Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 11, 2009
City Drago Attempts to Trim Housing Levy
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:30 PM
The city council agreed this afternoon on a package that, if passed, would generate $145 million for affordable housing by raising property taxes in Seattle for the next seven years. If the council passes it on Monday, voters will consider the levy on the November ballot. But City Council Member Jan Drago stood out as the lone council voice seeking less money for low-income housing.
“I want a housing levy that can pass,” she said. “Polling suggests that as the total cost for the levy went down, support for the levy increased.” Drago made a motion to reduce the levy to $120 million. But Drago’s proposal—supposedly in the interest of cash strapped taxpayers in a poor economy—died immediately; not a single council member seconded it. Her proposal never had a chance of getting the council’s support, it seemed, and her concern that voters would reject a larger levy seems unfounded. Sixty-four percent of likely voters in the general election would support a $145 million housing levy, according to a poll conducted in March by pollster EMC Research. More likely, Drago was trying to distinguish herself from Mayor Greg Nickels, who proposed the $145 million in April. Drago is running against Nickels for mayor this year and has been trying to shed criticism that her policies are indistinguishable from the mayor's. In this proposal, Drago could be laying groundwork to argue the she supports lower property taxes than Nickels does.
A levy of $145 million would maintain the same level of affordable housing production and assistance as a levy voters passed in 2002 (while increasing the levy's tax rate by 69 percent for inflation and increased building costs).
A central issue for council, which was technically acting in the capacity of a committee today, was determining who would be eligible to live in the new apartments built with levy dollars. This gets sorta thick, but it’s also interesting. The levy proposal from Nickels didn’t exactly specify where 45 percent of the funds would go (he proposed that 55 percent would be spent on people making less than 30 percent of the area median income, and the rest could be spent on apartments for those making anywhere from 31 to 80 percent of the area median income). Some people were concerned that, under that plan, taxpayers potentially could end up subsiding hundreds of apartments for people making up to $44,800 a year. (More on that debate here.) Today, the council specifically designated all the future levy funds by income bracket. The levy as recommended would require at least 60 percent of the funds go to people making 30 percent or less of the area median income (under $17,700 for a one-person household), at least 30 percent of the funds for people making from 30 percent to 60 percent of the area media income (under $35,400), and less than 10 percent to people making up to 80 percent of the media income.
The council also favored including $14.4 million for maintaining exiting buildings and $9 million to help out low-income first-time home buyers.
In the end, Drago voted with the rest of the council committee to pass the levy eight to zero (Tom Rasmussen was absent). The full council will likely vote on the final package on Monday.
2
"The levy proposal from Nickels didn’t specify where 45 percent of the funds would go (only that 55 percent would be spent on people making between 30 percent and 80 percent of the area median income)."
Nope. Though I hate to give him credit and hope he loses the election, Nickels' proposal was more generous than that. It specified that 55 percent of the levy should be devoted to 30% and below median income.
Nope. Though I hate to give him credit and hope he loses the election, Nickels' proposal was more generous than that. It specified that 55 percent of the levy should be devoted to 30% and below median income.
3
@ 2) Thank you. And damn! I knew that but got my numbers crossed. I fixed the post to say that Nickels designated 55 percent of the funds for building apartments for those making 30 percent of the area median income or less, and that 45 percent went to those making 31 percent to 80 percent--and that's what pissed off housing advocates. They wanted to make sure that funds to those making above 60 percent of the area median income were severely restricted.
4
Let me get this straight. You are basing your belief that voters will still be willing to vote for a levy increase based upon a poll taken in March? Really?
I'm simply dumbstruck in awe that Seattle spends $100 million in subsidies so that homeless and poor artists have a comfy place to live. I don't think voters know what they are agreeing to. If they knew that they were footing the bill for some "artist" making $43,000 a year to have a sweet pad on the Hill, I think they'd be up in arms at the notion and would soundly DEFEAT that rate increase proposal.
Why is it again that you think it is reasonable to come ask the taxpayers for more money during this recession? Why is it reasonable to keep holding your hand out to take from the rich and redistribute it to the poor?
