Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson’s legislation allowing housing near the SODO
stadiums has narrowly passed a key test, but the fight over the bill is far from over.
The clash with the Port of Seattle came to a head February 27 when Nelson’s committee voted 3-2 to advance her bill for action by the full council March 18. The legislation would remove a prohibition on housing near the stadiums, allowing up to 900 housing units and also require incubator space for small manufacturing businesses within the developments.
The Port, waterfront unions, agricultural and shipping interests have turned up the heat full
blast on Nelson and the council. They are waging war in a way not seen since the 2016 fight over a proposed Sonics sports arena backed by developer Chris Hansen, who still owns land near the stadium area where the housing could be built.
The Port argues land-use housing will worsen traffic congestion and stall cargo movement at a time when the Seattle and Tacoma ports are battling declining market share and a host of commercial, trade and political challenges. The ports are hinting at a lawsuit if the bill goes forward, which Nelson called “a last-ditch effort to intimidate the committee.”
Allied with Nelson are the building trades and service employees unions, football and baseball stadium public-development agencies, small manufacturers and the Pioneer Square and International District community organizations.
Nelson and her supporters say the bill will ease the city’s housing crunch, create space for artisans and craftspeople, and reduce street crime plaguing the area. They contend the Port has not proved its claims that housing on two blocks of First Avenue will disrupt shipping operations. As the bill nears final action, all sides are accusing the others of bad faith and broken promises.
The clash has ruptured relations between Nelson and the Port-led coalition of maritime
interests. It is an unexpected turn of events for Nelson, a political moderate and champion for economic development who calls herself a friend of the Port. The timing is not good, for she is facing a tough election fight this year for her citywide seat.
Emotions around the bill escalated as the committee meeting approached. An hour before her meeting, the Port held a press conference down the hall from her office to condemn the bill, featuring longshore workers, maritime and agricultural allies. Seattle Port Commission
President Toshiko Hasegawa called Nelson’s bill “a carveout for a specific property that would benefit a single out-of-state billionaire,” referring to Hansen.
Port Commissioner Hasegawa had harsh words for Nelson and backers of the bill. “Residential areas in Seattle where people already live next to Industrial operations experience a lower average life expectancy by 13 years; we should simply accept that as blatant inequity,” she said. “The proposed legislation is not about solving our affordability crisis or housing issues for more of our neighbors. Seattleites deserve better, and marking this area for affordable housing is reminiscent of redlining,” Hasegawa said.
The Northwest Seaport Alliance, which operates the Seattle and Tacoma ports, has been
struggling to increase cargo through the gateway and regain the market share lost during the pandemic. The perception that Seattle is weakening industrial-land protections hampers efforts to lure new customers, said John Wolfe, NWSA executive director.
Shippers “recognized how important it is to protect our working waterfront,” said Wolfe, just returned from an Asian trip scouting for a customer for the vacant Terminal 46 property in Seattle.
The Port forwarded a letter signed by legislators from around the state asserting Nelson’s bill will harm the state’s economy. Wolfe and his Seattle port counterpart, Steve Metruck,
submitted a letter arguing the legislation would violate city policy and state protection for
industrial lands, and called for more environmental review.
Industrial-lands legislation adopted in July 2023 was supposed to resolve the decades-long
dispute over housing and commercial development near the Port. That bill, which followed a two-year stakeholder process, generally tightened protection of industrial lands citywide, while also relaxing housing restrictions in Interbay, Ballard, and Georgetown.
The city’s preferred development option would have allowed housing with conditions in the
stadium area and other industrial areas. The environmental review concluded that the limited housing on two blocks south of T-Mobile Park “would be compatible’’ with nearby industrial uses and found no significant air or noise hazards for future residents.
Those results favoring housing near the stadiums touched off a last-minute battle with the Port. The final version presented to the City Council in 2023 by Mayor Bruce Harrell allowed limited housing in some industrial areas but barred it near the stadiums. Nelson and the building-trades unions contend the mayor made the last-minute deal to secure the Port’s support, but since then the mayor’s office has signaled he would not oppose a revived attempt for affordable housing and “makers’’ business development. Harrell’s office said he is “neutral” on Nelson’s bill this year.
