A drip in the ocean, but I’ll take it
Finally, a tax that doesn’t pretend to care about the middle class—hitting those pulling in over a mil. Five percent might sting, but let’s not pretend the Chamber’s “alternative” was anything but corporate welfare with a $10M/year facade. Fifty million annually for social housing? A functional policy anomaly in a system allergic to solutions.
Democracy “worked” here, but only because it bypassed the usual circus of compromise. Remember the 2023 property levy? Another drop in the bucket, paid by homeowners already drowning in a rigged game. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a decade.
Will this actually house people? Unlikely. The bureaucracy will siphon half, consultants will feast, and NIMBYs will litigate the rest. Still, props for swinging at the pitch. Social housing is a band-aid on a severed artery, but at least they’re pretending to try.
Could someone familiar with house pricing there tell me roughly how many lower end houses this would amount to?
They are targeting mixed imcome housing, with a focus on lower income and caregiver roles (teachers/emts/etc). The plus side is that the city will own these outright, unlike what it normally does which is fund non profits or lease land to for profits developers with a guarantee of a percentage of the units are low income, generally for a decade or so. Of course, the leases run well past that decade, so the business cleans up long term and low income people get forced out. This of course is always a sweet heart deal for the developers, as they donate large sums to the major and city council. This was a direct ballot initiative, and it won out over the poison pill alternative the council, mayor and the chamber of commerce also forced on the ballot.
The plans ive seen are for multi-unit structures, tending towards green building and social configs, i.e energy efficent building with inner courtyards and amenities. Everything ia still in the planning phase, though, so no actual number of units, but at that funding, with city owned land, I would expect 1000-2000 units/yr. Seattle is growing at a pace of roughly 12,000-15,000/yr, so this should address 10-15% of that growth with affordable, excellent housing.
That’s a really thorough answer and I appreciate it. Thanks.
Something I forgot to mention, Seattle and the surrounding area also have the largest light rail expansion project in the country right now. There has been a huge amount of rail stops added in the last few years, and the city has focused on turning what used to be flat ground level parking into a mix of parking structures and rail adjacent low income housing on city land. Building what used to be just tarmac up has let the city add density near desirable rail stops and still appeal to the suburban folks who commute to the rail by car.
I expect a lot of this housing will go in near the light rail neighborhoods. Tons of them are already building for profit housing, so the interest is there. This funding will let them put housing where it’s most valuable and act as a shot in the arm to a dozen neighborhoods. Washington state helped by allowing upzoning to 6 stories within 1/4 mile of light rail, and 4 stories anywhere else in the state.
Washington is the only state to go left this last election, and it shows. Its not perfect, but people actually give a shit here and are trying to fix the actual problems.
Honestly, it most likely will not. The shit heads that this targets are perfectly fine setting up an office elsewhere and claiming they work there over 50% of the time.
