February 7, 2025 • 36 mins
Seattle voters will decide between two competing social housing funding measures in a special election ending Feb. 11. Proposition 1A, backed by labor and community groups, proposes a payroll tax on high earners to generate $53M annually. Proposition 1B, supported by the Chamber of Commerce, redirects $10M from existing funds.
We chat with Rian Watt and Tiffani McCoy about the initiatives and their potential impact.
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii. Find our guest Tiffani McCoy on Twitter/X at @houserneighbors and guest Rian Watt on Bluesky at @rianwatt.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:13):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Be sure to subscribe to thepodcast to get the full versions
(00:34):
of our Friday week-in-reviewshow and our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, the most helpfulthing you can do is leave a review
wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks.
Full transcripts and resourcesreferenced in the show are always
available at officialhacksandwonks.comand in our episode notes.
Welcome to today's Hacks & Wonksshow, where we'll explore the social
(00:56):
housing initiative appearing onSeattle ballots that you received in
the mail and that need to be returnedby this Tuesday, February 11th.
Social housing is a public optionfor housing that is designed
to be permanently affordable,community-controlled, and exist outside
the speculative real estate market.
It's designed to be self-sustaining,with an initial public investment
(01:18):
covering development costs,while operating expenses are
maintained through rental income.
Unlike programs like more traditionalpublic housing programs in the US
that many folks are familiar with likeSection 8, which provide assistance
to renters to pay private landlords,social housing focuses on providing
affordable housing directly toresidents, removing the profit motive
(01:39):
and ensuring long-term affordability.
This model works alongsideexisting affordable housing
programs, offering an additionalapproach to address housing needs.
On the ballot, you'll encountertwo propositions: Proposition
1A and Proposition 1B.
Proposition 1A was initiated by a majorityof Seattle residents voting to approve
(02:00):
the creation of a Social Housing Developerin 2023, and it proposes to fund social
housing by taxing excess compensation.
Specifically, it targets companiesthat pay individual employees
over $1 million annually.
So if a business in Seattle has nineemployees who each make $300,000 in total
compensation per year, and one employeewho makes $1.1 million per year, the tax
(02:25):
they would pay would only be for thatone employee, and only on the amount of
compensation that is over $1,000,000.
This tax is expected to generateapproximately $53 million dollars
per year, dedicated to developingmixed-income social housing.
Proposition 1B is an alternativemeasure referred to the ballot
(02:45):
by the Seattle City Council.
It is funded through existingpayroll expense tax revenues to fund
the Social Housing Developer, withoversight from the Office of Housing.
So this doesn't raise any new taxrevenue, but reallocates existing
payroll tax funds paid by all Seattlebusinesses from the city budget.
This tax would allocate $10million per year for five years.
(03:08):
It's important to know that thiswill appear differently than most
races you're used to on your ballot.
Instead of being a simple yes or noquestion, this is a two-part question.
In the first part, you'll decidewhether to fund social housing at all.
Your ballot asks, "Should eitherof these measures be enacted into
law?" with a yes or no choice.
A 'Yes' vote indicates support forimplementing one of the funding
(03:29):
measures for social housing.
A 'No' vote opposes both measures.
The second part of this ballot questionasks: "Regardless of whether you
voted yes or no above, if one of thesemeasures is enacted, which one should
it be?" So if you want to supportthe citizen initiative funding model,
vote 'Yes' on Question 1 and thenselect Proposition 1A in Question 2.
(03:51):
If you prefer the City Council'salternative, you'll vote 'Yes'
on Question 1 and then selectProposition 1B in Question 2.
You may vote on Question 2 regardlessof your response to Question 1.
When these votes are tallied byKing County Elections, they'll tally
the first part of the question.
If the 'Yes' vote receives a majorityof the votes, then whichever option
(04:14):
for Question 2 - Proposition 1A or 1B- receives a majority of the votes will win.
If a majority of voters vote 'No'on the first question, neither
option 1A or 1B will be implemented.
Now, we'll dive into our conversationto discuss all of this in more detail.
Well today, I'm very excited to bejoined by Rian Watt, fellow Urbanist
(04:37):
board member and local housing advocate.
And Tiffani McCoy, the co-ED of HouseOur Neighbors, the group that passed
the social housing initiative onSeattle's ballot in 2023 - that was
passed by Seattle voters - and is nowcampaigning for Proposition 1A, which
is one of two propositions that Seattlevoters will see on the ballots that
(04:58):
you should now have in your hands andthat are due by Tuesday, February 11th.
Welcome to you both.
Glad to be here.
Thanks for having us.
Glad to have you.
So just starting out - as we'retalking about this initiative, as
people are seeing this on theirballot, can you start by explaining
what social housing is and how itdiffers from other forms of housing?
(05:20):
Yeah, so thanks forhaving us again, Crystal.
As promised to voters in 2023, House OurNeighbors is back with a revenue measure
to fund the social housing developerthat they created by a 14-point margin.
And yeah, as a refresher and animportant educational note, social
housing is different from whatwe currently do in multiple ways.
But I'll say that the most importantpart is that it actually expands how we
(05:45):
currently approach affordable housingwhile simultaneously taking away all
of the restrictions that the federalgovernment imposes upon jurisdictions.
I don't think people really understandhow much the federal government
limits our ability to build affordablehousing and also how much we are
reliant on the federal governmentto build affordable housing.
And for those who are paying attention- know that the federal government is
(06:07):
pretty chaotic and in disarray, and weshould not be depending on them to fund
affordable housing or any of our programsin the near future - so social housing
is a way to kind of Trump-proof Seattle.
And social housing is permanentlyaffordable, it is publicly-owned
in perpetuity, and it isfree from market speculation.
So what that means is, unlike theprivate market, which dominates
(06:28):
our housing supply system, socialhousing is not there to make a profit.
It's there to make sure that housingis provided as a public good, and it's
something that we desperately need inour city that only has about 5% to 6%
of our housing stock as affordable.
Now, Rian, you have been an advocate forsocial housing throughout this process.
As you're talking to peoplein the community, how are
(06:50):
you explaining this to them?
And what's their generalreception when they hear about it?
I think it's really important to startthe conversation about social housing with
the conversation about housing in general.
I think everyone in this city understandsthat we're in a housing crisis, but I
think very few people understand the depthof that crisis and how difficult it's
(07:10):
going to be to fight our way out of it.
We have, over the last 20 years,grown faster than almost every
city in the entire country.
And although we've built a lot of housingover those 20 years, we haven't built
nearly enough to keep up with demand.
And so we're in a position where a muchlarger number of people are chasing
an ever smaller amount of housing.
And it's no surprise, therefore,that rents have climbed and
(07:33):
that the people with the leastability to pay have been left out.
So we are in the middle of a housingcrisis - and that is why I am
supportive of almost anything thatwill put more housing into this market.
I'm supportive of more market ratehousing and more density across the city.
I'm supportive of moretraditional affordable housing.
And I'm supportive of social housingas a tool to make real a government
(07:56):
commitment to solving this problem.
I think social housing is a reallyimportant part of the mix because it lets
the City of Seattle put a line in thesand that says this is a problem that we
have an obligation to solve, that we havethe ambition to solve, and that we're
going to do everything we can to putsome housing permanently within reach of
people least able to pay in this city.
(08:16):
Now that's really interesting.
And continuing on that, you talkedabout the different forms of housing
subsidies and affordable housing that wehave - a lot of people think about public
housing, they think about Section 8.
They think about a variety of programsthat we have - a number of them from
the federal level, from the county level- to help make housing more affordable.
(08:36):
Does this replace those?
Does it work alongside of those?
And why do we need a different form ofaffordable housing if we already have it?
I think we need more housing ofall kinds because we are so far
behind in housing production.