Although all council members profess to be backers of the Port, the hours of testimony and
flood of messaging from both sides have not resolved the sharp divisions among members of Nelson’s committee over the bill. Councilmembers Bob Kettel and Dan Strauss (not a member of the committee) both said the city risks damaging the Port’s ability to compete in the face of international trade challenges.
Kettle noted that Eastern Washington agricultural and trucking interests loudly oppose Nelson’s bill, and rejection of the legislation could help strengthen the city’s relations across the Cascades. Further, he said a King County stormwater-control project along the waterfront threatens to disrupt the maritime activities.
“There are major headwinds we are facing. We are facing competition from around the world,’’ Kettle said. “Our city needs the Port and the Northwest Seaport Alliance.” Nelson’s supporters hoped Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth would back the bill, but she
disappointed them. Citing difficulties shipping product from her family’s Olympic Peninsula
cannabis-growing operations, Hollingsworth said she was persuaded by trucking company
testimony that further development would only add to freight congestion around the Port.
Hollingsworth said pending Comprehensive Plan revisions “are about to upzone the entire city,’’ which will create ample new housing.
But Councilmember Maritza Rivera remains unconvinced that housing in the small area south of the baseball park poses a threat to the Port’s operations, given that football and baseball stadiums and office buildings already generate significant traffic. Trucks headed for the Port’s two operating terminals (T-18 on Harbor Island and T-5 in West Seattle) primarily use Interstate 5 to the West Seattle Bridge.
Many trucks do utilize westbound Royal Brougham Way north of the ballpark when I-5 is congested or if they are headed further west to East Marginal Way. First Avenue is important to freight movement generally in the SODO area. “I don’t know why allowing for limited work-force housing is going to have much extra impact,’’ Rivera said, citing the city’s environmental review. Claims by the Port of significant harm “seem not to be consistent with the EIS. I’m struggling with that.’’
Newly appointed Seattle City Councilmember Mark Solomon, who represents southeast District 2, also was unpersuaded that housing should always be off-limits in the industrial area. “I believe we can do both,’’ he said. “I am still trying to get my head around’’ the claims that a small amount of housing would harm the Port severely, he said.
Nelson, for her part, is furious over the attacks aimed at her since the bill’s introduction in January. “If I thought this was going to damage the Port irreparably, I would not be doing this,’’ Nelson insists. “My interest is creating housing, and makers’ spaces that we need so badly, and will create good union jobs.”
The 3-2 vote, with Nelson, Solomon and Rivera in support and Hollingsworth and Kettle
opposed, did little to resolve the fight over the bill. In a statement, Nelson criticized the Port for its opposition. “[The Port’s] legal threat is disappointing and unfortunate given how pressing our housing crisis is. And instead of being a partner as we help communities like Pioneer Square and the Chinatown-International District address public safety, the Port apparently would rather squander this opportunity and allow the affected area to remain underutilized,” she said.
The Port is urging Nelson to slow action on her legislation, in part for further talks but also to gain some clarity about future Port operations on the East Waterway of the Duwamish River. Meanwhile, on April 30 the U.S. Coast Guard is scheduled to announce a decision on expanding its Pier 36 base just south of the Port’s Terminal 46, where container operations ceased in 2019.
The USCG has proposed acquiring up to 54 acres of the 87-acre T-46 to accommodate new patrol vessels, but the Port opposes the loss of any cargo-handling land. Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins said the uncertainty about the Coast Guard’s plans makes it difficult for the Seaport Alliance to secure a new customer for Terminal 46 and plan for its operations in the SODO area.
Calkins said the city, Port, WSDOT, tribes, and other agencies agreed in December to create a South Downtown planning collaborative process, which Calkins said would be ideal for resolving the SODO issues. “It would show great leadership on President Nelson’s part’’ to participate on that effort, he said.
After the vote, Nelson said she was even more determined to move her bill and expressed
confidence she has the votes to pass it. Even so, she said she is open to further talks, despite the hardened positions on all sides. “Today is not the end,’’ she said, “but the beginning of what I would like to be a more fruitful conversation going forward.”
