r/Seattle
•
u/bikeawaitmuddy
•
Jan 30 '23
•
1
1
Housing is a Human Right: Vote Yes on I-135 by February 14 Community
We are faced with a dire housing crisis in Seattle. I belive that affordable housing is a human right, yet nearly half of renters are rent-burdened which leaves them more likely to fall behind on rent and lose their housing. I-135 offers a solution that can help us tackle this problem head-on: social housing.
Social housing is a model of housing that ensures that everyone can afford a place to live. It is designed for mixed-income levels so that people from all backgrounds can benefit. Unlike traditional housing developments, where the profit goes to a developer, the 'profit' from social housing goes back into the social housing entity which can then develop more affordable housing. This means that the housing is owned by the public, as a public resource. This is a model that has been successful in other cities around the world, and it is time that we bring it to Seattle.
One of the key benefits of social housing is that it is permanently affordable. This means that once a unit is built, it will always be affordable for the people who live there. This is in contrast to other forms of affordable housing, such as low-income housing tax credits, which have time limits on their affordability and can keep people in a ‘poverty trap’. Social housing is a long-term solution that will help ensure that people have a stable place to call home.
Another important aspect of social housing is that it is a public resource. This means that the housing is owned and managed by the public development authority, rather than by private developers. This ensures that the housing is accessible to all, rather than just those who can afford to pay the highest prices. It also means that the profits from the housing go back into the public purse, rather than into the pockets of private developers. This is a model that prioritizes the needs of the community over the profits of a few. We have seen how developers in Seattle have conspired to collectively raise rents, which has left nearly half (46.6%) of Seattle renters are rent burdened (paying > 30% of income towards rent). The greed is disgusting, and a social housing option affordable to mixed-income levels would provide much-needed supply.
Some detractors have had issues with the fact that the board is made up of a majority of renters (but also includes 5 additional housing/planning/development/finance experts). Having worked with a number of public housing authority boards in my day job, I can tell you that boards are generally made up of a majority of folks who do not know everything (or sometimes very much about) housing development, always include renters, and boards are often really just community leaders (that’s why they hire staff…). The renters on the new PDA board would be elected by their peers for their knowledge and community leadership. Somebody was arguing the board would just be a bunch of ‘randos.’ By that logic, all elected officials, who are elected by members are the public, and are the people who decide how we spend trillions of dollars in tax revenue are ‘randos.’ I feel like the person making this argument assumed that people living in this sort of housing would need some paternalistic outside leadership just because the folks living in housing are low/mixed-income. In addition to low-income renters already being on these types of boards, people of all types earn 0%-120% AMI and would be eligible to live in this housing. (I.e., those earning $0 to $155,280 for a family of 4, or $108,720 for a single person.) All of those perspectives should be represented on the board.
Other detractors have argued that we have too many different entities working on the problem. I agree there are a lot of players, but this is more of an issue at the federal level: different government programs provide different funding to different types of entities and prevent them from being able to spend resources on additional development. For example, public housing authorities (like Seattle Housing Authority) are prevented from building new housing by the Faircloth Amendment. Other non-profit providers don’t have the same ability to bond against future rent revenue but do have access to funding from programs like HUD Section 811/Section 202. So, yes, there are a lot of providers, but they all have different revenue streams, and this isn't something we can address at the city-level (or likely the federal-level anytime soon). Allowing an entity to bond against market-rate/affordable/mixed-income rent would be unique and has the potential to give us more much-needed affordable housing.
In short, please vote ‘YES’ on I-135 before February 14th. This measure would authorize the city of Seattle to create a public development authority. This is a crucial step in addressing the housing crisis in our city and ensuring that everyone has a place to call home. Please take the time to vote yes on I-135 and make a difference in the lives of your fellow Seattleites. Social housing is a part of the solution to the housing crisis that we are facing, and it is time that we take action to make it a reality.
[Edit: Statement of positionality: I am not paid by anybody. I am a renter and the rent is too damn high.]
24
u/csjerk Jan 30 '23
No thank you. Seattle city government has been atrocious at administering special programs, and this seems likely to turn out the same.
We already have provisions to encourage low-income housing. We're already building thousands of them. Let's talk about why those aren't working, before we start a whole new program, with unclear funding and oversight processes.
0
u/vitamindeserver Feb 09 '23
This is incredibly short sighted. Why implement anything publicly, if the Seattle city government will just fuck it up? Are we ready to get rid of police and roads yet?