But even if we spent three or fourtimes what we're spending now on deeply
affordable housing, we A] wouldn't haveenough of that, and B] wouldn't have
(08:58):
enough housing available for the peoplewho are not quite at the 30% of Area
Median Income level, which is a levelthat a lot of traditional affordable
housing providers are working towards.
But people who are maybe at 100% or 120%of Area Median Income - so they're doing
reasonably well by the standards of atraditional affordable housing provider,
but they are still tremendously costburdened and unable to pay a reasonable
(09:21):
amount for rent in the city - socialhousing, I think, can be a tool to
help get those folks a place that theycan live affordably in perpetuity.
That makes sense.
Now, housing has been expensive,as you said, and getting more
expensive for the past 10, 20 years.
Is this initiative somethingthat can really fix that?
(09:45):
Because we've had a lot of affordablehousing developments - or I don't
know about a lot, but some - and theyhaven't quite bent that cost curve.
What makes social housingdifferent, Tiffani?
Yeah, so I would say that a lot ofpeople don't understand like one
really important thing about affordablehousing - and that is that all affordable
housing that is in production now, orthat has just opened, or is already
(10:09):
open, actually has a time limit on it.
When the federal government is fundingthrough Section 8 or project-based
vouchers or the Low-Income HousingTax Credit, those are like 15, 30,
maybe 50-year affordability timelines.
And then after that, you often see a lotof these developers putting this housing
onto the private market because they can'tmake it pencil anymore - because those
(10:30):
rental subsidies have been eliminatedby the federal government, have run out.
And we also see affordable housingdevelopers - when those tax credits
run out - putting them on the market.
So these are developments that publicmoney has gone into, often publicly,
and has been granted to, and thenwe're losing that public dollar and
that public investment by havingto be sold to the private market.
(10:51):
So social housing is a way to remedythat by it being required to be
owned in the public in perpetuity.
And unlike traditional affordablehousing, it does not rely on those federal
subsidies - the rental subsidies, Section8, or project-based vouchers - in order
to pencil because of a key component.
And that is called cross-subsidization.
So that's where you have the incomemix - you have those in the middle-income
(11:13):
area paying 30% of their [incomeas] rent into the building, which
will cross-subsidize those at thelower end of the income spectrum.
This also gets away from the inherentsegregation of our public housing
system - where poor people live overhere because they're in a certain AMI
bracket, and then rich and wealthierpeople live over here - which also
has a really negative ripple effect onour schools, on our education system.
(11:35):
And social housing could also make surethat we're not losing our families and all
of the talent that makes Seattle so great.
The question was - Will social housingsolve all of our housing problems?
And the answer, of course, is no.
But that's no reason not to do it.
If you get a 5% off coupon at thegrocery store, you don't throw it
out because it's not 100% off - youtake the 5% and you move forward
(11:57):
and try to buy your groceries.
Social housing is an importantpart of what we're trying to do in
this city, it's not the only part.
There's lots of other things weneed to do to make this a really
affordable, abundant city for everyone.
But it's a critical thing to do, andthe fact that it won't solve every
problem is no reason to overlookthe problems it does solve, which I
think Tiffani laid out really nicely.
I want to talk about the fundingmechanism for this because this is
(12:21):
one of a two-part ballot question,Proposition 1A and Proposition 1B.
The funding mechanism forthem both are different.
What is the fundingmechanism for Proposition 1A?
How does it differ from 1B?
And why did you choose togo the route that you did?
Yes, important question.
And unfortunately, there are threechoices on the ballot, because
(12:43):
people could vote 'No' overall.
But we're here to talk about whywe need social housing and why
folks should vote 'Yes' on 1A.
1A creates an excesscompensation payroll tax.
Any company that has workers in thecity of Seattle that make over $1
million in total compensation - that'sincluding bonuses, deferred compensation,
(13:05):
stock options, etc - they would pay5% on all income over $1 million
to the social housing payroll tax.
And that's $1 million in one year?
That's $1 million in one year, so-
So I'm not falling in thatbracket is what we're saying.
Correct.
It is the wealthiest amongus that would be paying this.
And it is the employer, it is notthe employee that would pay this.
(13:26):
1B, which is sponsored by Amazon,Microsoft, the Chamber of Commerce,
would actually take money from affordablehousing providers who are providing that
deeply necessary affordable housing andsiphon that money away to social housing.
Which also, the money from 1Bwould not actually stand up the
model of social housing, but Iknow we'll get into that later.
(13:46):
I want to add a few things here.
First, I think it's reallyimportant to emphasize that the
Proposition 1A would tax businesseson compensation to individual
employees of over a million dollars.
So if you're a small businessowner listening to this right now,
and your total payroll is over amillion dollars, you don't have to
worry - unless you're paying anyone person over a million dollars.
(14:09):
And even if you're paying any oneperson over a million dollars,
that first million is totallytax-free - under this proposed tax.
And if you're paying them a milliondollars and one dollar in addition,
you're paying five cents into this tax.
It is such a comically small amount ofmoney for a business that is operating
at that scale, that is hiring employeesthat they're compensating at that level.
(14:32):
And the potential socialbenefit is so incredibly high.
I also want to add on to alittle bit of what Tiffani
talked about with Proposition 1B.
Because I think given that Microsoft,Amazon, the Chamber of Commerce are
supporting it, it's worth talkingabout why they're supporting it.
All three of those organizationsunderstand that we're in a housing crisis.
And in fact, they're leadingon a lot of local advocacy
(14:53):
to solve our housing crisis.
They are, for example, workingto support a really strong
Comprehensive Plan to allow us tobuild more housing all over the city.
It's not that they don't understandthat housing is a problem, it's that
they don't want to pay for the solution.
They like housing, but theylike not being taxed more.
And so they have put togethera proposal that would require
them to pay nothing in addition.
And would, as Tiffani said, cut moneythat is already being directed to
(15:15):
affordable housing production in thecity in an effort to mislead voters
about what is really at stake here.
And I think that's a real shame.
And I think that a more forward-thinking,a more ambitious City Council, and
a more forward-thinking set of localcorporations would have understood that
this is an opportunity to really investin the place that they call home, invest
(15:37):
in the people who live here, investin the workers who live here - and pay
a very small share of the tremendouswealth that they've accrued to do so.
I want to talk a little bit moreabout the supporters of Proposition
1B and what they're saying andhow they're comparing 1B to 1A.
One of the things that we've seen themsay is that Proposition 1B provides
(16:00):
more oversight and accountabilitybecause it puts this funding under
the city's Office of Housing who hasexperience in managing these funds.
And the public developer does not yet.
How do you address that?
Do you feel that there's a difference inaccountability, a lack of accountability?
(16:20):
How do you size that up?
Well, the point to make here is that thiscity has got to stop thinking so small.
When Seattle was growing in theearly part of the 20th century,
we literally demolished wholehills in order to make this a city
where lots of people should grow.
Now, I don't support demolishing wholehills necessarily, but I love the
ambition of saying - if we're going tobe the kind of city we want to be, we are
(16:43):
going to need to do big things together.
And this Council, despite saying thatthey understand the magnitude of the
housing crisis we're in, this councilhas not been willing to do the kind of
truly bold thinking that the city needs.
And I think that it is very fair to saythat we need to make sure that public
(17:03):
money is well-spent and well-safeguarded,that it needs to be run by professionals
who know what they're doing.
The Social Housing Developer shouldabsolutely work to be staffed with folks
who are really technically expert in howto stand up really good, high-quality
programs and services around housing.
And the public has everyright to expect that.
And the way to do that is to give themthe resources to do the job right.
(17:26):
And I think that's what 1A does.
The amount of money that is directedto the Social Housing Developer by
1B - which is about $10 million ayear - is not going to be adequate to
do the kind of work that the SocialHousing Developer is commanded by the
people of the city of Seattle to do.
