Social Housing for Seattle? Voters Decide Feb. 11 and here's what's at Stake
By Dick Lilly
On February 11 Seattle voters will decide whether to create a new public development authority (PDA), this one charged with developing “social housing.” Whichever way they mark their ballots, “yes” or “no,” for the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), voters get to choose between two funding options. Shown on the ballot as Propositions 1A and 1B, in effect they’re just “yes” or “no” over again. To get that, it’s a good idea to understand what the advocates mean by social housing, though often as not they leave the plan a little fuzzy – to their advantage.
The stark difference is this: 1A creates a new payroll expense tax (PET) predicted to raise $50 million annually by taxing employers – not employees – 5 percent on any individual’s pay over $1 million per year. It’s the same structure as the existing JumpStart tax on employers. But this money goes entirely to the SSHD, a new, untested organization with only a few of 14 board members – and a new CEO from California – who have experience in developing publicly supported housing. This is what worries opponents: that the SSHD will crash and burn like the ill-fated Seattle monorail project 10 years ago.
A small slice of the $50 million raised by the new payroll tax goes to the city – Office of Housing, Finance Administrative Services – to set up and manage the tax collection system. Even if 1A passes next month, it will take the city, going through legally required steps, until sometime next year to get the program going.
In contrast to the annual $50 million created by 1A, Proposition 1B provides only $10 million annually for five years, the money to be taken from JumpStart revenues, spendable by the SSHD but with City Council control and the power to cut it off. The alternative was put on the ballot by a council majority that does not like the social housing plan. Favoring 1B were councilmembers Saka, Hollingsworth, Maritsa Rivera (the ordinance sponsor), Kettle and Council President Sara Nelson. Only Tammy Morales (before she resigned) opposed the plan. Council members Moore and Straus were absent.
https://www.postalley.org/2025/01/29/new-seattle-social-housing-for-seattle-voters-decide-feb-11-and-heres-whats-at-stake/
The Case for a Collaborative Approach to Social Housing
By Nick Licata
Seattle and five other cities, plus a county, have initiated social housing programs to provide affordable, publicly owned, and controlled housing for working, lower-income residents.
Seattle, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, and Montgomery County, MD have passed social housing laws. All five U.S. cities started their programs in the last four years.
Local Progress, a national network of progressive municipal officials, has released a detailed report on the status of social housing programs in these cities and Montgomery County, not including Toronto.
City governments may resist social housing plans because they have limited revenues and little or no ability to fund them. However, North America’s oldest and most successful social housing entities, Montgomery’s Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), have survived and expanded affordable housing with supportive local governments. It takes time and cooperation from local governments to make a social housing approach possible.
https://www.postalley.org/2025/01/29/the-case-for-a-collaborative-approach-to-social-housing/