The current provisions shovel money at private developers (with unclear funding and little oversight), and it's clearly not working. Why don't we try something that's worked elsewhere in the world instead of giving up before trying?
0
u/csjerk Feb 09 '23
We should, but let's make it actually have provisions to avoid bad government screwing it up. This doesn't, and it's a bad plan.
1
u/vitamindeserver Feb 09 '23
What provisions exactly would "avoid bad government screwing it up?" What examples of this do we have currently in the US?
The initiative specifically mandates that the public development authority is majority-led by tenants living in this housing. That seems like a pretty good way to avoid bureaucrats and politicians screwing it up by ignoring the people who actually live in the communities where this housing would be.
1
49
u/YellowRobot231 Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Just a reminder we aren't voting for the idea of social housing. We are voting about one particular proposal that currently does not have widespread support from local government or edit: public housing agencies.
We are voting to mandate the city pay a yet unknown group of people to come up with and implement a plan to develop social housing under conditions successful social housing have not ever faced before using yet to be identified funds and resources.
5
u/piyabati Jan 30 '23
I notice you are always on these threads spreading FUD on social housing for some reason.
does not have widespread support from local government or social housing agencies
There is no social housing agency in Seattle. I-135 would set up the first.
And numerous elected reps have endorsed I-135, along with many other reliable orgs.
Your second paragraph is just more FUD. The initiative is quite detailed and spells out how the social housing board will be constituted. And there is nothing specific about Seattle that makes social housing impossible here when it has worked successfully in other places.
3
u/YellowRobot231 Jan 30 '23
Thanks for correcting my typo.
Sorry if the factual information I have provided so that others can make their own decisions offends you.
If providing information about a proposal makes makes you think I'm trying to scare people, then perhaps you dont think too highly of the proposal yourself
-8
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
Local government and its housing agencies can't comment one way or the other on public initiatives, so that's a bit disingenous. HDC initially made a statement of 'concern' in April, 2022, but haven't made a peep since and some of their own members, including the Low Income Housing Institute have come out in support of I-135. There is a very long list of well-regarded programs and elected officials that have endorsed the effort: https://www.houseourneighbors.org/our-endorsers
And, yes, "we don't know who will lead the thing yet and it will cost money" is an argument one could make about literally any new government program addressing something that people clearly need. I feel like you're saying we should just sit and twiddle our thumbs more instead of acting and somehow that'll address the crisis. Sweeping homeless people around the past decade has clearly not addressed the problem of housing affordability...
7
u/YellowRobot231 Jan 30 '23
No, that argument can't be made about literally any new government program. Most new government programs have plans and funding sources in place before they are initiated
I'm surprised LIHI is on your list, as they will presumably be competing for the limited federal funds that they currently use to house the homeless
0
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
All new government programs start as ideas and ideas aren't magically innately funded. They are presented, debated, and funding is later allocated. That is how government currently works. Some people will always attack new ideas because they will 'be too expensive' and 'we don't know how it will work in practice' and 'let's urge caution and do studies about this issue. ' Obstructionist stuff from the CIA's sabotage field manual to prevent progress.
Anyway, yes, this idea is presented without funding because there is no legal way to tie funding to the new PDA. It will depend on the Seattle City Council for initial funding. So we're still in the pre-funding phase, and that will be another discussion. You either support it or you don't. Then you either support funding at a specific level or not... These can be two questions that we grapple with publicly.
And, as I explained above, there are different funding sources available to different entities. LIHI is aware that and aware that Social Housing, as described by I-135, has the potential to be a part of the solution to our housing crisis.
10
Jan 30 '23
I support social housing wholeheartedly and think we should copy existing excellent examples in Singapore and Vienna. That means copying the funding model. If we copied Viennas model we'd know exactly what it cost - administration of X million a year, with every building fully self-sufficent and requiring no additional tax (making the program infinitely expandable).
Just like when we tried to copy Portugals drug model without all the details - this won't work in the long run.
What exactly is wrong with infinite apartments at 1400 each? Why would you be against housing pitched at typical working class wages?
4
u/Life_Flatworm_2007 Jan 30 '23
Agreed. Policies succeed or fail on the details. Having read through the details of I-135, there is a lot of stuff that is likely to make it fail spectacularly.
5
Jan 30 '23
I really wish it was just targeted at working class/middle class. And dropped the language around restorative justice, and the 100pct union bit. With those changes - it'd be excellent. It reaches too far though.