They voted to stand this thing up in 2023.
They said this is what they want.
The Social Housing Developer hasfigured out what they need in order
(17:48):
to execute on that vision that thecity of Seattle has signed up for.
And this is an opportunity to do it.
Well, one of the other things that they'vebrought up is that 1A doesn't mandate that
this social housing that people will haveaccess to goes to the people who can least
afford it - the people with the lowestincomes - that this is something that
(18:12):
even people with middle incomes can takeadvantage of with lower housing costs.
Is this an advantage, a disadvantage?
How do you address saying that this isn'tlimited to people who can least afford it?
I would go back to what Rian haspreviously reiterated, and that's that
(18:32):
the city of Seattle voters have alreadyvoted on the mandate of social housing.
They voted for a mixed-incomehousing developer that serves
populations that make between 0%to 120% of the Area Median Income.
Voters have said that they don'twant to keep funding income cliffs
and benefits cliffs for residentsthat live in affordable housing.
And when they get a bonus or they get awage increase - where workers have to put
(18:57):
off that wage increase because they'regoing to lose their housing voucher or
they're going to lose access to their MFTE[Multi-Family Tax Exemption] apartment.
So I think that voters have already saidvery clearly what they want to fund.
And then second, what I find reallydisturbing about the Chamber and this
Council's opposition to 1A and whatthey say that they support through
1B is what they're wanting to fund isanother low-income housing developer.
(19:20):
They are inherently saying theydo not support social housing.
If you ask the Chamber of Commerce,do you want voters to vote 'Yes' on 1,
which is required to fund social housing,they will tell you that they're neutral.
So they are actually neutral - readinto that - they're opposed to the
funding of the Social Housing Developer.
So they are putting this forward toconfuse voters, they're putting this
(19:41):
forward to reach to those voters who thinkthat only the lowest-income individuals
should be getting public dollars.
What we are saying with 1A, isthat all Seattleites deserve
access to the public goods.
Housing should be viewed as a public good.
I take my kid to my local public school.
I make over 80% of the Area Median Income.
Am I supposed to not be able totake her to my public school?
(20:03):
Or I go to the library every day withher, or every week - let's say every week.
And that is somethingthat is a public good.
We need to be getting away from thisidea that housing is a commodity,
that it's an asset on a balance sheet.
And 1A is the only funding proposalbefore people that raises new taxes
and funds the mixed-income model.
1B is actually a voteagainst social housing.
(20:24):
As you and I have spoken aboutbefore, Crystal, on this show - I
think the nature of housing policyis that people have really poor
assumptions about what is needed.
They understand thathousing is unaffordable.
And so they think to themselves - Well,what we need to do is build housing
that is from-the-start affordableto people at very low incomes.
(20:45):
And that's not wrong in the sensethat we need lots of housing that is
affordable for folks with low income.
But it is counterproductive in the sensethat if we continue to operate in a
place where housing supply is incrediblyscarce in this city, rents are only going
to go up and the amount of subsidy thatwe are going to need to invest to make
housing affordable to people with very lowincomes is going to keep going up as well.
(21:06):
So we need to build housingfor folks with low income.
We need to build housing forfolks with middle income.
And we need to build housingfor folks with high income.
We need to build housing across theentire spectrum so that the total cost
of housing can go down for everyone.
Well, and I want to talk a littlebit more about that, especially
the scale and the scope.
One of the things that proponents of 1Bhave said is that their more incremental
(21:32):
approach gives the developer time to workwith smaller amounts, get more experience,
have more accountability attached tothat before getting additional funds.
Whereas 1A has a lot moremoney to do a lot more upfront.
Do you think having moremoney, more resources for the
(21:53):
developer is a good thing?
Or does it kind of lead to a lack ofaccountability or, you know, get exposed
potentially with a lack of experience?
I think very often concernsabout process get used as a cover
for concerns about substance.
As Tiffani said, I think that a majorityof our current city council is opposed
(22:16):
to the idea of social housing in general.
And so when they talk about concerns aboutpublic mismanagement of funds - which
I think almost everyone shares, no onewants public's money to be wasted - they
are using that to cover for oppositionto the idea of doing social housing.
I think it is highly unlikely that wewould enter an environment where 1B
passes, $10 million a year is givento the Social Housing Developer, they
(22:37):
absolutely kill it, and this Councilmajority says - You know what this means?
We should give the SocialHousing Developer more money.
I would love it if that wasthe case, but I don't think
that's what's going to happen.
We do not have time to practice.
We need to start buildinghousing as fast as possible.
We should do it well - the Social HousingDeveloper should work to make sure that
(22:58):
its board and staff are filled with peoplewho are experienced at managing public
money and are experienced at developinghousing, I think that's really important.
And we should give them as much resourceas possible in order to do their work as
quickly and at the scale that's needed.
The only thing I would add is thatSeattle should be at the forefront.
We have a mayor who continuesto talk about One Seattle and we
(23:19):
should have Space Needle thinking.
But what we see around the countryis more jurisdictions latching onto
social housing as a proven modeland as a proven solution today.
And what our Mayor and our City Councilare saying, which Rian has alluded to,
is that we should just take it slow.
We should pilot this.
We should see if it works.
But we know from Montgomery County,Maryland, that this model works.
(23:40):
We know from Atlanta, who justcreated a mixed-income social
housing model, that they are breakingground on their first development.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, Boston, Hawaii,California, Denver - these places
are all looking at social housingbecause 1], they don't want to rely
on the federal government forever.
B] they know that their constituentsare in crisis, that the housing crisis
(24:03):
is accelerating quicker than thefederal government can keep up with.
And C] because they want to createhousing as a public good and
they want to make sure that thecommunities that make their cities
great don't continue to be displaced.
Absolutely.
And it certainly does seem likethis, as much as any time that we
can remember, seems like a risky timeto depend on the federal government
(24:25):
for continued funding for a numberof things, including public housing.
We'll see how that turns out in time.
But it certainly makes sensethat people are looking at
alternative funding sources.
Now, let's talk about who supports andwho opposes each of these initiatives,
and the coalitions for each.
(24:46):
I want to talk about 1B - we kind oftouched on that a little bit before
where we've seen the Chamber ofCommerce, Amazon, some of the larger
corporations and more wealthy people herein the area supporting it and putting
a lot of money behind the campaign.
How do you see that and why do youthink that they're supporting 1B and not
(25:10):
1A?
I touched on this before, but Iknow that these corporations see
that we have a housing crisis.
And I know that with some exceptions,which we're about to get to, they
want to do work to contributeto ending the housing crisis.
The Chamber of Commerce has workedreally closely with The Urbanist and
with House Our Neighbors in coalitionon a great Comprehensive Plan that will
build more housing across the city.
(25:32):
They want more housing.
But what they want even morethan that is to not be taxed.
And that - those two priorities havecome into conflict for them, and
I think we've seen that the higherpriority for them than building more
housing in the city is to not be taxed.
That's their incentive.
You know, they're private companies,and the Chamber of Commerce represents
private companies that, you know,are going to always do what's in
the interest of their corporations.
(25:54):
I think it's time for the votersof Seattle to do what's in their
interest, which is to build as muchhousing as possible, and I think
the Social Housing Developer isa great opportunity to do that.
Yeah, this is really a questionabout who's going to pay the cost
here, who's going to foot this bill?
Is it corporations?
Who foots the bill with 1A andwho foots the bill with 1B - in
(26:16):
your estimation, Tiffani?
1A would be the wealthiest businessesin our region would foot the bill.
1B would be regular Seattleites, everyday
Seattleites.
We had something called the JumpStartPayroll Tax, and that was supposed to
fund overwhelmingly affordable housing,so those who are in the most need - 0%
to 80% of the Area Median Income.
