Ballots have arrived for a February 11 special election determining the fate of social housing funding in Seattle. The Urbanist Elections Committee has endorsed Proposition 1A; see our endorsement writeup for why. Battle lines have clearly formed, with Seattle’s big business community sharply opposed to Prop 1A.
Business opposition stems from the fact that large corporations that pay individual employees $1 million or more annually would see their tax bill go up a bit. Prop 1A’s excess compensation tax would not impact business that do not compensate any employees in excess of one million dollars per year. But the tax would raise roughly $53 million per year to launch the Seattle Social Housing Developer and try out a mixed-income housing model that has been highly successful in places like Vienna and Montgomery County, Maryland.
The grassroots campaign behind Seattle Prop 1A gathered more than 38,000 signatures backing their approach. However, Seattle’s centrist-dominated city council was not convinced and opted to drag their feet and put the measure on a February special election ballot rather than the November general election. Council also opted to put a competing measure, Proposition 1B, on the ballot that repurposes a far smaller pot of existing JumpStart payroll tax funds rather than raising new revenue. That follows a budget season where they diverted other JumpStart funds for other priorities, like the Seattle Police Department.
Moreover, Prop 1B explicitly prevents the mixed-income model that the public developer was set up to explore, effectively turning it into just another nonprofit developer, and a poorly funded one at that, since funding would run out after five years. It doesn’t really pilot anything new.
The Seattle City Council’s stingier approach was not popular with advocates for affordable housing — in part because JumpStart funds had been set aside to build nonprofit affordable housing before Mayor Bruce Harrell and Council upended the plan last fall. However, councilmembers contesting the citizen-backed measure ingratiated them to business leaders. The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and top corporations like Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser have funded a campaign opposing 1A and backing 1B.
(By the way, also pitting working class needs against business interests is Raise the Wage Burien, a campaign to actually raise the city’s minimum wage with no gaping loopholes. Business leaders and the Burien City Council has similarly backed the loopholes and misdirection approach. Labor, progressive groups, and The Urbanist Elections Committee has backed Raise the Wage Burien.)
Also taking up big business’s cause has been Mayor Bruce Harrell, who endorsed Proposition 1B and appeared prominently on the campaign mailer backing it. On a mailer sent to thousands of Seattle households last week, Harrell claims 1B “uses existing city funds, and has all the voter accountability and transparency that 1A doesn’t have.” Rhetoric aside, Prop 1B wasn’t even transparent enough to admit they’re not funding social housing, but instead sticking to the existing low-income housing model.
Whether having a fairly popular mayor on their campaign lit is enough to propel Prop 1B to victory remains to be seen. But it appears fairly plain that Prop 1B’s goal is to undermine the Seattle Social Housing Developer, rather than fund and operate it “the smart way,” as Harrell claimed.
On the flip side, Prop 1A prevailing could send a signal that Harrell perhaps isn’t as politically invulnerable as the pundit class thinks he is, heading into his own re-election fight this fall.
Don’t forget to join The Urbanist and House our Neighbors at a social meetup next Monday, February 3, at TeKu Tavern in South Lake Union. Bring your ballot to check the box for social housing with its biggest supporters!
The Urbanist Endorses Seattle Prop 1A to Fund Social Housing
Seattle voters approved the formation of the Seattle Social Housing Developer in 2023, with the promise to fund it at a later date. Due to Washington state’s single-subject rule, one ballot measure could not establish the public development authority and fund it at the same time. But the 14-point win suggests voters intended to do so.
Now, the city has a special election on deck next February with dueling ballot measures to fund that public developer. House Our Neighbors put forward the grassroots Initiative 137 that will be on the February 11 ballot as Proposition 1A, while the centrist majority on Seattle City Council proposed a conservative alternative 1B that isn’t really social housing.
On their ballots, voters will be asked whether they want to fund social housing at all, and if yes, they’ll have to choose between one of the two options. Seattleites should vote yes on the opening question, and also vote for Prop 1A as the specific solution. Here’s why.
Seattle’s housing crisis is daunting, and it warrants both additional resources and thoughtful experimentation with new models of providing that housing. Prop 1A does just that by adding a new tax on the megarich to fund its mixed-income housing creation model.
The excess compensation tax would only hit companies who compensate individual employees above $1 million and would generate roughly $53 million per year by taxing the wealthiest businesses who operate in Seattle. That’s enough dedicated revenue to get land acquisition and social housing construction started.