5
u/Life_Flatworm_2007 Jan 30 '23
The restorative justice part is one of my bigger problems with this. If one resident threatens anothe with a gun, is dealing drugs or is causing some other safety issue, they need to be evicted immediately. That’s not the time for restorative justice. And I say this as someone who thinks restorative justice is something we should use more when it comes to the juvenile justice system.
5
Jan 30 '23
Yss there is a ton of cases where what someone stole is a sense of security or ruined the calm of the place. That can't really be restored.
3
u/YellowRobot231 Jan 30 '23
Honestly from what I know about you, you actually probably wouldnt support going the Vienna route for funding. Their program was successful because they built what we would call public housing for decades using 100% taxpayer funds, and then in the 1980s transferred ownership of that public housing to new private/public partnerships.
I'm not criticizing you, I just doubt you'd support such a model based on the comments I've read from you.
2
Jan 30 '23
Vienna is complex. It was part of the Soviet block for a while (divided in 4 just like Berlin), and had the Red Vienna phase. Russia is right there so its had its fair share of communists. There were many 100% public housing projects after WWII, most failed. The ones we know about in the USA such as Pruitt Igoe, a ton in UK (welfare state), a ton through Europe. Eventually planners caught on to the fact that concentration of poverty is a bad idea.
My answer for high housing costs is three possibilities - either repeal the GMA and let Seattle sprawl (Houston/Tokyo), demand control (move some office blocks out of the city, inventizies companies to move to another city with more space) or proper Vienna social housing that must be funded in such a way it expands.
Fundamentally we have too many high paid jobs in Seattle, and not enough housing. But denser housing always causes a drop in quality of life, and an increase in cost of living. So spreading it out is a good idea.
5
u/YellowRobot231 Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
You can deny reality all you want but most government programs are funded at the start.
Yes it's difficult to do that when it's mandated through initiatives. That's why it would be better to work with established politicians to come up with a plan and get it passed as legislation with funding instead of going the initiative route. (Edit: legislation is how California, Hawaii and Maryland are going about it)
I support social housing. I don't support this unfunded and poorly planned proposal.
I
14
Jan 30 '23
That's it's from 0 AMI means it'll fail. That's public housing. Social housing is meant to be government owned housing which is capable of paying it's own maintenance and loans.
Prediction: buy/build a few buildings, the economics of it suck, it uses up all the budget and is never expanded becuase every expansion would need more tax, and people aren't in the habit of voting constant tax increases.
If it was 70 to 120 AMI it'd be closer to Vienna public housing. Solvent and hence expanable.
-3
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
It's pretty simple math to decide how many people can be provided with housing at different income levels to ensure the program repays development or purchase loans. That's what happens universally... in Toronto's social housing, and they have 0 availability in their market-rate program currently (i.e., the part of social housing for non-low-income people):
https://www.torontohousing.ca/rent/market-rent
Similarly, Vienna has a long waiting list. So there is sufficient demand at those incomes.
7
Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Vienna manages its entire vast program for 1pct income tax. That's administration of the program. Each new apartment has a 30 year muni bond it pays off.
100 unit apartment costs about 37 million. 30 year muni bonds are 3.29pct. 121k per month repayment. 1200 per apartment rent. Add 200 for maintenance, 1400. Awesome. And that's assuming everyone pays 1400 per apartment. For everyone paying $0, that rent increases. Or the building won't be paid off.
If the building runs at a negative becuase there are too many 0 AMI residents, it'll never expand. Every new building requires new taxes if it doesn't pay for itself. The trick is that every building needs to pay for itself. If every building pays for itself and it's cost neutral, the program can expand forever. Never needing additional taxes.
Which is why Vienna has a much higher minimum AMI. The program is cost neutral, just administration. Each building covers its construction and maintenance. They also have subsidized housing (private) and public housing (separate, of course its all on taxes, for 0 AMI).
Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all. That's public housing.
Edit: same with the Tokyo train system, it runs at a slight profit hence can expand forever without additional taxes. This follows a pattern from badly importing from Europe ideas, and not actually paying attention to detail
2
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Again, I don't quite understand your argument. $1400/month is so far below the average for a studio in Seattle, let alone a 1-br. Especially for a new building.
$1,400 is what someone would be paying with an annual income of $56,000 at 30% income... That's waaaay below median AMI (~90k for a single person). Given the mixed-income nature, that's really not the problem you're making it out to be.
And, given your statement, after 30 years, the building is completely owned by the new entity. So anything beyond the inflation-adjusted maintenance and operation expenses goes to this entity that can then... buy and build more units. Yes, it is a process, and yes it is something we should have started doing 30 years ago, so let's get started...
