Social Housing Is a Homelessness Solution

Image via House Our Neighbors! website

By SHARE and WHEEL

Homelessness is a housing problem.

More affordable housing means less homelessness. It’s really that simple.

SHARE and WHEEL are grassroots organizing efforts of homeless and formerly homeless people. Social housing is in alignment with our values: Caring for each other, creating relationships across divisions, and self-governance.

Ending homelessness requires addressing the needs of our whole community. Working people become homeless every day, priced out of their housing by arbitrary rent hikes. Even middle-income people can become homeless after a major car accident or a catastrophic illness. A New York Times article showed that the housing crisis is impacting working people at all income levels, everywhere in the United States. As housing inaccessibility moves up the income ladder, more and more people at all income levels will become homeless—and homeless deaths will continue to rise.

Social housing is public housing for all income levels. It would remain affordable in perpetuity, with no risk of your building being sold off to market development and no penalty for success if your income becomes “too high to live here” while being still too low to live anywhere else. It will also be governed by the tenants. From our self-managed shelters and projects, we know that governing and making decisions together builds community.

Housing people with a range of incomes together builds community. A city segregated by income and class is a fractured community. We like building relationships across divisions like rich/poor, housed/homeless—in fact, we recommend it. Housing that includes a range of income levels facilitates that. It also stabilizes neighborhoods to prevent further displacement of low-income residents.

In February 2023, Seattle voters expressed their overwhelming support for social housing: 57 percent of Seattle—a majority in every district—supported Initiative 136, which created the social housing developer.  In 2024, 38,000 voters signed an initiative to fund that project with a progressive tax. Instead of increased property taxes, as most of Seattle’s affordable housing is financed, I-137 proposes a tax on businesses that pay any employee over a million dollars a year: 5 percent on every dollar over $1,000,000. The Seattle Social Housing Development Board (SHDB) can use this income as collateral for bonds that will fund housing construction and building acquisition.

A small faction is challenging this initiative, pushing for an alternative that narrowly focuses on low-income and homeless populations. Last year, the Seattle City Council refused to put the initiative on the November ballot, later voting to put Initiative 137, now Prop 1A, on the ballot in February, along with the council’s own alternative proposal, Prop 1B. The council proposal raids the JumpStart tax proceeds for $10 million a year and restricts the funded housing to 80 percent or less of Area Median Income.

We, actual homeless people, oppose raiding the JumpStart tax, which is intended for traditional low-income housing. We oppose strangling the new social housing developer by funding one fifth of what’s requested. And, most strongly, we oppose canceling the will of the voters who support mixed-income housing in which the rents from higher-income tenants will subsidize the rents of lower-income tenants.

We need solutions, not obstruction. Delay means higher rents, increased homelessness, displacement of marginalized communities, and pricing out low- and middle-income workers.

We are appalled that the Seattle City Council refused the will of Seattle voters by not putting I-137 on the November ballot. We need solutions, not obstruction. Delay means higher rents, increased homelessness, displacement of marginalized communities, and pricing out low- and middle-income workers.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Who are we?

SHARE (Seattle Housing and Resource Effort) is a grassroots organizing effort of homeless and formerly homeless men and women. We facilitate six indoor shelters, two Tent Cities, lockers, a hygiene center, and a housing for work program, all self-managed by participants.

WHEEL (Women’s Housing, Equality and Enhancement League) is a grassroots organizing effort of homeless and formerly homeless women. We facilitate two staffed, low-barrier women’s shelters and we do Women in Black vigils whenever somebody homeless dies outside or by violence in King County.

Both of our organizations are homeless-led. Self governance and self-management are essential values to us. Participants, not staff, maintain and manage SHARE shelters and Tent Cities.

We advocate for systemic changes to end homelessness. It isn’t enough to get people out of homelessness. We want to stop people from becoming homeless.

Opponents say the Social Housing Development Board is too inexperienced to be in charge of a housing developer. But housing boards do not draw architectural designs. Boards set policy and practices. Existing low-income housing developers lack lived experience with poverty and homelessness, and their policies and practices are sometimes bad for their tenants. The SHDB includes seven members with lived experience, providing a real voice, which can complement existing efforts and provide valuable new perspectives on housing development.

The SHDB also has more members experienced in construction than the biggest existing low-income housing developer does. Its inaugural Chief Executive Officer, Roberto Jiménez, has an impressive background in affordable housing and community development.

Opponents also say we should only concentrate efforts on people who are currently homeless. “Prioritize those most in need” sounds sensible, even virtuous. What it means in practice is “Sacrifice vulnerable people for other vulnerable people, so that we don’t have to raise taxes on wealthy people.” Opponents are acting as if this is a zero-sum game. We need to both work upstream to STOP people from becoming homeless and also work to get those who are currently homeless back into housing.

Some opponents object to the tax not having an expiration date, after which it would have to be renewed. To be useful for ongoing construction, or as collateral for bonds, the funding stream has to be dependable, not subject to changes in political administrations. This is why property tax levies do not have an expiration date.

The alternative funding proposal, taking $10 million from the JumpStart fund, raids money set up by a progressive tax to avoid creating a new progressive tax.

In the midst of an escalating homelessness crisis, skyrocketing rents, and growing income inequality, social housing is more crucial than ever. SHARE and WHEEL stand firmly behind social housing initiatives, recognizing them as a vital tool in fostering equity, stability, and thriving communities.

Vote YES on Prop 1A.

 

 

11 thoughts on “Social Housing Is a Homelessness Solution”

  1. The Social Housing Initiative will only build 80 units of housing for people who are ACTUALLY homeless. The overwhelming majority of units are for people making up to $140,000. Puhleez. We have more than 13,000 unsheltered people in Seattle. THEY are the ones who need homes.

    VOTE NO

    1. The middle class needs homes too and that will help us put it in reach together. Think of the system we have as Medicaid, while this is Obamacare (but better)

  2. You can be 100% assured that if SHARE / WHEEL are involved, money will be wasted, housing will be low quality and the homelessness problem will get much, much worse.

    1. You’re thinking of LIHI, but they have been separate from SHARE/WHEEL for decades

  3. The other commenters recommend: have no dreams and no hope for a better society. As idealistic Americans of this current moment, what more do we have.

    I helped gather signatures for I137 and have campaigned out in the bitter cold for Prop 1A with my neighbors — this is a vision of Seattle we should all want together in face of corporate greed. Voters will decide whether they care for or believe in a fairer society during this election.

  4. The original initiative said they would find it with bonds and an initial government grant. Now that’s out the window – they lied – and we learn they want a new tax that’s levied forever with no end date. This after we just passed a $1 Billion affordable housing levy. Let the Affordable housing levy do it’s job. We don’t need Social Housing.

    1. Because the corporate politicians refused to provide a grant or bonds. The affordable housing levy is both to build and operate housing. I-137 is only to build housing and wont require tax to operate it. Social housing solves problems the housing levy cant.

  5. Thank you so much for sharing this statement! It is the perfect statement that I have been looking for to forward to friends.

  6. Start-ups have a 50% failure rate. The Social Housing Developer is a start-up. Its leader has some experience, but he has been on the job since July 2024 and has yet to announce a staff. Their Chief Financial Officer quit in December. The original Board Chair quit. They ask us for $50million a year forever. Does that make sense?

    Please don’t vote on a sweet-sounding dream that has no substance.

    1. Unlike start-ups, this idea has been tested, yet not yet funded. It has proven substance from Maryland to Austria. The status quo isn’t working.

Comments are closed.