CHAPTER 7: OPEN SPACE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY We now turn our attention to the relationship between open space and housing affordability. According to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development website, “The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.� Using this measuring stick, in 2004 a first-time buyer in King County (who typically earns 80% of the area median income) could afford to pay about $186,600 for a home. This is $106,400 less than the median-priced home. In 2004 only about 15% of homes sold for $187,000 or less. In 2002, 32% of King County owner households paid more than they could afford for housing. Because of the high price of housing in King County, the homeownership rate is approximately 61%, which is behind the national average of 68% (KCGMPC 2004). Ultimately, a city that wants to have affordable housing is striving to have a high rate of home ownership and a low percentage of owners paying more than 30% of their income for housing. Many believe that open space and affordable housing are in competition with each other for the following reasons: 1) If open space causes nearby property values to rise, then housing in neighborhoods with more open space become less affordable; 2) if scarce land is used for open space, then it cannot be used for housing, which diminishes the supply of housing and causes prices to go up; 3) public funds that go toward open space are public funds that are not going toward affordable housing programs. These arguments, while logical, are misleading in the context of Seattle. As mentioned earlier in this paper, open space contributes very little to the rapidly increasing housing prices in Seattle and thus, should not be targeted as the primary cause of increasing housing prices. With regards to open space taking over land that could potentially be used for housing stock, as housing density increases, open space plays a crucial role in keeping the city livable. Thus, increasing open space is compatible with increasing housing stock. Lastly, public funding for open space
50