(26:36):
The Chamber was unfortunately behindthe effort, alongside the City Council,
to eviscerate that spending planwhich mandated hundreds of millions of
dollars to go to affordable housing.
So now our affordable housingdevelopers have to go to the City
Council every year and beg again forscraps to serve our most-in-need.
Whereas 1A is saying, We have tremendouswealth in this city, we should be taxing
(26:59):
that, we should be diverting thosefunds over to serving the public good.
And making sure that the workers ofAmazon, the workers of Microsoft, the
workers at the Chamber of Commerce thatmake these places run are actually able to
afford the city in which they make great.
That makes a big difference.
I want to talk again just kind of aboutthe scale of what we're facing, and
(27:21):
how 1A and 1B each stack up in theirability to meet the scale of the problem.
We're seeing really expensive housingfrom apartments to homes - everything
has skyrocketed over the past decade.
How will 1A impact that andhow will 1B impact that?
(27:41):
Yeah, I think it is important - and Iknow if I had a political consultant
managing this campaign, they'd tellme not to say this, but House Our
Neighbors - we are not politicians.
We try to be reallyhonest with the public.
We are not promisingan overnight solution.
We're not promising a silver bullet.
We're not saying that in fiveyears, everyone will be able to
move into a social housing building.
(28:02):
But we are so, so far behind in housingproduction in this state - we have to try
everything we can, as Rian has laid out.
That's why we need toend exclusionary zoning.
We need to make sure that we improvetransit-oriented development.
That we need social housing, weneed more affordable housing,
we need - we need everything.
We need this big bucket of ideasand we need to invest in them
(28:23):
all completely so that we don'tcontinue to see homelessness rise.
So with 1A, we're actually saying - andvery out loud - that the government
doesn't have a plan to solve thehousing affordability crisis.
The state doesn't, the city, the county,the federal government sure doesn't.
And while some people might be like- Oh, my God, don't say that out loud.
(28:44):
We see it as an opportunity tolook at what other jurisdictions
in our nation are doing, what othercountries are doing internationally
to provide housing as a public good.
We are so woefully behind, as Isaid at the top - only 5% or 6% of
our housing stock is affordable.
Right now, what we are saying to citizensof Seattle and anyone who wants to
move here is - You are going to haveto duke it out on the private market.
(29:07):
You are going to have to pay forsomeone's yacht, for someone's retirement
account, for their investment inthe housing market in order to meet
one of your most basic human needs.
1A is saying we don'thave to have that future.
1A is saying we can invest boldly, we canreach for the moon and invest in housing
as a public good here at the local level.
1B is, I would say, status quo.
(29:28):
I would say it's mildly paternalistic,as we talked about previously.
And I would say as well that it'sactually a vote against social housing
as it doesn't fund social housing.
It's just a way to confusevoters and to divert attention
away from the crisis at hand.
In my last job, I worked with communitiesin six different countries around
the world to try to build systemscapable of ending homelessness.
(29:50):
I worked in this country, I workedin Canada, I worked in Australia, in
Denmark, in France, and in the UK.
And although the systems have a lot ofcommonalities, one thing that was very
different in Denmark, in Australia, inFrance, and in Canada from this country
was that in all of those places, thegovernment has made a commitment that
(30:12):
there is a certain amount of housingthat they have a responsibility to build
to house those who are least able tosupport themselves in their societies.
Which is a little bit different thanthe social housing model that House
Our Neighbors is advocating for here,but nonetheless represents the same
commitment to solving the housing crisisthrough the public good that social
(30:34):
housing is trying to achieve here.
And let me tell you, it just madefor such a different conversation.
Because the conversation wasn't- Should the government step in to
do something to solve this crisis?
It was, How can we buildthis housing faster?
How can we build this housing better?
How can we make sure it's servingpeople as well as possible?
And that was, I think, theright conversation to be having.
One of the things that makes me so excitedabout the idea of standing up this Social
(30:55):
Housing Developer and then giving itthe resources to do what it needs to
do is it gives the public some directcontrol over solving the housing crisis.
We will have a place where we can goand say - We have a problem, the city
has an obligation to do something aboutit, this is a tool that they have at
their disposal to do something about it.
That really is bold thinking.
That's the public taking matters intotheir own hands and saying - We see
(31:19):
the scale of the problem, we want tosolve it, you're not moving fast enough.
And I think, again, if we had a moreambitious Council they would be leaning
into this and saying - Yes, we hear youthat we really need to take this on.
Here's how we're going to make theSocial Housing Developer successful.
Here's how we're goingto do this really well.
Here's how we're going to leaninto Seattle's long legacy of
leading on progressive governance.
It's really unfortunatethat they haven't done that.
(31:41):
I want to, again, be really clearthat I don't think social housing is
the only answer here - we need lotsmore market rate housing, we need lots
more private development, we need lotsmore traditional affordable housing
development and lots more statewidemoney to go into those systems.
But social housing is a really importantlever as well, and we should be doing
everything we can to make it successful.
So who is supporting social housing?
(32:02):
What does the coalition trying to passthis and in support of this look like?
Yeah, we actually made a comparisonchart of endorsers for 1A versus 1B.
And I think 1A has over 100 endorsers- that is labor, that is community
groups, that is faith communities,small businesses in our area.
(32:22):
And when you look at who hasofficially endorsed 1B, it's
only the Chamber of Commerce.
We know that Amazon, Microsoft, and theseothers support it based on, you know, they
have to disclose the contributions to 1B.
But yeah, we have the BuildingTrades, we have MLK Labor, we
have the Education Association.
And like I said, a bunch of reallyamazing small businesses in this
part of town, all over town, who knowthat housing costs are like really
(32:46):
wrecking their workers, wrecking theircustomers - their ability to just go
and buy coffee, go and buy a meal.
So we're really proud ofthe coalition we've built.
We're proud of thismovement that we've built.
We're proud of the state alsostarting to take up the discussion
of social housing with us.
We're just really excited thatsocial housing is taking off here.
So yeah, I would say it'slike a hundred to one.
(33:07):
Now we've talked about, Rian, themotivations that may be behind the
Chamber of Commerce and the peoplewho are funding the 1B campaign.
Why, in your opinion, are the wide varietyof people who are supporting and endorsing
1A, social housing, in support of it?
(33:28):
What difference does it make to them?
I think they're in support of it becausethey know that we're all in this together.
Our housing crisis affects all of us.
The most visible and the mostdangerous form of the housing crisis is
homelessness, which I've spent most of mycareer trying to end - people living and
dying in our streets as the direct resultof our inaction on the housing crisis.
(33:51):
But it's not just people whoare experiencing or at risk
of homelessness that suffer.
It's people who want to live andraise families here and can't
find any family-sized housingthat's within their budget.
It's seniors who want tostay in their neighborhoods.
It's people who grew up herewho want to move back to the
neighborhood that they grew up in.
It's people who want to move into ourcity and take advantage of all that it
(34:12):
has to offer but can't afford to do it.
It's people who need to move fartherand farther away from the center of our
social life in order to afford something.
Our housing crisis affects all of us.
It affects where we - obviously - live,but it affects the people that
we get to spend time with and thecommunities that we're a part of.
And I think all of thesegroups understand that.
And they understand that we needto be ambitious in how we solve it.
(34:35):
They understand that although socialhousing hasn't been tested in this
city, it's been tested in this country,and it's been tested around the world.
And we deserve to think big about howwe should live together - and this
gives us an opportunity to do that.
Well, thank you very much.
Appreciate you both taking thetime to share more with us about
(34:57):
Propositions 1A and your thoughts on 1B.
And to the listeners who are followingalong, please make sure to turn in your
ballot, to tell everyone else in the cityof Seattle that you know to return their
ballots by this Tuesday, February 11th.
Thank you so much - talk to you soon.
Thank you.