And especially why is it that you think it is reasonable to subsidize hipsters to be able to live on the Hill just because they decide to live in an expensive downtown neighborhood of an expensive city? Why should I as a taxpayer be saddled with providing an allowance to some hipster so that they can keep up their "cool" image?
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem trying to alleviate some of the homelessness in the county. But these subsidies are actually ATTRACTING freeloaders looking for an easy handout, and if this passes with the additional increases, you'll own see more and more "starving artists" adding themselves to the public dole.
If I were a citizen of Seattle, there would be NO WAY I'd vote to pass such folly legislation. This is just another example amongst a long list of similar reasons that many folks like me refuse to live in Seattle and participate in that liberal welfare haven's tax base.
And you all scratch your heads in wonder, unable to understand why anyone would choose to live out in the suburbs.
Here'sssss your sign
More...
I'm simply dumbstruck in awe that Seattle spends $100 million in subsidies so that homeless and poor artists have a comfy place to live. I don't think voters know what they are agreeing to. If they knew that they were footing the bill for some "artist" making $43,000 a year to have a sweet pad on the Hill, I think they'd be up in arms at the notion and would soundly DEFEAT that rate increase proposal.
Why is it again that you think it is reasonable to come ask the taxpayers for more money during this recession? Why is it reasonable to keep holding your hand out to take from the rich and redistribute it to the poor?
And especially why is it that you think it is reasonable to subsidize hipsters to be able to live on the Hill just because they decide to live in an expensive downtown neighborhood of an expensive city? Why should I as a taxpayer be saddled with providing an allowance to some hipster so that they can keep up their "cool" image?
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem trying to alleviate some of the homelessness in the county. But these subsidies are actually ATTRACTING freeloaders looking for an easy handout, and if this passes with the additional increases, you'll own see more and more "starving artists" adding themselves to the public dole.
If I were a citizen of Seattle, there would be NO WAY I'd vote to pass such folly legislation. This is just another example amongst a long list of similar reasons that many folks like me refuse to live in Seattle and participate in that liberal welfare haven's tax base.
And you all scratch your heads in wonder, unable to understand why anyone would choose to live out in the suburbs.
Here'sssss your sign
5
1. the tax falls (directly or indirectly) on all renters and all owners
2. thus it falls on people making 1, 2, 5, 15, 32 percent of median
3. thus it makes their housing more expensive, although they are the poorest
4. what's the point of taxing them to help those who make 80% of median, huh?
It makes us feel good?
2. thus it falls on people making 1, 2, 5, 15, 32 percent of median
3. thus it makes their housing more expensive, although they are the poorest
4. what's the point of taxing them to help those who make 80% of median, huh?
It makes us feel good?
6
At least there was a glimpse of opposition, even if Drago caved. We all have to earn our keep, without income-based exceptions - whether one makes 100%, 50%, or 150% of median, find housing that is sustainable within that income. Don't expect the Council to extend a handout (though it sounds like they will).
7
Great job Dom!!
@5 - i'm really confused - do you understand how this levy works? It's payed for by property taxes (and really isn't a significant amount, in reality. we're talking less than $100 per year for the average household). If people can afford to buy a home in Seattle, it's VERY likely that they don't fall in a "low income" category.
@4 - Please stay out of Seattle. You are selecting a SMALL amount of housing built with levy dollars. Yes, some work/live lofts for artists are built with levy money - but it's less than 5% of the housing built. The majority of this money goes to the poor, or workforce housing (and as the levy is written, the MAJORITY of it is going to the poor). And, the reason people need to live "on the hill" or downtown - is because that's where people work. It decreases transportation costs, and saves the environment (as vehicle travel is the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions).
And yes, Seattle voters will likely vote for this. 1)Because they aren't ignorant. 2)Because they believe people (yes, even artists) deserve a good place to live and 3) they've voted for the housing levies 4 times already - and they passed a $146MIL parks levy last year, so this isn't out of line.
@5 - i'm really confused - do you understand how this levy works? It's payed for by property taxes (and really isn't a significant amount, in reality. we're talking less than $100 per year for the average household). If people can afford to buy a home in Seattle, it's VERY likely that they don't fall in a "low income" category.
