Councilman Jon Snyder, who helped guide the amendment through City Hall, said it would give greater protection for low-income people, and would allow the residents to be eligible for special programs and subsidies.
Opponents replied an affordable housing study should be done first to determine the need, and that declaring an MHC as low-income threatens the property value of nearby homes. They added the Plan Commission had asked for an affordable housing study also.
“Affordable housing is an important and complex concern in Spokane and deserves a comprehensive solution,” Condon said in a statement. “With this veto, I was asking the City Council to give the Plan Commission the time it requested to do a thorough review of affordable housing options for public review and engagement. We have recent successful examples to point to of public processes that produced the best results because of the engagement that was done. Unfortunately, last night’s quick action resulted in another missed opportunity for public engagement.”
Snyder had argued strongly for the proposal at the Nov. 2 meting when it was passed. “We are in an affordable housing crisis in Spokane, particularly for folks that can’t afford standard housing. And it’s not getting any easier,” he said. “I don’t want to spend another year studying that and using that as a reason to not take action on getting us more affordable housing.”
The veto was overridden so quickly, says City Council President Ben Stuckart, because the members felt that strongly about the proposal. He stated that no MHC would be defined as “low income” unless the owners want it to be, and that no one’s land use in Spokane will change because of the proposal.
Jay Smith, the former potentate of the El Katif Shriners, said the text change threatened his group’s San Souci West MHC as well as its Shriners Hospital for Children. “The value of that property today is much greater than it would be tomorrow if you pass this tonight,” Smith said. “You would, anyway you look at it, be stealing our property value by rezoning it for low-income housing.”
Referring to the Plan Commission’s stance to oppose the amendment, Condon said, “The Plan Commission’s recommendation was based on their conclusion that there is not enough information available to make a decision on the merits of the proposal, or to determine whether the proposal furthers the City’s affordable housing goals.” ##
(Photo credit: progressivehousing–manufactured home community)