(35:18):
Thanks for having us.
Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks,which is produced by Shannon Cheng.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Twitter @HacksWonks.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on everypodcast service and app - just type
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed.
(35:40):
If you like us, leave areview wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com and
in the podcast episode notes.
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
(36:02):
time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Be sure to subscribe to thepodcast to get the full versions
(00:34):
of our Friday week-in-reviewshow and our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, the most helpfulthing you can do is leave a review
wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks.
Full transcripts and resourcesreferenced in the show are always
available at officialhacksandwonks.comand in our episode notes.
Welcome to today's Hacks & Wonksshow, where we'll explore the social
(00:56):
housing initiative appearing onSeattle ballots that you received in
the mail and that need to be returnedby this Tuesday, February 11th.
Social housing is a public optionfor housing that is designed
to be permanently affordable,community-controlled, and exist outside
the speculative real estate market.
It's designed to be self-sustaining,with an initial public investment
(01:18):
covering development costs,while operating expenses are
maintained through rental income.
Unlike programs like more traditionalpublic housing programs in the US
that many folks are familiar with likeSection 8, which provide assistance
to renters to pay private landlords,social housing focuses on providing
affordable housing directly toresidents, removing the profit motive
(01:39):
and ensuring long-term affordability.
This model works alongsideexisting affordable housing
programs, offering an additionalapproach to address housing needs.
On the ballot, you'll encountertwo propositions: Proposition
1A and Proposition 1B.
Proposition 1A was initiated by a majorityof Seattle residents voting to approve
(02:00):
the creation of a Social Housing Developerin 2023, and it proposes to fund social
housing by taxing excess compensation.
Specifically, it targets companiesthat pay individual employees
over $1 million annually.
So if a business in Seattle has nineemployees who each make $300,000 in total
compensation per year, and one employeewho makes $1.1 million per year, the tax
(02:25):
they would pay would only be for thatone employee, and only on the amount of
compensation that is over $1,000,000.
This tax is expected to generateapproximately $53 million dollars
per year, dedicated to developingmixed-income social housing.
Proposition 1B is an alternativemeasure referred to the ballot
(02:45):
by the Seattle City Council.
It is funded through existingpayroll expense tax revenues to fund
the Social Housing Developer, withoversight from the Office of Housing.
So this doesn't raise any new taxrevenue, but reallocates existing
payroll tax funds paid by all Seattlebusinesses from the city budget.
This tax would allocate $10million per year for five years.
(03:08):
It's important to know that thiswill appear differently than most
races you're used to on your ballot.
Instead of being a simple yes or noquestion, this is a two-part question.
In the first part, you'll decidewhether to fund social housing at all.
Your ballot asks, "Should eitherof these measures be enacted into
law?" with a yes or no choice.
A 'Yes' vote indicates support forimplementing one of the funding
(03:29):
measures for social housing.
A 'No' vote opposes both measures.
The second part of this ballot questionasks: "Regardless of whether you
voted yes or no above, if one of thesemeasures is enacted, which one should
it be?" So if you want to supportthe citizen initiative funding model,
vote 'Yes' on Question 1 and thenselect Proposition 1A in Question 2.
(03:51):
If you prefer the City Council'salternative, you'll vote 'Yes'
on Question 1 and then selectProposition 1B in Question 2.
You may vote on Question 2 regardlessof your response to Question 1.
When these votes are tallied byKing County Elections, they'll tally
the first part of the question.
If the 'Yes' vote receives a majorityof the votes, then whichever option
(04:14):
for Question 2 - Proposition 1A or 1B- receives a majority of the votes will win.
If a majority of voters vote 'No'on the first question, neither
option 1A or 1B will be implemented.
Now, we'll dive into our conversationto discuss all of this in more detail.
Well today, I'm very excited to bejoined by Rian Watt, fellow Urbanist
(04:37):
board member and local housing advocate.
And Tiffani McCoy, the co-ED of HouseOur Neighbors, the group that passed
the social housing initiative onSeattle's ballot in 2023 - that was
passed by Seattle voters - and is nowcampaigning for Proposition 1A, which
is one of two propositions that Seattlevoters will see on the ballots that
(04:58):
you should now have in your hands andthat are due by Tuesday, February 11th.
Welcome to you both.
Glad to be here.
Thanks for having us.
Glad to have you.
So just starting out - as we'retalking about this initiative, as
people are seeing this on theirballot, can you start by explaining
what social housing is and how itdiffers from other forms of housing?
(05:20):
Yeah, so thanks forhaving us again, Crystal.
As promised to voters in 2023, House OurNeighbors is back with a revenue measure
to fund the social housing developerthat they created by a 14-point margin.
And yeah, as a refresher and animportant educational note, social
housing is different from whatwe currently do in multiple ways.
But I'll say that the most importantpart is that it actually expands how we
(05:45):
currently approach affordable housingwhile simultaneously taking away all
of the restrictions that the federalgovernment imposes upon jurisdictions.
I don't think people really understandhow much the federal government
limits our ability to build affordablehousing and also how much we are
reliant on the federal governmentto build affordable housing.
And for those who are paying attention- know that the federal government is
(06:07):
pretty chaotic and in disarray, and weshould not be depending on them to fund
affordable housing or any of our programsin the near future - so social housing
is a way to kind of Trump-proof Seattle.
And social housing is permanentlyaffordable, it is publicly-owned
in perpetuity, and it isfree from market speculation.
So what that means is, unlike theprivate market, which dominates
(06:28):
our housing supply system, socialhousing is not there to make a profit.
It's there to make sure that housingis provided as a public good, and it's
something that we desperately need inour city that only has about 5% to 6%
of our housing stock as affordable.
Now, Rian, you have been an advocate forsocial housing throughout this process.
As you're talking to peoplein the community, how are
(06:50):
you explaining this to them?
And what's their generalreception when they hear about it?
I think it's really important to startthe conversation about social housing with
the conversation about housing in general.
I think everyone in this city understandsthat we're in a housing crisis, but I
think very few people understand the depthof that crisis and how difficult it's
(07:10):
going to be to fight our way out of it.
We have, over the last 20 years,grown faster than almost every
city in the entire country.
And although we've built a lot of housingover those 20 years, we haven't built
nearly enough to keep up with demand.
And so we're in a position where a muchlarger number of people are chasing
an ever smaller amount of housing.
And it's no surprise, therefore,that rents have climbed and
(07:33):
that the people with the leastability to pay have been left out.
So we are in the middle of a housingcrisis - and that is why I am
supportive of almost anything thatwill put more housing into this market.
I'm supportive of more market ratehousing and more density across the city.
I'm supportive of moretraditional affordable housing.
And I'm supportive of social housingas a tool to make real a government
(07:56):
commitment to solving this problem.
I think social housing is a reallyimportant part of the mix because it lets
the City of Seattle put a line in thesand that says this is a problem that we
have an obligation to solve, that we havethe ambition to solve, and that we're
going to do everything we can to putsome housing permanently within reach of
people least able to pay in this city.
(08:16):
Now that's really interesting.
And continuing on that, you talkedabout the different forms of housing
subsidies and affordable housing that wehave - a lot of people think about public
housing, they think about Section 8.
They think about a variety of programsthat we have - a number of them from
the federal level, from the county level- to help make housing more affordable.
(08:36):
Does this replace those?
Does it work alongside of those?
And why do we need a different form ofaffordable housing if we already have it?
I think we need more housing ofall kinds because we are so far
behind in housing production.
But even if we spent three or fourtimes what we're spending now on deeply
affordable housing, we A] wouldn't haveenough of that, and B] wouldn't have
(08:58):
enough housing available for the peoplewho are not quite at the 30% of Area
Median Income level, which is a levelthat a lot of traditional affordable
housing providers are working towards.