@4 - Please stay out of Seattle. You are selecting a SMALL amount of housing built with levy dollars. Yes, some work/live lofts for artists are built with levy money - but it's less than 5% of the housing built. The majority of this money goes to the poor, or workforce housing (and as the levy is written, the MAJORITY of it is going to the poor). And, the reason people need to live "on the hill" or downtown - is because that's where people work. It decreases transportation costs, and saves the environment (as vehicle travel is the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions).
And yes, Seattle voters will likely vote for this. 1)Because they aren't ignorant. 2)Because they believe people (yes, even artists) deserve a good place to live and 3) they've voted for the housing levies 4 times already - and they passed a $146MIL parks levy last year, so this isn't out of line.
8
Great job Dom!!
@5 - i'm really confused - do you understand how this levy works? It's payed for by property taxes (and really isn't a significant amount, in reality. we're talking less than $100 per year for the average household). If people can afford to buy a home in Seattle, it's VERY likely that they don't fall in a "low income" category.
@4 - Please stay out of Seattle. You are selecting a SMALL amount of housing built with levy dollars. Yes, some work/live lofts for artists are built with levy money - but it's less than 5% of the housing built. The majority of this money goes to the poor, or workforce housing (and as the levy is written, the MAJORITY of it is going to the poor). And, the reason people need to live "on the hill" or downtown - is because that's where people work. It decreases transportation costs, and saves the environment (as vehicle travel is the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions).
And yes, Seattle voters will likely vote for this. 1)Because they aren't ignorant. 2)Because they believe people (yes, even artists) deserve a good place to live and 3) they've voted for the housing levies 4 times already - and they passed a $146MIL parks levy last year, so this isn't out of line.
@5 - i'm really confused - do you understand how this levy works? It's payed for by property taxes (and really isn't a significant amount, in reality. we're talking less than $100 per year for the average household). If people can afford to buy a home in Seattle, it's VERY likely that they don't fall in a "low income" category.
@4 - Please stay out of Seattle. You are selecting a SMALL amount of housing built with levy dollars. Yes, some work/live lofts for artists are built with levy money - but it's less than 5% of the housing built. The majority of this money goes to the poor, or workforce housing (and as the levy is written, the MAJORITY of it is going to the poor). And, the reason people need to live "on the hill" or downtown - is because that's where people work. It decreases transportation costs, and saves the environment (as vehicle travel is the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions).
And yes, Seattle voters will likely vote for this. 1)Because they aren't ignorant. 2)Because they believe people (yes, even artists) deserve a good place to live and 3) they've voted for the housing levies 4 times already - and they passed a $146MIL parks levy last year, so this isn't out of line.
9
Dominic, you are awesome. Thank you so much for all your coverage of development in the city. I'm in the industry (I design the electrical systems for buildings), and you are my best source for relatively unbiased information. I especially love your reports from the design review/etc meetings. And this piece has all the details I was wanting about how the housing levy dollars will be divvied up. Thank you for being awesome!
10
@4: Why is it again that you think it is reasonable to come ask the taxpayers for more money during this recession? Why is it reasonable to keep holding your hand out to take from the rich and redistribute it to the poor?
so it's unreasonable to ask for it during a "recession", but you are probably against asking for it during "growth times" so when, in your view is it ever ok to to ask the haves to pay back some of of the wealth that they got through public policy that lined their pocket and "helped", no wait, made possible that same wealth in the first place?
so it's unreasonable to ask for it during a "recession", but you are probably against asking for it during "growth times" so when, in your view is it ever ok to to ask the haves to pay back some of of the wealth that they got through public policy that lined their pocket and "helped", no wait, made possible that same wealth in the first place?
11
Christ, you are a dumbass. They aren't asking for more money. If the levy passes, property taxes will stay exactly the same.
Why is it again that you think it is reasonable to come ask the taxpayers for more money during this recession
Christ, you are a dumbass. They aren't asking for more money. If the levy passes, property taxes will stay exactly the same.
12
@ Reality Check
Why is it reasonable to take from the rich and hand it to the poor?
