By Erica C. Barnett
House Our Neighbors, the social housing campaign, posted an email on Instagram Monday that Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce president Rachel Smith sent to Council President Sara Nelson and Councilmember Maritza Rivera on August 5. In the email, which HON obtained through a records request, Smith urged the two councilmembers to “take the time to consider alternatives before taking action to place I-137″—the social housing initiative—”on the ballot.”‘
The following day, the council decided to block Initiative 137 from last year’s November ballot, giving themselves more time to come up with a competing alternative and relegating I-137 (now Prop. 1A) to the February special election that wraps up today.
The social housing measure would impose a 5 percent tax, paid by employers, on individual employee compensation above $1 million a year. The money would fund the construction and acquisition of mixed-income housing, with higher-income renters directly subsidizing the rents of their lower-income neighbors.
The timing of Smith’s email shows that the Chamber was lobbying until the last minute to keep the social housing proposal off last year’s high-turnout Presidential election ballot. In a separate email HON received in response to its records request, sent the Friday before the council voted to delay the measure, a council staffer told a King County Elections staffer they had just received “confirmation that Council will be approving this for the November ballot.” By the following Tuesday, that was no longer true.
In her August 5 email, Smith proposed two possible alternatives to the social housing measure. The first, which would make social housing an eligible use of existing Seattle Housing Levy property taxes, would have little impact unless the Office of Housing decided to redirect funds from existing programs. The second would raise property taxes by 10 cents per $1,000 of a property’s value, increasing city funding for traditional low-income housing.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
“I appreciate the thought the Chamber has put into this,” Nelson responded. “Given that both alternatives could impact the resources our affordable housing providers receive, I’d want to know what they think.”
Records also show that left-leaning opponents of the social housing measure also reached out to the council in the days leading up to their decision to delay, and that a staffer for Councilmember Maritza Rivera made sure their objections were fast-tracked to the attention of both Rivera and Councilmember Cathy Moore. Rivera would go on to propose the alternative to social housing that became Proposition 1B, which would fund traditional low-income housing using existing JumpStart payroll tax revenues.
In the August 1 letter to the council, Seattle Displacement Coalition founder John Fox and 24 other advocates urged councilmembers to pass the tax but use it exclusively to house people who are currently homeless or very low-income. Fox, along with former reporter and editor George Howland, would end up leading the campaign urging a “no” vote on both the social housing measure and the Chamber-backed alternative.
If you’re registered to vote in Seattle, you can still cast your ballot until 8:00 tonight by depositing it in any ballot drop box.
I may be missing something, but I don’t see anything nefarious here. I’m sure council members are constantly being lobbied about on a number of issues, from different points of view. The original social housing bill passed in a typically low turnout special election.
If the funding bill had been on the predictably higher turnout in the November election with a simple Yes/No vote, there would have been a far greater chance of the bill not passing at all.
Prop 1a is leading (with the late voting Antifa vote still to come lol) by 15 after one night. Who on the council is up for reelection (besides Rinck) this year?
When people realize Seattle is not a progressive city but a propertarian/libertarian city, things might change. But as long as people misread their circle of friends for the entire 84 sq miles, they will be disappointed again and again. There are a lot of property owners who like things as they are. A few homeless people dying of drugs or exposure is collateral damage.
A growing underclass of people, not just young grads but midlife and older people, who are locked out of being able truly settle and invest in the city doesn’t matter to them. The speculators and other owners don’t want to live in a truly urban city, with easy transit and dense development with the cultural amenities it brings. They want to go from home to car to wherever without having to interact with their neighbors or rely on any shared infrastructure they don’t control. They would rather sit in a car, year after year, on the same commute than ride on any transit option that doesn’t stop at their front door.
Property rights outweigh human rights/civil rights and that defines a propertarian/libertarian society. Truly progressive values extend far beyond legal weed and LGBTQ+ rights.
This is EXACTLY why Seattle is such a phởkked up place to live…