But people who are maybe at 100% or 120%of Area Median Income - so they're doing
reasonably well by the standards of atraditional affordable housing provider,
but they are still tremendously costburdened and unable to pay a reasonable
(09:21):
amount for rent in the city - socialhousing, I think, can be a tool to
help get those folks a place that theycan live affordably in perpetuity.
That makes sense.
Now, housing has been expensive,as you said, and getting more
expensive for the past 10, 20 years.
Is this initiative somethingthat can really fix that?
(09:45):
Because we've had a lot of affordablehousing developments - or I don't
know about a lot, but some - and theyhaven't quite bent that cost curve.
What makes social housingdifferent, Tiffani?
Yeah, so I would say that a lot ofpeople don't understand like one
really important thing about affordablehousing - and that is that all affordable
housing that is in production now, orthat has just opened, or is already
(10:09):
open, actually has a time limit on it.
When the federal government is fundingthrough Section 8 or project-based
vouchers or the Low-Income HousingTax Credit, those are like 15, 30,
maybe 50-year affordability timelines.
And then after that, you often see a lotof these developers putting this housing
onto the private market because they can'tmake it pencil anymore - because those
(10:30):
rental subsidies have been eliminatedby the federal government, have run out.
And we also see affordable housingdevelopers - when those tax credits
run out - putting them on the market.
So these are developments that publicmoney has gone into, often publicly,
and has been granted to, and thenwe're losing that public dollar and
that public investment by havingto be sold to the private market.
(10:51):
So social housing is a way to remedythat by it being required to be
owned in the public in perpetuity.
And unlike traditional affordablehousing, it does not rely on those federal
subsidies - the rental subsidies, Section8, or project-based vouchers - in order
to pencil because of a key component.
And that is called cross-subsidization.
So that's where you have the incomemix - you have those in the middle-income
(11:13):
area paying 30% of their [incomeas] rent into the building, which
will cross-subsidize those at thelower end of the income spectrum.
This also gets away from the inherentsegregation of our public housing
system - where poor people live overhere because they're in a certain AMI
bracket, and then rich and wealthierpeople live over here - which also
has a really negative ripple effect onour schools, on our education system.
(11:35):
And social housing could also make surethat we're not losing our families and all
of the talent that makes Seattle so great.
The question was - Will social housingsolve all of our housing problems?
And the answer, of course, is no.
But that's no reason not to do it.
If you get a 5% off coupon at thegrocery store, you don't throw it
out because it's not 100% off - youtake the 5% and you move forward
(11:57):
and try to buy your groceries.
Social housing is an importantpart of what we're trying to do in
this city, it's not the only part.
There's lots of other things weneed to do to make this a really
affordable, abundant city for everyone.
But it's a critical thing to do, andthe fact that it won't solve every
problem is no reason to overlookthe problems it does solve, which I
think Tiffani laid out really nicely.
I want to talk about the fundingmechanism for this because this is
(12:21):
one of a two-part ballot question,Proposition 1A and Proposition 1B.
The funding mechanism forthem both are different.
What is the fundingmechanism for Proposition 1A?
How does it differ from 1B?
And why did you choose togo the route that you did?
Yes, important question.
And unfortunately, there are threechoices on the ballot, because
(12:43):
people could vote 'No' overall.
But we're here to talk about whywe need social housing and why
folks should vote 'Yes' on 1A.
1A creates an excesscompensation payroll tax.
Any company that has workers in thecity of Seattle that make over $1
million in total compensation - that'sincluding bonuses, deferred compensation,
(13:05):
stock options, etc - they would pay5% on all income over $1 million
to the social housing payroll tax.
And that's $1 million in one year?
That's $1 million in one year, so-
So I'm not falling in thatbracket is what we're saying.
Correct.
It is the wealthiest amongus that would be paying this.
And it is the employer, it is notthe employee that would pay this.
(13:26):
1B, which is sponsored by Amazon,Microsoft, the Chamber of Commerce,
would actually take money from affordablehousing providers who are providing that
deeply necessary affordable housing andsiphon that money away to social housing.
Which also, the money from 1Bwould not actually stand up the
model of social housing, but Iknow we'll get into that later.
(13:46):
I want to add a few things here.
First, I think it's reallyimportant to emphasize that the
Proposition 1A would tax businesseson compensation to individual
employees of over a million dollars.
So if you're a small businessowner listening to this right now,
and your total payroll is over amillion dollars, you don't have to
worry - unless you're paying anyone person over a million dollars.
(14:09):
And even if you're paying any oneperson over a million dollars,
that first million is totallytax-free - under this proposed tax.
And if you're paying them a milliondollars and one dollar in addition,
you're paying five cents into this tax.
It is such a comically small amount ofmoney for a business that is operating
at that scale, that is hiring employeesthat they're compensating at that level.
(14:32):
And the potential socialbenefit is so incredibly high.
I also want to add on to alittle bit of what Tiffani
talked about with Proposition 1B.
Because I think given that Microsoft,Amazon, the Chamber of Commerce are
supporting it, it's worth talkingabout why they're supporting it.
All three of those organizationsunderstand that we're in a housing crisis.
And in fact, they're leadingon a lot of local advocacy
(14:53):
to solve our housing crisis.
They are, for example, workingto support a really strong
Comprehensive Plan to allow us tobuild more housing all over the city.
It's not that they don't understandthat housing is a problem, it's that
they don't want to pay for the solution.
They like housing, but theylike not being taxed more.
And so they have put togethera proposal that would require
them to pay nothing in addition.
And would, as Tiffani said, cut moneythat is already being directed to
(15:15):
affordable housing production in thecity in an effort to mislead voters
about what is really at stake here.
And I think that's a real shame.
And I think that a more forward-thinking,a more ambitious City Council, and
a more forward-thinking set of localcorporations would have understood that
this is an opportunity to really investin the place that they call home, invest
(15:37):
in the people who live here, investin the workers who live here - and pay
a very small share of the tremendouswealth that they've accrued to do so.
I want to talk a little bit moreabout the supporters of Proposition
1B and what they're saying andhow they're comparing 1B to 1A.
One of the things that we've seen themsay is that Proposition 1B provides
(16:00):
more oversight and accountabilitybecause it puts this funding under
the city's Office of Housing who hasexperience in managing these funds.
And the public developer does not yet.
How do you address that?
Do you feel that there's a difference inaccountability, a lack of accountability?
(16:20):
How do you size that up?
Well, the point to make here is that thiscity has got to stop thinking so small.
When Seattle was growing in theearly part of the 20th century,
we literally demolished wholehills in order to make this a city
where lots of people should grow.
Now, I don't support demolishing wholehills necessarily, but I love the
ambition of saying - if we're going tobe the kind of city we want to be, we are
(16:43):
going to need to do big things together.
And this Council, despite saying thatthey understand the magnitude of the
housing crisis we're in, this councilhas not been willing to do the kind of
truly bold thinking that the city needs.
And I think that it is very fair to saythat we need to make sure that public
(17:03):
money is well-spent and well-safeguarded,that it needs to be run by professionals
who know what they're doing.
The Social Housing Developer shouldabsolutely work to be staffed with folks
who are really technically expert in howto stand up really good, high-quality
programs and services around housing.
And the public has everyright to expect that.
And the way to do that is to give themthe resources to do the job right.
(17:26):
And I think that's what 1A does.
The amount of money that is directedto the Social Housing Developer by
1B - which is about $10 million ayear - is not going to be adequate to
do the kind of work that the SocialHousing Developer is commanded by the
people of the city of Seattle to do.
They voted to stand this thing up in 2023.
They said this is what they want.
The Social Housing Developer hasfigured out what they need in order
(17:48):
to execute on that vision that thecity of Seattle has signed up for.
And this is an opportunity to do it.