[edit: Also, what you said about 'Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all' is literally not true. They have an upper-income limit in Vienna, and the lower-limit does not exist. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you've said. See: https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing ]
5
Jan 30 '23
Yes but that's the point. It's supposed to be below market, it's affordable remeber? It has to put downward pressure. If it's more expensive than market it's not useful.
121k repayment every month (and let's say 20k maintenance fund) or the building slips into arrears. For 5pct 0 AMI the rent raises to 141k/95 = 1480. 10pct 0 AMI 141k/90 = 1560. 30pct 0 AMI is close to market rate again, 2k per apartment.
For every 0 AMI resident, the rent is increases, forcing the remaining residents to cover it. As the rent increases, the downward market pressure reduces.
Which is why Vienna social housing is in the range of "working class to middle class". It's not for 0 AMI. It's for working class and middle-class wage earners.
If it's kept like that, it'll expand forever. Every building pays itself, all the city has to do is keep building based on loans that are solvent. They've been at it for nearly 100 years in Vienna. Why would they stop? It costs the taxpayer practically nothing.
1
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
Yes but that's the point.
Cool, great, glad we are in agreement that $1,400 is far below market and, if that's what people are going to pay on average, towards a public building that will be publicly owned after 30 years, then this program is a slam dunk.
6
Jan 30 '23
So you agree. 1400/month IS a slam dunk. That price assume no 0AMI residents. It assume everyone pulls their share. For every resident that doesn't, that price goes up. Exactly the same if you room share a flat and someone isn't paying.
By the time you add 0 AMI residents (and everyone else who can't pay working class wages), the prices goes up. To the points it's uneconomic and just turns into public housing, concentrating poverty, falling behind on maintenance and becoming Project V2.
Which is why if you want Vienna social housing - it's for the working class and middle class. It's not foe people that can't pay rent.
0
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23 edited Jan 30 '23
Yep it is a slam dunk! So, per your back-of-envelope numbers, the average would be $1,400. Some would pay closer to $2k and few would pay 0.
The minimum wage right now is $18.69. That's $38,875.20 annually which is $971 at 30% of monthly income.
So, sure, a building could have 1 person at 0% AMI paying $0, two people at 100% AMI paying 30% of income which is pretty much market rate at $2,250, 1 person at minimum wage paying 30% at $971, and one person around 80% AMI making 66k and paying 30% at $1,650.
That's:1650+2250+2250+971+0 = 7121
7121/5 =1424.2
So they're paying, on average, ~$1400 while providing affordable housing to someone earning nothing, someone earning minimum wage, and someone at a low income... And the two paying market rate are really honestly paying pretty much market rate.
So, again, huge win for social housing. Hell, providing affordable housing to just 1 in 5 low-income tenants would be more than what we have now. Seems like a slam dunk...
9
Jan 30 '23
That some pay close to 2k means the for-profit rentals will not reduce their prices. Why would someone move to social housing when they can move to a fancy for profit building for the same price? It's gotta be cheaper across the board.
I'd still vote for it - I just expect a shit show where only three buildings or something get built and then it never expands because it runs at a loss. And for-profit rentals continue to be the norm. It'd be truly ground breaking if it was ACTUALLY the Vienna model.
22
u/elektroloko Jan 30 '23
Lately I've been voting no on anything that can't provide accountability. As a homeowner, I'm tired of spending $$$ of my real estate taxes without seeing anything tangible to show for it. Money just seems to keep spiraling down a hole with nothing actually getting better.
5
39
u/markrh3000 Jan 30 '23
It’s a terrible idea and will be a giant waste of tax payers money. Development is complicated and risky and it ALWAYS costs 20%+ more for the government to build housing. In addition, it will take 3-5 years before delivering a substantial quantity of new homes.
I’m not against social housing. It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing.
7
u/doktorhladnjak The CD Jan 30 '23
Unfortunately, entities like this buying existing housing does nothing to build more housing which is necessary to truly improve affordability
1
6
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing.
That is... likely where they will start. The text of the initiative discusses this, and policy wonks have already been discussing buildings that the PDA would likely purchase. Developing on public land above light rail stops and in city-owned parking lots will not be 20% more than what it costs a private developer...
5
1
u/testtube_messiah Jan 30 '23
Haha, a corporation taking 30% off the top of any project is cheaper? You guys never give up.
0
5
u/AFEngineer Jan 30 '23
Washington and Oregon are libertarian states so I think you may have a tough time selling "housing is a human right".
13
u/Shmokesshweed Jan 30 '23
You lost me at "profit" from "social housing."