Because we hold a public fucking vote on it. Anyone who cares can have a say. And the support outnumbers the opposition. Most people aren't rich, dipshit, but are willing to cough up a little cash to help those that struggle. Even struggling artists.
Do everyone a favor and move to Somalia, the libertarian's paradise. (Hint: All of your tax savings will go toward personal security.)
Why is it reasonable to take from the rich and hand it to the poor?
Because we hold a public fucking vote on it. Anyone who cares can have a say. And the support outnumbers the opposition. Most people aren't rich, dipshit, but are willing to cough up a little cash to help those that struggle. Even struggling artists.
Do everyone a favor and move to Somalia, the libertarian's paradise. (Hint: All of your tax savings will go toward personal security.)
13
@11 Hey Dumbass
I was reading directly from his story
Quote:
The city council agreed this afternoon on a package that, if passed, would generate $145 million for affordable housing by raising property taxes in Seattle for the next seven years.
Go Fuck Yourself
I was reading directly from his story
Quote:
The city council agreed this afternoon on a package that, if passed, would generate $145 million for affordable housing by raising property taxes in Seattle for the next seven years.
Go Fuck Yourself
14
@12 No doubt that most aren't rich. That simply means the majority is voting themselves subsidies as the support will surely outnumber the opposition. Who wouldn't vote themselves a potential increase for more money?
Makes perfect sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me.
15
@ 13 your stand against affordable housing speaks volumes, so like 12 said:
"Do everyone a favor and move to Somalia, the libertarian's paradise. (Hint: All of your tax savings will go toward personal security.)"
and you should also really "Go Fuck Yourself".
"Do everyone a favor and move to Somalia, the libertarian's paradise. (Hint: All of your tax savings will go toward personal security.)"
and you should also really "Go Fuck Yourself".
16
@15 no let's be clear here...
My stand against "subsidized housing" speaks volumes. I do not support taking money from one taxpayer to give it to another simply because one group whines that it is too expensive to live where they really super duper want to, and it isn't fair that their choice of career doesn't allow them to live in the cool neighborhood in town.
It is a classic example of believing that society "owes" you something. There are many people who believe as I do. You live and/or work where you can afford to. If you can't afford the going rate for the area, you live/work elsewhere, and establish a life in a location that you can afford, whether that be in Burien, Tacoma or Ellensburg.
Maybe I should start demanding that taxpayers subsidize that nice little 4 bedroom mini mansion in Medina for me, I mean after all... I deserve to live where I want to right? As long as it has a pool and hottub, my needs are met. Maybe you can contribute a little?
What do you say?
My stand against "subsidized housing" speaks volumes. I do not support taking money from one taxpayer to give it to another simply because one group whines that it is too expensive to live where they really super duper want to, and it isn't fair that their choice of career doesn't allow them to live in the cool neighborhood in town.
It is a classic example of believing that society "owes" you something. There are many people who believe as I do. You live and/or work where you can afford to. If you can't afford the going rate for the area, you live/work elsewhere, and establish a life in a location that you can afford, whether that be in Burien, Tacoma or Ellensburg.
Maybe I should start demanding that taxpayers subsidize that nice little 4 bedroom mini mansion in Medina for me, I mean after all... I deserve to live where I want to right? As long as it has a pool and hottub, my needs are met. Maybe you can contribute a little?
What do you say?
18
"I do not support taking money from one taxpayer to give it to another simply because one group whines that it is too expensive to live where they really super duper want to, and it isn't fair that their choice of career doesn't allow them to live in the cool neighborhood in town"
"I do not support taking money from one taxpayer to give it to another simply because one group whines that it is too expensive to live where they really super duper want to, and it isn't fair that their choice of career doesn't allow them to live in the cool neighborhood in town."
well then, when do you support taking money from one taxpayer to give to another,? oh yeah when the flow goes upwards, into you and your friends coffers? you're just an old school redistributionist. that and a 50's style redliner, against social change.
"I do not support taking money from one taxpayer to give it to another simply because one group whines that it is too expensive to live where they really super duper want to, and it isn't fair that their choice of career doesn't allow them to live in the cool neighborhood in town."
well then, when do you support taking money from one taxpayer to give to another,? oh yeah when the flow goes upwards, into you and your friends coffers? you're just an old school redistributionist. that and a 50's style redliner, against social change.
