A Seattle City Council committee voted 3-2 Thursday in favor of a bill allowing more housing on the edges of Seattle’s industrial district, near the two sports stadiums.
The proposed legislation will go to the full council March 18.
The bill, brought by council President Sara Nelson, has attracted a blizzard of controversy since she introduced it earlier this year, as advocates and nearby businesses argue it would bring much-needed workforce housing to an underused part of the city and the Port of Seattle and longshore worker unions contend the proposal is a threat to their future.
Councilmembers Mark Solomon, Maritza Rivera and Nelson voted in favor; Councilmembers Bob Kettle and Joy Hollingsworth voted against. Thursday’s vote came after nearly two hours of public comment and deliberations on the part of the council.
Nelson said she doesn’t believe her plan is an existential threat to the Port of Seattle or its workers.
“If I thought this was going to damage irreparably the Port or put it in a position in a 100 years where it would not be a strong, viable entity, I would not be doing this,” she said. “If I thought that it would significantly damage the industrial base south of City Hall, I wouldn’t be doing this.”
Kettle, a Navy veteran, opposed the bill.
“The challenges that the Port faces to be viable are difficult; the headwinds are strong,” he said, “and we as a city should not be adding to those headwinds.”
Nelson’s bill concerns the stadium district near T-Mobile Park and Lumen Field, with a particular eye toward the properties owned by Chris Hansen just south of the baseball field. If passed, the legislation would rezone the property — which Hansen had once hoped to turn into a basketball arena — to allow for up to 1,000 workforce apartments.
Her proposal tripped one of Seattle’s most volatile fuses, namely how the city should grow while retaining its industrial roots.
It’s a tension that had quieted since 2023, when Seattle signed off on a sweeping land use bill, dictating what’s allowed near the city’s maritime and industrial areas. As part of that bill, Mayor Bruce Harrell and members of the council agreed not to allow significant new housing near the stadiums.
Nelson disagreed with that decision at the time but didn’t want to blow up the agreement so held her fire. She instead pocketed the idea until now.
In Nelson’s telling, the bill is an essential part of Seattle’s quest to build more housing, with the added benefit of fostering a more welcoming environment for “light industry” in the area.
“More housing is needed in Seattle — especially workforce housing near light rail stations and jobs,” she said Thursday. “This bill does that and will spur mixed-used construction for small business in an area of the city that desperately needs it.”
Nelson has the backing of a bevy of local unions, the Seattle Mariners, housing advocacy organizations and more.
“By activating this underutilized space, we can generate jobs, support entrepreneurship and expand affordable housing,” said Angela Nguyen, of the Alliance for Pioneer Square.
The Port of Seattle had threatened to walk away from the 2023 agreement if housing was included and it sees Nelson’s bill as the city going back on its word. On Thursday, the Northwest Seaport Alliance — which includes the ports of Seattle and Tacoma — threatened to sue the city if it is passed, contending it violates the state Growth Management Act.
“The fight will not be over if this legislation passes,” said Aaron Pritchard, chief of staff at the Port of Seattle. “The fight will have just begun.”
The Port argues the new housing would make traffic worse for trucks exiting I-90 on their way to the industrial area and complicate negotiations to find a new tenant for the underused Terminal 46, due west of the stadiums.
Though they’ve OK’d the possible development of hotels in the area, they argue housing is a different beast. Allowing residents there creates a constituency that may complain about the rumbling trucks and activity. Hotel guests may complain to the front desk, but residents would complain to their elected officials, creating pressure against industrial activity.
During the city’s previous deliberation on industrial lands, studies showed housing would not present a significant risk to industry as compared to other land uses of the area.
Council members have pushed Port of Seattle leaders on why they didn’t challenge those conclusions when they had the opportunity. Port officials said they didn’t think they needed to and believed the study does not reflect the specific conditions proposed in this bill.
In addition to the Port and local longshore worker unions, more than 30 state legislators wrote a letter to the council opposing the bill.
“There are many places in the city where new housing and density can and should be added,” Democratic Rep. Julia Reed said. “However, there are few and shrinking places where maritime industrial activity can take place,”
The fate of the bill when it goes before the full council is uncertain.