Ballots will soon arrive in Seattle mailboxes asking voters to decide on Initiative 135, a measure to create what boosters call the “Seattle Social Housing Developer.”
This would be a new public development authority, the fifth such quasi-government entity in Seattle to provide housing.
But I-135 is unprecedented. There is no price tag because funding is uncertain. Its business model is unrealistic. Its governing structure unworkable.
Boosters say I-135 fulfills unmet needs in the affordable housing market. But its outsized ambition belies the truth.
Voters ought to reject I-135. At a time when hundreds of millions of public dollars are being spent on housing across the state — and Seattle voters will be asked in November to approve a renewal of the Housing Levy that could approach $900 million — I-135 is a distraction at best, a money-pit at worst.
According to the initiative, the new Seattle Social Housing Developer would be responsible for developing, owning and maintaining social housing in Seattle. Social housing is “publicly owned, publicly financed, mixed-income housing, removed from market forces and speculation, and built with the express aim of housing people equitably and affordably.”
The language of I-135 puts the City Council on the hook for paying startup costs — hiring staff, setting up an office, etc., to the tune of $750,000 over 18 months. Critics of the initiative say that’s not nearly enough to get the organization off the ground.
More concerning is the lack of specificity around ongoing funding. The authors of I-135, leaders of Real Change, a social justice advocacy group that runs a newspaper, told the editorial board that they originally wanted to include a funding source in the measure, but that’s against state law.
Funding to build and acquire buildings will take about $20 million annually, they estimate.
I-135 is vague about where that money would come from and puts funding in the hands of the City Council to “decide the amount of subsequent City support for the Public Developer, which may include funds from any source available to do so including, without limitation, the general fund, grant funds, and by issuing Councilmanic Revenue Bonds.”
Supporters say the Seattle Social Housing Developer may also come up with a “progressive revenue source” on its own and put it to voters directly.
To be clear, the Seattle City Council already says it is out of money and is currently exploring its own “progressive revenue source” to fill gaps in the budget. One wonders how much “progressive revenue” is left to be had in Seattle.
As it stands, I-135 has no funding and no accountability for public dollars.
There are other reasons to reject this measure. The business model aims to attract tenants with very low incomes along with those earning 20% more than median income, defined as $120,907 for a family of four. The theory is that people would be willing to pay above market rates to subsidize the lower rents of their neighbors in the same building.
Who would be willing to pay higher than market rents in this arrangement? “I’ve seen a lot of tech bros who are really into this idea and are donating to this campaign month after month,” said Tye Reed, co-chair of House Our Neighbors, a political committee of Real Change that is leading the campaign.
Given the number of pink slips handed out to tech workers lately, that seems an iffy proposition. And housing experts say it ultimately doesn’t pencil. Costs are too high to make affordable housing work without ongoing subsidies to the tenant or the landlord.
I-135 wants to build energy-efficient housing, and would make it difficult to evict tenants. All that adds cost. What’s more, the majority of the Seattle Social Housing Developer board would be comprised of residents who live in the buildings they purport to oversee, a baked-in conflict of interest.
Finally, there are many groups with long track records that have successfully built thousands of units of affordable housing in Seattle. In a statement on I-135, the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County, a group of nonprofit housing developers, financial institutions and local governments, wrote: “We do not need another government entity to build housing when there are already insufficient resources to fund existing entities.”
Real Change has traditionally focused on advocating for those who are experiencing homelessness. It is a bit jarring to read in the initiative: “This ordinance does not concern homelessness housing …”
If I-135 doesn’t try to fix arguably the most pressing challenge of housing those who are unsheltered, what is the point?
Voters should reject I-135 and be prepared to review the very large housing tax proposals yet to come.
The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.