King County

Seattle Initiative Measure 135, also known as House Our Neighbors, is aiming to kickstart the social housing model in Seattle with exploratory measures funded by the city, including staff and office space. The initiative is more complicated than it appears, with both the attractive draw of a new model for building more affordable housing as well as the reality of potential funding challenges if it passes.  

 

What’s in the initiative 

The sponsors of the initiative are House Our Neighbors, the political action committee of the organization Real Change. Real Change is a journalism and advocacy organization focused on homelessness and economic and social justice. As of mid-January, the initiative is endorsed by dozens of progressive organizations as well, including our partners at MLK Labor, UFCW 3000, SEIU Local 6, and The Urbanist. 

The term “social housing” covers several kinds of models that aim to create permanently affordable housing and greater resident control. In this particular social housing model, rent for lower-income residents would be offset by a mix of income levels; all housing would also meet green building standards, and cost less than 30 percent of a household’s income.

The initiative has three main components that would initiate social housing: establish a public developer to create publicly-owned social housing, require the city to provide staff and office space for the first 18 months, and create a feasibility study on housing needs and land sales. 

It’s important to note that the initiative does not directly fund or mandate building new housing. If passed, it’s not required that a single unit is built. Instead, it begins a public process to establish a new public agency, called a public development authority (PDA), that would serve a somewhat different segment of the population than existing housing agencies. Specifically, it would include middle-income people who may be struggling to make rent, including teachers, nurses, or social service workers. The authority would need funding in the future in order to begin building social housing. 

Initiative 135 specifies that social housing would be open to people making 0% to 120% of the area median income (AMI), which adjusts based on how many people are in a single household. The AMI for all households in Seattle as of the 2021 census is $105,391, meaning half of the city’s households earn more and half earn less. To give voters an idea of who currently might qualify, Seattle’s Office of Housing states that for 2022 and a family size of one, 30% AMI is about $27,200, and 80% would be roughly $66,750. We estimate single people earning up to $100,125 would be eligible to join social housing under I-135. 

 

What proponents are saying

Social housing has been shown to be an interesting and effective method in cities around the world to build more units, address rising rental costs, strengthen tenancy protections, and more. By passing the initiative and giving initial funding for social housing, the city may gain a potentially powerful new tool in the future to combat rising housing costs. Proponents state that because the initiative doesn’t mandate a source for funding, it wouldn’t compete with existing budgets for other housing projects.

Allowing residents with a wider range of incomes could make social housing more financially sustainable. The intent is for maintenance, staff costs, and payments toward construction loans to be offset by higher-income residents, who would pay higher rents to subsidize the cost of lower-income residents. 

While critics look at the funding issue with a skeptical eye, some supporters say that the lack of funding shouldn’t deter voters from saying yes to the initiative. For example, other housing projects like the Housing Trust Fund were initially passed as an “empty bucket” and funded over time.

Since funding is already short, supporters feel that we should create more options that could be more efficient or effective than current options, especially because the housing will be publicly owned and tenant controlled.

 

What critics are saying 

We spoke with many stakeholders who had concerns about this initiative, including housing advocates, political leaders, grassroots activists, and more. 

The primary concern that every person we spoke to brought up is funding. City leaders just completed a challenging budget process involving significant shortfalls, and Seattle is facing an even larger deficit of more than $140 million per year for the next few years. Because the initiative has no funding attached, many are concerned that by default it will end up competing with other established, and currently underfunded affordable housing and homelessness projects. More specifically, some advocates are worried about using funds to provide housing for people earning up to 120% AMI when so many lower-income people with greater needs still lack housing options.

Everyone we spoke with was in favor of social housing broadly and also putting more of the city’s resources into combatting the housing crisis. However, there was also concern that Initiative 135 could be distracting and divert support away from the anticipated renewal and expansion of the city’s housing levy on the fall ballot, which many view as a higher priority. 

Proponents of the initiative rebut this by stating that more opportunities for progressive taxation would possibly open up in the future and that operating from a scarcity mindset would prevent important policies from ever moving forward.

 

Final thoughts

Clearly, the status quo on housing isn’t working. Seattle has many rent-burdened families as well as people experiencing homelessness, and inflation is exacerbating the issue. Social housing could be a powerful new tool for the city of Seattle to build permanent, publicly-owned housing in the future. We fully support social housing, as well as the many other policies that address this urgent need, including significant zoning reform to allow the building of more housing in Seattle and across the state. 

Voting yes on this initiative would be the first step to establish this housing model in the city in the years to come. However, voters should remain aware that a yes vote does not create or fund new housing. Building the social housing envisioned by this initiative would require several years of planning and implementation, and finding funding at a time of major budget deficits. 

Voting no would likely maintain the city’s focus on providing housing and services to the people in our community with the greatest needs. However, it also means we would be dependent on future zoning changes and private developers to build much-needed middle-income housing in Seattle at a time when many working residents are already struggling to pay rent. 

Regardless of how you vote on I-135, every one of us must keep fighting long after Election Day for policy changes that will finally reduce the cost of housing. These include urgently-needed zoning reforms, voting yes on an expanded Seattle Housing Levy in November, and legislative efforts to make missing middle housing more available near transit. 

Read More

The board of the Enumclaw School District has put Proposition No. 1 to the voters to make much-needed facility upgrades. These include adding a new school to the Ten Trails community, replacing aging facilities, repairing plumbing and electrical systems, constructing two new elementary schools and an early learning center, a new athletic complex and performing arts center, and much more. The bonds would be paid for by an excess levy rate of $1.56 per $1,000 of assessed property value. This means the owner of a $600,000 home could expect to pay about $936 per year.

Our kids deserve to learn in safe, modern facilities that meet the needs of a growing community. Vote yes on Enumclaw School District's Proposition No. 1.

Read More