://www.seattle.gov/housing/development/limi...
  • rachael
    Almost Josh. Sara's right: we were working on getting surplus Sound Transit property and air rights for housing that qualified for the Housing Trust Fund. 70% of Trust Fund units serve people who are homeless or very low income (under 30% AMI.) We were also working on another bill that would have provided funding for rental housing in these areas below 60% of median income (that bill's still alive so maybe the legislature can still do something to encourage affordable housing around transit.)

    It's too bad. With this bill the legislature had a chance to do something good for the environment and for housing.

    There's five weeks left and they're working on a budget. Maybe they'll redeem themselves a little by rejecting the Governor's recommendation to cut the Housing Trust Fund in half and eliminate GA-U ($339 a month for people too sick or disabled to work.)
  • @1,

    25% of the units were supposed to be @ 80% of median— $45,600 for a single person, or the ability to pay $1221 for a single bedroom apartment.

    10% of those were supposed to be @ 60% of median. And the Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance—strong advocates of the bill—were working with Speaker of the House Chopp to secure housing trust fund money for the housing mandated by this bill—which would have required the units to be affordable @ 30% of median.

    To get a sense of 60% and 30%, I can tell you that 40% of median is $22,800, or the abililty to pay $610 for a one-bedroom.
  • Sara
    The original bill had affordability provisions for 60% and 80% area median income (AMI)(in Seattle, this would be about 35k and 46k per year, respectively) for station areas, as well as one-to-one replacement of any demolished affordable housing (at any level of affordability under 80% AMI). The bill also would have made some Sound Transit surplus properties available for mixed-income development, which would have included an amount of very low income (under 30% AMI) housing. So its provisions would have covered a wide range of affordability.

    Drink up, my green friends in Olympia. I raise my glass to you.
  • kt
    Please say 'affordable' to who when using that term. Else it is utterly meaningless.
blog comments powered by Disqus