Well, one of the other things that they'vebrought up is that 1A doesn't mandate that
this social housing that people will haveaccess to goes to the people who can least
afford it - the people with the lowestincomes - that this is something that
(18:12):
even people with middle incomes can takeadvantage of with lower housing costs.
Is this an advantage, a disadvantage?
How do you address saying that this isn'tlimited to people who can least afford it?
I would go back to what Rian haspreviously reiterated, and that's that
(18:32):
the city of Seattle voters have alreadyvoted on the mandate of social housing.
They voted for a mixed-incomehousing developer that serves
populations that make between 0%to 120% of the Area Median Income.
Voters have said that they don'twant to keep funding income cliffs
and benefits cliffs for residentsthat live in affordable housing.
And when they get a bonus or they get awage increase - where workers have to put
(18:57):
off that wage increase because they'regoing to lose their housing voucher or
they're going to lose access to their MFTE[Multi-Family Tax Exemption] apartment.
So I think that voters have already saidvery clearly what they want to fund.
And then second, what I find reallydisturbing about the Chamber and this
Council's opposition to 1A and whatthey say that they support through
1B is what they're wanting to fund isanother low-income housing developer.
(19:20):
They are inherently saying theydo not support social housing.
If you ask the Chamber of Commerce,do you want voters to vote 'Yes' on 1,
which is required to fund social housing,they will tell you that they're neutral.
So they are actually neutral - readinto that - they're opposed to the
funding of the Social Housing Developer.
So they are putting this forward toconfuse voters, they're putting this
(19:41):
forward to reach to those voters who thinkthat only the lowest-income individuals
should be getting public dollars.
What we are saying with 1A, isthat all Seattleites deserve
access to the public goods.
Housing should be viewed as a public good.
I take my kid to my local public school.
I make over 80% of the Area Median Income.
Am I supposed to not be able totake her to my public school?
(20:03):
Or I go to the library every day withher, or every week - let's say every week.
And that is somethingthat is a public good.
We need to be getting away from thisidea that housing is a commodity,
that it's an asset on a balance sheet.
And 1A is the only funding proposalbefore people that raises new taxes
and funds the mixed-income model.
1B is actually a voteagainst social housing.
(20:24):
As you and I have spoken aboutbefore, Crystal, on this show - I
think the nature of housing policyis that people have really poor
assumptions about what is needed.
They understand thathousing is unaffordable.
And so they think to themselves - Well,what we need to do is build housing
that is from-the-start affordableto people at very low incomes.
(20:45):
And that's not wrong in the sensethat we need lots of housing that is
affordable for folks with low income.
But it is counterproductive in the sensethat if we continue to operate in a
place where housing supply is incrediblyscarce in this city, rents are only going
to go up and the amount of subsidy thatwe are going to need to invest to make
housing affordable to people with very lowincomes is going to keep going up as well.
(21:06):
So we need to build housingfor folks with low income.
We need to build housing forfolks with middle income.
And we need to build housingfor folks with high income.
We need to build housing across theentire spectrum so that the total cost
of housing can go down for everyone.
Well, and I want to talk a littlebit more about that, especially
the scale and the scope.
One of the things that proponents of 1Bhave said is that their more incremental
(21:32):
approach gives the developer time to workwith smaller amounts, get more experience,
have more accountability attached tothat before getting additional funds.
Whereas 1A has a lot moremoney to do a lot more upfront.
Do you think having moremoney, more resources for the
(21:53):
developer is a good thing?
Or does it kind of lead to a lack ofaccountability or, you know, get exposed
potentially with a lack of experience?
I think very often concernsabout process get used as a cover
for concerns about substance.
As Tiffani said, I think that a majorityof our current city council is opposed
(22:16):
to the idea of social housing in general.
And so when they talk about concerns aboutpublic mismanagement of funds - which
I think almost everyone shares, no onewants public's money to be wasted - they
are using that to cover for oppositionto the idea of doing social housing.
I think it is highly unlikely that wewould enter an environment where 1B
passes, $10 million a year is givento the Social Housing Developer, they
(22:37):
absolutely kill it, and this Councilmajority says - You know what this means?
We should give the SocialHousing Developer more money.
I would love it if that wasthe case, but I don't think
that's what's going to happen.
We do not have time to practice.
We need to start buildinghousing as fast as possible.
We should do it well - the Social HousingDeveloper should work to make sure that
(22:58):
its board and staff are filled with peoplewho are experienced at managing public
money and are experienced at developinghousing, I think that's really important.
And we should give them as much resourceas possible in order to do their work as
quickly and at the scale that's needed.
The only thing I would add is thatSeattle should be at the forefront.
We have a mayor who continuesto talk about One Seattle and we
(23:19):
should have Space Needle thinking.
But what we see around the countryis more jurisdictions latching onto
social housing as a proven modeland as a proven solution today.
And what our Mayor and our City Councilare saying, which Rian has alluded to,
is that we should just take it slow.
We should pilot this.
We should see if it works.
But we know from Montgomery County,Maryland, that this model works.
(23:40):
We know from Atlanta, who justcreated a mixed-income social
housing model, that they are breakingground on their first development.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, Boston, Hawaii,California, Denver - these places
are all looking at social housingbecause 1], they don't want to rely
on the federal government forever.
B] they know that their constituentsare in crisis, that the housing crisis
(24:03):
is accelerating quicker than thefederal government can keep up with.
And C] because they want to createhousing as a public good and
they want to make sure that thecommunities that make their cities
great don't continue to be displaced.
Absolutely.
And it certainly does seem likethis, as much as any time that we
can remember, seems like a risky timeto depend on the federal government
(24:25):
for continued funding for a numberof things, including public housing.
We'll see how that turns out in time.
But it certainly makes sensethat people are looking at
alternative funding sources.
Now, let's talk about who supports andwho opposes each of these initiatives,
and the coalitions for each.
(24:46):
I want to talk about 1B - we kind oftouched on that a little bit before
where we've seen the Chamber ofCommerce, Amazon, some of the larger
corporations and more wealthy people herein the area supporting it and putting
a lot of money behind the campaign.
How do you see that and why do youthink that they're supporting 1B and not
(25:10):
1A?
I touched on this before, but Iknow that these corporations see
that we have a housing crisis.
And I know that with some exceptions,which we're about to get to, they
want to do work to contributeto ending the housing crisis.
The Chamber of Commerce has workedreally closely with The Urbanist and
with House Our Neighbors in coalitionon a great Comprehensive Plan that will
build more housing across the city.
(25:32):
They want more housing.
But what they want even morethan that is to not be taxed.
And that - those two priorities havecome into conflict for them, and
I think we've seen that the higherpriority for them than building more
housing in the city is to not be taxed.
That's their incentive.
You know, they're private companies,and the Chamber of Commerce represents
private companies that, you know,are going to always do what's in
the interest of their corporations.
(25:54):
I think it's time for the votersof Seattle to do what's in their
interest, which is to build as muchhousing as possible, and I think
the Social Housing Developer isa great opportunity to do that.
Yeah, this is really a questionabout who's going to pay the cost
here, who's going to foot this bill?
Is it corporations?
Who foots the bill with 1A andwho foots the bill with 1B - in
(26:16):
your estimation, Tiffani?
1A would be the wealthiest businessesin our region would foot the bill.
1B would be regular Seattleites, everyday
Seattleites.
We had something called the JumpStartPayroll Tax, and that was supposed to
fund overwhelmingly affordable housing,so those who are in the most need - 0%
to 80% of the Area Median Income.
(26:36):
The Chamber was unfortunately behindthe effort, alongside the City Council,
to eviscerate that spending planwhich mandated hundreds of millions of
dollars to go to affordable housing.
So now our affordable housingdevelopers have to go to the City
Council every year and beg again forscraps to serve our most-in-need.