19
@17: The reason you can't find affordable housing in Seattle is because property values were ridiculously inflated up until 2007. Now that reality has finally kicked in, that is changing. Property owners are losing their life savings, incomes are falling, and many can barely afford their mortgages (which are based on valuations much higher than their home's current worth).
The only "social change" an increase in property taxes will bring at this stage is deeper, more widespread economic collapse, with more people needing subsidized housing and fewer people able to subsidize it.
As a lefty, it's especially painful to watch other lefties adopt well-meaning but ignorant strategies that end up fucking us all over.
The only "social change" an increase in property taxes will bring at this stage is deeper, more widespread economic collapse, with more people needing subsidized housing and fewer people able to subsidize it.
As a lefty, it's especially painful to watch other lefties adopt well-meaning but ignorant strategies that end up fucking us all over.
21
So, Reality Check - one day (if Karma exists) you will become poor, and at that point, I want to know if you change your tune. I've noticed those that are loudest against social services (or supportive services) are the ones that bitch the loudest when they are down and out because they aren't getting enough.
And why don't they get jobs in places where they can afford housing? Well, hmmm... that means no one would pour your coffee in the morning, or help you buy your shoes, or even take your blood pressure at the doctors office. There are MORE JOBS in the city - but those jobs don't pay enough.
And why don't they get jobs in places where they can afford housing? Well, hmmm... that means no one would pour your coffee in the morning, or help you buy your shoes, or even take your blood pressure at the doctors office. There are MORE JOBS in the city - but those jobs don't pay enough.
22
If taxpayers have to subsidize "workforce" housing, then Seattle is truly headed for breakdown and failure. The need for workforce housing is so vast -- it's really the lower half of the middle class we're talking about -- taxpayers can realistically provide for only a tiny fraction of actual needs.
The answer to workforce housing is going to come when the market restructures and is somehow able to provide that type of housing. No, I don't have a magic wand to make that happen, but if those in charge believe the taxpayers are really the answer to meeting workforce housing needs, then this year's housing levy is only the tip of the iceberg. Watch for more and larger housing levies year by year.
I'm a good old liberal Democrat, a PCO and all that, but I think the voters need a breather from the annual levy campaign to pay for this or that "vital public need"; made vital of course because the decision-makers conveniently budget their discretionary revenues on less vital needs...
Time for a breather, and for some transparency.
The answer to workforce housing is going to come when the market restructures and is somehow able to provide that type of housing. No, I don't have a magic wand to make that happen, but if those in charge believe the taxpayers are really the answer to meeting workforce housing needs, then this year's housing levy is only the tip of the iceberg. Watch for more and larger housing levies year by year.
I'm a good old liberal Democrat, a PCO and all that, but I think the voters need a breather from the annual levy campaign to pay for this or that "vital public need"; made vital of course because the decision-makers conveniently budget their discretionary revenues on less vital needs...
Time for a breather, and for some transparency.
23
Uhh, Citizen R -- Seattle has approved several Housing Levy's starting in 1981... now, I'm not sure, but if this "breakdown and failure" were going to occur, wouldn't it have happened?
SNAP :)
SNAP :)
24
Notwithstanding the one minor glitch someone pointed out, this is really good reporting by Dominic - the Times and PI both missed the real substance of the changes the Council made in the Mayor's levy package.
While I'm not wild about the 10% that is allocated to projects that serve people who are up to 80% of median (close to $45K for a single person), that is huge improvement over the Mayor's open-ended proposal.
Under the original version - 45% of the money could have gone to people making just under 80% of median income. If there are truly safeguards in the levy to ensure the restrictions Dom reported, that figure is down to 10%, with 30% of the funds going to those earning 30-60% of median income (which actually gets at the working poor) and 60% of the levy going to those at below 30% median income (the poorest of the poor).
Advocates for the poor can (and perhaps should) argue whether 30% if the levy going to 30-60% of median folks is the perfect figure, but it's vastly better than the original proposal.