The Seattle Social Housing Developer would complement the great work that nonprofit builders and public housing authorities currently do. While nonprofits and public housing authorities typically provide housing reserved exclusively for low-income residents, the Seattle Social Housing Developer seeks to provide housing across a mix of income ranges, including middle-income, family-sized housing up to 120% of area median income.
Social housing could help close the gap between income-restricted nonprofit housing and market-rate housing that is too expensive for many. Middle class households — teachers, cooks, paramedics, artists, etc. — should be able to afford to live in Seattle. Social housing can help make this happen.
By and large, social housing wouldn’t be competing for the same pot of outside funding since most federal and state funding sources are for 100% low income housing, not mixed-income.
Some housing professionals have criticized the Seattle Social Housing Developer and have sought to brand it as a pipe dream, with funding better spent on traditional nonprofit-led affordable housing development. We appreciate their warning of the challenges inherent in building below market housing and managing rental properties over the long-term. Several housing nonprofits are in financial distress right now due to shrinking rent revenue and rising costs during the pandemic. Nothing about provisioning housing is easy. But that doesn’t mean we should stop innovating or exploring new options.
The social housing developer must strive to be thorough and fastidious to ensure the dream gets off the ground. We appreciate the values that House Our Neighbors has put front and center, but we also want the dollars and cents to add up so that the developer can successfully launch its first batch of projects and continue expanding its portfolio and serving more residents.
House Our Neighbors has shared preliminary social housing designs that hint at what is possible when we encourage architects to innovate. The renderings suggest high-quality green buildings designed to foster strong cross-class communities, including family-sized homes and communal spaces. These are not necessarily the type of buildings architects are typically asked to produce. But they are the types of buildings that offer hope of creating homes and communities built to last, strengthening the social fabric of Seattle.
The Seattle Social Housing Developer has also hired an experienced housing professional to lead the agency, which suggests they’re not just dreaming big, but also serious about getting the financials and operating model right, too.
The grassroots initiative received more than 38,000 signatures from Seattle voters, indicating a groundswell of support and earning a spot on the ballot.
In contrast, Seattle City Council’s alternative doesn’t have that same kind of community buy-in and mandate from voters. It continues Council’s unfortunate habit of treating the JumpStart Seattle payroll tax revenue as a piggybank, despite it being approved with a clear spending plan. It also creates a confusing two-part vote, when voters could have had a simpler up or down vote on only the grassroots popular measure. And Council’s 1B alternative explicitly blocks the mixed-income model that the social housing developer was launched to test out, effectively sabotaging the effort.
Diverting $10 million per year for five years is a pittance compared to the steady funding source that House Our Neighbors was seeking to create. It also is a lot harder to stomach when Council just raided $304 million from the JumpStart account to close a budget shortfall and add $100 million in new spending this year. The majority of the raided funding would have been spent on affordable housing, per the original JumpStart spending plan.
House Our Neighbors made a point of going out to find their own progressive revenue rather than raiding existing affordable housing funding, in a sharply different approach than on display at Seattle’s new centrist-dominated city council.
Affordable housing leaders tried to warn the council against putting their alternative on the ballot and risking the continued depletion of JumpStart housing funds at a sensitive time — as opposed to pursuing new revenue as a win-win. However, Council didn’t listen.
“This proposal would significantly reduce the funding available to stabilize the city’s nonprofit housing sector at the worst possible time,” Jon Grant, Chief Strategy Officer for the Low Income Housing Institute, told Council before the vote. “Instead, we desperately need the city to prioritize JumpStart dollars to establish an operating fund to stabilize underwater properties. The affordable housing sector is in freefall, and this only deepens the crisis. Please vote no on this alternative.”
It’s clear centrist Democratic leaders are too timid to raise progressive revenue right now. So it falls upon Seattle voters to do themselves and show a route out of the housing crisis. Vote Yes on Prop 1A.
The Urbanist Elections Committee consists of Angela Compton, Kacie Masten, Ryan Packer, Maya Ramakrishnan, Hannah Sabio-Howell, Jazmine Smith, Doug Trumm, Kelsey Vanhee, and Anita Yandle.
Elections Committee
The Urbanist was founded in 2014 to examine and influence urban policies. We believe cities provide unique opportunities for addressing many of the most challenging social, environmental, and economic problems. We serve as a resource for promoting urbanism, increasing political participation, and improving the places we live. The Elections Committee consists of community volunteers and staff members of The Urbanist and is a standing body representing the political values of our organization.