E Madison’s The Madkin is being held up as an example where a public housing authority could help save affordable housing in the city (Image: Madkin Tenant Association)
The backers of I-135 to create a new public developer “to build, acquire, own, and manage social housing” in Seattle say they have successfully gathered enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot — but the vote won’t come until 2023.
“Voters across Seattle will now get the opportunity to vote for a new intervention to our affordable housing approach,” the House Our Neighbors group said in a statement. “We are on the brink of establishing a public developer to create housing for folks who are in the 0-120% AMI bracket, where restorative justice measures must be implemented– no more punitive evictions.”
Backers say their proposed ballot initiative would establish a developer to create more rental housing options in the city, powered by public funding, and protected from free market influences, and city and county restrictions.
Unlike the existing Seattle Housing Authority which typically serves only low-income residents, backers of the House Our Neighbors proposal say the new authority would be free of federal constraints on income levels and could be made available to renters with earnings ranging from 0% to 120% of area median income to help create a diverse pool of tenants across the authority’s properties.
Starting the authority would be funded by the city budget with ongoing funding to be determined from local and state sources. The city council would be required to sort out how to fund the department with the option to pursue bonds for the public developer.
The House Our Neighbors coalition is led by Real Change and was formed last summer in opposition to the so-called Compassion Seattle initiative as a response to the proposal that would have paired tough new restrictions on encampments with more money for shelters and services.
House Our Neighbors turned in around 30,000 signatures in June but too many were rejected by King County Elections to qualify for the ballot. In a second push, the group secured the number necessary to push its totals above the threshold.
The vote on the initiative is now likely to be included on the February ballot.
The recent effort to sell a long-held Capitol Hill apartment building to new investors has been held up as an example where the authority could have intervened to purchase the Madkin Apartments and preserve them as affordable housing.
In the meantime, the November ballot will include votes on the battle for King County Prosecutor — Retiring prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s chief of staff Leesa Manion would be the first woman and person of color to serve in the role while Federal Way mayor Jim Ferrell would bring a throwback, “tough on crime” approach to the office. November’s ballot will also include dueling proposals for changing the format used to elect Seattle’s mayor and city council candidates in primaries.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE THIS SPRING
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
“…protected from free market influences…” This is so desperately needed. Even SHA rents are partially based on current market value which is devastating and nerve wracking for those of us subject to yearly review and is on it’s way to becoming too expensive on a fixed income due to the unrealistic way rents under Fed guidelines are established. It particularly digs into med care.
RE: The housing authority. This sounds like a budget boondoggle and not serve the residents well. Having friends in the neighborhood that live in buildings run by the housing authority are hoping for more stringent rules.
RE: The election, Jim Ferrell is the only logical choice. His “throwback tough on crime approach” is what victims of crime need.
Agree. And to label Ferrell’s approach as “throwback” is a pejorative and unfair. I would say it’s a “modern” approach which is much-needed in this time of increasing crime, much of which has not been prosecuted, until Ann Davison was elected as City Attorney. We need her reforms at a County level.
All I need to know about this initiative is this is the person in charge of it: https://twitter.com/themobilepauper/status/1562548361815019521
Yeah, call me crazy, but I’m not gonna give these people a bunch of money. Hard pass.
“powered by public funding” that is the key phrase in all of this. And what public funding? Well the initiative provides no funding mechanisms at all leaving it to the will of the council/mayor to sort it out. Let’s face it, in reality the only funding mechanism available for this would be a voter approved property tax increase or bumping up the jumpstart tax. I really can’t envision the former happening and even the latter seems like a long shot. This may feel good to vote for but a more concrete plan with an identified revenue source would have been a much better proposal.
I’d asked one of the signature gatherers how it would be funded and he said it would be self-funded. I was dubious, and it looks like I was right to be. He straight-up lied, then.
Newsflash. We don’t need a whole new authority to produce this type of income targeting housing. The city has programs and a department – it just needs new funds that are allowed to be deployed in this way. New funds the intiative doesn’t identify. The limit isn’t with federal funding, but with the City level funding that is already in place that only go up to 60% AMI. Fix that issue and use the exisiting public development authorities and network of developers that already exist. Creating a huge new bureacracy within the City to do this isn’t the easy answer that the iniative’s writers what votes to think it is. We have a huge housing crisis. It’s complex and expensive. This iniative seems too good to be true and it is in the sense that it’s all headline and no reality.
Over/under on this thing passing? I seriously doubt >50% of voters will be interested in a new city bureaucracy getting into the business of owning and managing apartment buildings.