That said, while Jan Drago had a point about bringing the overall levy amount down, considering how much public money she is apparently willing to sink into South Lake Union, her newfound concern for the tax bite on the little people comes across as a tad, um, opportunistic?
While I'm not wild about the 10% that is allocated to projects that serve people who are up to 80% of median (close to $45K for a single person), that is huge improvement over the Mayor's open-ended proposal.
Under the original version - 45% of the money could have gone to people making just under 80% of median income. If there are truly safeguards in the levy to ensure the restrictions Dom reported, that figure is down to 10%, with 30% of the funds going to those earning 30-60% of median income (which actually gets at the working poor) and 60% of the levy going to those at below 30% median income (the poorest of the poor).
Advocates for the poor can (and perhaps should) argue whether 30% if the levy going to 30-60% of median folks is the perfect figure, but it's vastly better than the original proposal.
That said, while Jan Drago had a point about bringing the overall levy amount down, considering how much public money she is apparently willing to sink into South Lake Union, her newfound concern for the tax bite on the little people comes across as a tad, um, opportunistic?
25
Since 95 percent of Slog posters are would-be hipsters who rent, what do they care about raising property taxes?
Their argument that property tax increases on landlords will eventually be passed on to renters, and so everybody will share, doesn't work.
In a bad economy, the landlords -- a good portion of whom aren't big corporations but small-time landlords with maybe 1-4 units -- get to pony up.
I think the city should have a tax on renters that the landlord just adds to the rent, just like out-of-towners have a tax added to their hotel bill.
When the would-be hipsters see that their costs are incresing, too, they'll start feeling otherwise about such housing subsidies that sound good in one of those meetings attended by politicos and academics who've never held a real, private sector job, but are largely wasteful.
Their argument that property tax increases on landlords will eventually be passed on to renters, and so everybody will share, doesn't work.
In a bad economy, the landlords -- a good portion of whom aren't big corporations but small-time landlords with maybe 1-4 units -- get to pony up.
I think the city should have a tax on renters that the landlord just adds to the rent, just like out-of-towners have a tax added to their hotel bill.
When the would-be hipsters see that their costs are incresing, too, they'll start feeling otherwise about such housing subsidies that sound good in one of those meetings attended by politicos and academics who've never held a real, private sector job, but are largely wasteful.
26
Since 95 percent of Slog posters are would-be hipsters who rent, what do they care about raising property taxes?
Their argument that property tax increases on landlords will eventually be passed on to renters, and so everybody will share, doesn't work.
In a bad economy, the landlords -- a good portion of whom aren't big corporations but small-time landlords with maybe 1-4 units -- get to pony up.
I think the city should have a tax on renters that the landlord just adds to the rent, just like out-of-towners have a tax added to their hotel bill.
When the would-be hipsters see that their costs are incresing, too, they'll start feeling otherwise about such housing subsidies that sound good in one of those meetings attended by politicos and academics who've never held a real, private sector job, but are largely wasteful.
Their argument that property tax increases on landlords will eventually be passed on to renters, and so everybody will share, doesn't work.
In a bad economy, the landlords -- a good portion of whom aren't big corporations but small-time landlords with maybe 1-4 units -- get to pony up.
I think the city should have a tax on renters that the landlord just adds to the rent, just like out-of-towners have a tax added to their hotel bill.
When the would-be hipsters see that their costs are incresing, too, they'll start feeling otherwise about such housing subsidies that sound good in one of those meetings attended by politicos and academics who've never held a real, private sector job, but are largely wasteful.
27
@7
the notion renters don't pay property taxes is factually incorrect, very naive and uninformed, and basically a fantasy. If you are paying 1200 a month in rent your unit is probably worth some %150K and your share of property taxes is one or two thousand bucks a year. It gets paid by you thru your rent like you are paying for the landlord's mortgage, repair costs, etc. you think the expenses just magically disappear? WtF? what no econ in college??????
And the notion all homeowners are rich, is rich. Many homeowners bought years ago at much lower prices...There's this thing called time, you know? There are retirees who only have $30K a year of income, or fifty thousand, whatever. Some have less! And some who were better off a few years ago buying in say 2000 maybe now have lost their job! And don't have any income. Or they are taking in roomates. Again the notions that "we are poor renters, all homeowners are rich yuppies" is just not factual and it is very naive and uninformed.