Whereas 1A is saying, We have tremendouswealth in this city, we should be taxing
(26:59):
that, we should be diverting thosefunds over to serving the public good.
And making sure that the workers ofAmazon, the workers of Microsoft, the
workers at the Chamber of Commerce thatmake these places run are actually able to
afford the city in which they make great.
That makes a big difference.
I want to talk again just kind of aboutthe scale of what we're facing, and
(27:21):
how 1A and 1B each stack up in theirability to meet the scale of the problem.
We're seeing really expensive housingfrom apartments to homes - everything
has skyrocketed over the past decade.
How will 1A impact that andhow will 1B impact that?
(27:41):
Yeah, I think it is important - and Iknow if I had a political consultant
managing this campaign, they'd tellme not to say this, but House Our
Neighbors - we are not politicians.
We try to be reallyhonest with the public.
We are not promisingan overnight solution.
We're not promising a silver bullet.
We're not saying that in fiveyears, everyone will be able to
move into a social housing building.
(28:02):
But we are so, so far behind in housingproduction in this state - we have to try
everything we can, as Rian has laid out.
That's why we need toend exclusionary zoning.
We need to make sure that we improvetransit-oriented development.
That we need social housing, weneed more affordable housing,
we need - we need everything.
We need this big bucket of ideasand we need to invest in them
(28:23):
all completely so that we don'tcontinue to see homelessness rise.
So with 1A, we're actually saying - andvery out loud - that the government
doesn't have a plan to solve thehousing affordability crisis.
The state doesn't, the city, the county,the federal government sure doesn't.
And while some people might be like- Oh, my God, don't say that out loud.
(28:44):
We see it as an opportunity tolook at what other jurisdictions
in our nation are doing, what othercountries are doing internationally
to provide housing as a public good.
We are so woefully behind, as Isaid at the top - only 5% or 6% of
our housing stock is affordable.
Right now, what we are saying to citizensof Seattle and anyone who wants to
move here is - You are going to haveto duke it out on the private market.
(29:07):
You are going to have to pay forsomeone's yacht, for someone's retirement
account, for their investment inthe housing market in order to meet
one of your most basic human needs.
1A is saying we don'thave to have that future.
1A is saying we can invest boldly, we canreach for the moon and invest in housing
as a public good here at the local level.
1B is, I would say, status quo.
(29:28):
I would say it's mildly paternalistic,as we talked about previously.
And I would say as well that it'sactually a vote against social housing
as it doesn't fund social housing.
It's just a way to confusevoters and to divert attention
away from the crisis at hand.
In my last job, I worked with communitiesin six different countries around
the world to try to build systemscapable of ending homelessness.
(29:50):
I worked in this country, I workedin Canada, I worked in Australia, in
Denmark, in France, and in the UK.
And although the systems have a lot ofcommonalities, one thing that was very
different in Denmark, in Australia, inFrance, and in Canada from this country
was that in all of those places, thegovernment has made a commitment that
(30:12):
there is a certain amount of housingthat they have a responsibility to build
to house those who are least able tosupport themselves in their societies.
Which is a little bit different thanthe social housing model that House
Our Neighbors is advocating for here,but nonetheless represents the same
commitment to solving the housing crisisthrough the public good that social
(30:34):
housing is trying to achieve here.
And let me tell you, it just madefor such a different conversation.
Because the conversation wasn't- Should the government step in to
do something to solve this crisis?
It was, How can we buildthis housing faster?
How can we build this housing better?
How can we make sure it's servingpeople as well as possible?
And that was, I think, theright conversation to be having.
One of the things that makes me so excitedabout the idea of standing up this Social
(30:55):
Housing Developer and then giving itthe resources to do what it needs to
do is it gives the public some directcontrol over solving the housing crisis.
We will have a place where we can goand say - We have a problem, the city
has an obligation to do something aboutit, this is a tool that they have at
their disposal to do something about it.
That really is bold thinking.
That's the public taking matters intotheir own hands and saying - We see
(31:19):
the scale of the problem, we want tosolve it, you're not moving fast enough.
And I think, again, if we had a moreambitious Council they would be leaning
into this and saying - Yes, we hear youthat we really need to take this on.
Here's how we're going to make theSocial Housing Developer successful.
Here's how we're goingto do this really well.
Here's how we're going to leaninto Seattle's long legacy of
leading on progressive governance.
It's really unfortunatethat they haven't done that.
(31:41):
I want to, again, be really clearthat I don't think social housing is
the only answer here - we need lotsmore market rate housing, we need lots
more private development, we need lotsmore traditional affordable housing
development and lots more statewidemoney to go into those systems.
But social housing is a really importantlever as well, and we should be doing
everything we can to make it successful.
So who is supporting social housing?
(32:02):
What does the coalition trying to passthis and in support of this look like?
Yeah, we actually made a comparisonchart of endorsers for 1A versus 1B.
And I think 1A has over 100 endorsers- that is labor, that is community
groups, that is faith communities,small businesses in our area.
(32:22):
And when you look at who hasofficially endorsed 1B, it's
only the Chamber of Commerce.
We know that Amazon, Microsoft, and theseothers support it based on, you know, they
have to disclose the contributions to 1B.
But yeah, we have the BuildingTrades, we have MLK Labor, we
have the Education Association.
And like I said, a bunch of reallyamazing small businesses in this
part of town, all over town, who knowthat housing costs are like really
(32:46):
wrecking their workers, wrecking theircustomers - their ability to just go
and buy coffee, go and buy a meal.
So we're really proud ofthe coalition we've built.
We're proud of thismovement that we've built.
We're proud of the state alsostarting to take up the discussion
of social housing with us.
We're just really excited thatsocial housing is taking off here.
So yeah, I would say it'slike a hundred to one.
(33:07):
Now we've talked about, Rian, themotivations that may be behind the
Chamber of Commerce and the peoplewho are funding the 1B campaign.
Why, in your opinion, are the wide varietyof people who are supporting and endorsing
1A, social housing, in support of it?
(33:28):
What difference does it make to them?
I think they're in support of it becausethey know that we're all in this together.
Our housing crisis affects all of us.
The most visible and the mostdangerous form of the housing crisis is
homelessness, which I've spent most of mycareer trying to end - people living and
dying in our streets as the direct resultof our inaction on the housing crisis.
(33:51):
But it's not just people whoare experiencing or at risk
of homelessness that suffer.
It's people who want to live andraise families here and can't
find any family-sized housingthat's within their budget.
It's seniors who want tostay in their neighborhoods.
It's people who grew up herewho want to move back to the
neighborhood that they grew up in.
It's people who want to move into ourcity and take advantage of all that it
(34:12):
has to offer but can't afford to do it.
It's people who need to move fartherand farther away from the center of our
social life in order to afford something.
Our housing crisis affects all of us.
It affects where we - obviously - live,but it affects the people that
we get to spend time with and thecommunities that we're a part of.
And I think all of thesegroups understand that.
And they understand that we needto be ambitious in how we solve it.
(34:35):
They understand that although socialhousing hasn't been tested in this
city, it's been tested in this country,and it's been tested around the world.
And we deserve to think big about howwe should live together - and this
gives us an opportunity to do that.
Well, thank you very much.
Appreciate you both taking thetime to share more with us about
(34:57):
Propositions 1A and your thoughts on 1B.
And to the listeners who are followingalong, please make sure to turn in your
ballot, to tell everyone else in the cityof Seattle that you know to return their
ballots by this Tuesday, February 11th.
Thank you so much - talk to you soon.
Thank you.
(35:18):
Thanks for having us.
Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks,which is produced by Shannon Cheng.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Twitter @HacksWonks.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on everypodcast service and app - just type
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed.
(35:40):
If you like us, leave areview wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com and
in the podcast episode notes.
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next
(36:02):
time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com