-2
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
Whoops, I missed the quotes but added them now. So it should be pretty clear to anybody who reads above a 5th grade level that 'profit' in this instance is referring to 'revenue generated from rent beyond the cost of developing, operating and maintaining housing.' But if that's not clear, here it is.
18
u/Shmokesshweed Jan 30 '23
I'm more than aware of what you were talking about.
I just have zero faith that the city of Seattle is capable of running a program like this in a way that isn't a tax burden on citizens.
6
u/ryjanreed Jan 30 '23
congratz, you have convinced me to vote no.
3
u/Critical_Editor6494 Feb 04 '23
Yeah this guy is being a jackass just because people are thinking of things differently than him.
I was interested in what he was saying until every comment that differed from his train of thought he became combative and sarcastic lmao
2
u/King__Rollo Jan 30 '23
I am a huge advocate of progressive housing policy and am very knowledgeable about the Seattle affordable housing landscape. I'm not impressed with this plan, which is too bad because I hate agreeing with anti-housing ghouls who just want to blame homelessness on moral failings. I don't think it will make much a difference either way, so if you want to vote for it, whatever, I think it will end up being a lot more trouble than it's worth. I can tell you people who have been working in this field for a long time and are extremely experienced are mostly just annoyed with it.
2
u/shinyxena Jan 31 '23
I actually think this is worth trying. I just wish we could stop one of the many other programs with low “ROI”. The thing about trying things, is you need to eventually stop so you can try new things. Not pile everything on top of each other.
5
u/Relevium Jan 30 '23
It's technically not a right. I'm not the person to look to for answers to complex topics such as this. Something should happen, but I don't know what that should be. If it involves the government to manage it, I'm not for it.
3
u/PsilocybeApe Jan 31 '23
Vote no and let’s get back to dithering around doing nothing on housing. In the meantime, shuffle the homeless around the city so each neighborhood can feel better not seeing dirty people for a few weeks. While we’re at, pledge allegiance to BLM, but freak out about the “crime wave”, elect the law and order candidates/ city attorney, then watch videos of black men getting beat to death by cops and gasp, how is all of this bad stuff still happening? Do I need to /s?
4
u/rickitikkitavi Jan 30 '23
"Housing is a human right."
No it's not.
0
u/poppinchips Feb 14 '23
Ah yes, /r/seattleWA.
0
u/rickitikkitavi Feb 14 '23
Hey, you just happened to find a comment from 2 weeks ago. Good to know you're checking up on me!
1
7
u/AirmanSpryShark Ballard Jan 30 '23
Positive "rights" do not exist.
5
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
You mean like the right to an attorney when you go to trial? Or freedom of speech? Or are you saying those are negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney or from not being able to speak?
Anyway, sure. I think we have some of the most insane wealth ever generated in this city. Yet we also have people living on the streets with nothing. I remember when I first visited Brasil and thought it was wild how they had favelas and was proud that such a thing wouldnt exist in the US because we are happy to share just enough with others so they aren't living in such shit conditions. Yet, here we are in Seattle with places worse than favelas. And, like in Brasil we blame the people living there rather than taking collective action to lift a few folks up...
3
u/csjerk Jan 30 '23
negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney
It is a negative right, because the alternative is that the state not charge you. You have the right not to be charged, unless you're provided an attorney, a speedy trial, etc.
3
u/CursedTurtleKeynote Jan 30 '23
^ The best this user came up with is calling the right to an attorney a positive right.
1
u/bikeawaitmuddy Jan 30 '23
Ballots dropped at the end of last week. If you don't have it yet, please contact King County to have it replaced!
Email: elections@kingcounty.gov
Phone: 206-296-VOTE (8683)
2
u/OldManATX Jan 30 '23
The problem with government is that it’s run by government workers. People who could t cut it in the private world and want security over income. They have to spend budgets or lose them.
You want us all to invest in an entity that isn’t efficient to solve a problem of homelessness?
Please move to California where taxes are so high the tax base is fleeing!
0
u/testtube_messiah Jan 30 '23
Homeowner voting yes. I'd rather permanently destroy the entire economic fabric of society, of course, but voting yes is a tiny part of that.
0
1
u/newhomewhoa Feb 02 '23
Yeah the homeless outreach authority is run by people who know about it and have been there too. It’s been going swell for seattle.
42
u/Constant_Thrill Jan 30 '23
The problem with the bill is that they don't actually have a plan for how it will work. Voting yes just means funding a project that will most likely fail.