The reality is HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES MAKES ALL HOUSING LESS AFFORDABLE for everyone and that includes lots of poorer people and having a program that is not focused on benefitting the very poorest of the poor makes little sense as it just shuffles the dollars around.
Why the fuck isn't this program designed so that all the subsidies go only to people who make less than ten percent of median?
And btw do they really check on the beneficiaries' income levels? Who's living there? There easily could be people who say they make 80 percent of median and are lying, or have another adult in the household that they don't even reveal who has an income that when added to the disclosed person's puts them up at well over median.
the notion renters don't pay property taxes is factually incorrect, very naive and uninformed, and basically a fantasy. If you are paying 1200 a month in rent your unit is probably worth some %150K and your share of property taxes is one or two thousand bucks a year. It gets paid by you thru your rent like you are paying for the landlord's mortgage, repair costs, etc. you think the expenses just magically disappear? WtF? what no econ in college??????
And the notion all homeowners are rich, is rich. Many homeowners bought years ago at much lower prices...There's this thing called time, you know? There are retirees who only have $30K a year of income, or fifty thousand, whatever. Some have less! And some who were better off a few years ago buying in say 2000 maybe now have lost their job! And don't have any income. Or they are taking in roomates. Again the notions that "we are poor renters, all homeowners are rich yuppies" is just not factual and it is very naive and uninformed.
The reality is HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES MAKES ALL HOUSING LESS AFFORDABLE for everyone and that includes lots of poorer people and having a program that is not focused on benefitting the very poorest of the poor makes little sense as it just shuffles the dollars around.
Why the fuck isn't this program designed so that all the subsidies go only to people who make less than ten percent of median?
And btw do they really check on the beneficiaries' income levels? Who's living there? There easily could be people who say they make 80 percent of median and are lying, or have another adult in the household that they don't even reveal who has an income that when added to the disclosed person's puts them up at well over median.
28
@26 get a clue renters pay property taxes it just is part of the rent already == the taxes don't magically disappear because they are not billed separately by the landlord.
seriously folks get a clue.
this is like thinking that if the price of steel (or health care) goes up, it won't make cars cost more, because when you buy a car you don't get separately billed for steel (or for the health care costs of the UAW, why don't we have single payer dammit).
seriously folks get a clue.
this is like thinking that if the price of steel (or health care) goes up, it won't make cars cost more, because when you buy a car you don't get separately billed for steel (or for the health care costs of the UAW, why don't we have single payer dammit).
31
Want to change affordable housing?
Stop being so NIMBY and change the zoning to permit 40-100 story inexpensive residential towers near light rail stations, with surrounding greenspace.
Stop being so NIMBY and change the zoning to permit 40-100 story inexpensive residential towers near light rail stations, with surrounding greenspace.
33
Will, there is no such thing as an "affordable" 40-100 story building unless the government pays to subsidize it (and you'd still get fewer subsidized units due to the much higher construction costs to build a high-rise than you would with building heights under 85').
Put down the crack pipe, already....
Put down the crack pipe, already....
34
@ PC - You are cute. Sure, renters pay property tax through rent - however, to say that it's that great of a percentage is a gross misrepresentation... what, no math in college? Also, considering we are already taxed for a housing levy, and this levy is going to raise the levels paid only slightly (especially after adjusted for inflation) AND that most landlords raise rents annually -- our rents probably aren't going to go up due to this levy. Cute argument though :)
Also, now your argument against the levy is that people are ripping off the system with "hidden" bank accounts and other people living on the premise? Now THAT's ignorant. Buildings using levy money usually also use tax credit money -- the leasing process for these buildings is INCREDIBLY more difficult and very very thorough. You should do your homework!
Also, now your argument against the levy is that people are ripping off the system with "hidden" bank accounts and other people living on the premise? Now THAT's ignorant. Buildings using levy money usually also use tax credit money -- the leasing process for these buildings is INCREDIBLY more difficult and very very thorough. You should do your homework!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS