Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Obama: "The World is Watching" | Breaking Through »

Monday, June 15, 2009

City Is Seattle Prepared...

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM

...to raise taxes for a larger housing levy this November? The City Council just passed along a measure to voters that, if approved, would provide $145 million for low-income housing. For the owner of a median-priced home (a property valued at $380,000), that would require annually paying about $65 in property taxes for the next seven years. That's about $27 a year more than the current levy, approved by voters in 2002, but it maintains the same level of housing production.

The the largest portion—$104 million—would go toward building 1,670 new rentals units for low-income tenants. The rest would be divided among programs to manage existing low-income buildings, a home buyer assistance program, emergency assistance for renters, and administration costs.

Supporter put stock in a poll conducted in March by pollster EMC Research that found 64 percent of likely voters in the general election would support a $145 million housing levy. But it remains to be seen if that sort of support will hold up amidst fears of a protracted recession.

Anna Markee, a spokeswoman for the Housing Development Consortium notes that voters have passed four previous levies. "Seattle has been generous in the past and we hope they will continue to be," she says. "Seattle citizens recognize that the housing levy is a basic service we provide."

The city council adjusted the levy package last week from a proposal by the mayor in April. The council specifically designated all of the levy funds for housing the lowest-income residents of the city.

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

i worry about this levy - i think its going to be a tossup for homeowners. in these financial straights, supporting housing for others seems... optional, especially to those with overvalued homes.

btw, anna markee is an attractive woman. i like wonky girls.

Posted by Max Solomon on June 15, 2009 at 5:01 PM

I will vote for it, but grudgingly - I'd much rather have a state income tax, with a more reasonable sales tax than all these levies.

As far as property taxes go, I think we get an awful lot of services for the money we pay. Much more than mom Mom does in Iowa - she pays about the same amount of property taxes on her 100K house than we do on our higher-valued house, even with her homesteading, senior, and veteran exemptions.

But then again, Iowa has excellent public schools and a great state university system that is still relatively affordable.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay

on June 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Instead or along side of constructing new low income housing the city needs to look at existing rental units below market value as a way to save on construction costs (apologies to the construction workers who will lose work with this idea) and prevent further displacement of those already paying rent below market value (like me) by valueing these units that already exist. Does anyone remember that apartment building in South Lake Union a couple of years ago where tenants were paying something like $500-$600 a month, which was torn down and replaced by low income apartments that went for $700. Stupid city, stupid stupid.
It is also time to overturn this states laws against rent control.

Posted by Tingleyfeeln on June 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM

I'll vote no.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on June 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Just an FYI: The Housing Levy preserves existing affordable housing. It's not just new apartments. Many of the old, brick buildings on Capitol Hill such as the Sylvian and Villa have been preserved by Capitol Hill Housing using Housing Levy funds.

Posted by Anna Markee on June 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM

I'm confident that the people will once again realize that the middle to low income population are the backbone of the city, its workforce and that affordable housing is a necessity for keeping that sector of the population productive and from leaving for other more livable places. It's a wise investment, a win a win win situation in the end.

Posted by Loveschild

on June 15, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Oh dear... I agree with Loveschild. Does that make me a bad person?

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay

on June 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Let's take a pass on this one. Seattle has been fortunate to have its property values increase and we are swimming against the current with the Housing Levy. This is the 4th consecutive levy and each one costs more and delivers less. The math also seems fishy to me 104 Million divided by 1670 comes out to about $62,276 per unit. If that is really doable why hasn't the market built them. They'd sell like hot cakes.

Seems to me that we are ignoring larger economic forces and the lack of decent jobs. I am not against public housing but I think the burden should be carried statewide like roads.

Posted by Zander on June 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM

@5 does that preservation of existing low income housing include private properties? Sorry, I'm a Ballard guy so I don't know anything about the buildings you mentioned.

Posted by Tingleyfeeln on June 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I'll vote for it, even if it subsidizes the middle class at the expense of the working poor.

Which it does.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on June 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM

$27 here, $65 there, $100 over there.....pretty soon it gets easy to take money from other people.

Posted by Stupid White Man

on June 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM

In another couple of years all of Paul Allen's empty buildings in South Lake Union will really fucking affordable.

Posted by seandr on June 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM

$67 per house per year for 7 years is $145? I won't vote or it for the bad math alone.... I mean, Christ, my house is valued over $400K so I will pay over $67... maybe $70 x 7 years or $490 when the program is only getting $145? Bad math or bad reporting? Both... I'm voting no either way.

Posted by dominic can't report his way out of remedial math class on June 15, 2009 at 7:50 PM

@7: No, Catalina, it doesn't. I also agree with Loveschild on this one. But remember, a stopped clock gives the correct time twice a day.

Posted by RainMan on June 15, 2009 at 8:12 PM

When you state the average cost per house, you should also state the average cost per apartment so that renters realize they pay a property tax too and just because it isn't separately billed to them it does not magically disappear.

There was wide and shocking utter ignorance on this point last week.

Thanks.

Posted by PC on June 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM

I have voted YES for all the previous levies, but I'll be not only voting NO this time around, but FUCK NO.

Enough is enough.

@6 Loveschild: There's no extra money in the cookie jar to invest. Not in savings, not in debt reduction and not in low income housing.

Posted by I Got Nuthin' on June 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM

@9. Non-profits use Housing Levy funds to purchase private buildings and rehabilitate them. I'm not sure about any in Ballard but many have been preserved downtown and on Capitol Hill. This saves these historic buildings not only from the wrecking ball but also keeps their rents affordable. Some point out that rents are currently coming down. This is true, but the Housing Levy focuses on people like seniors and people with disabilities who live on a small social security check. They can only afford a few hundred dollars a month in rent and the private market rents will never get down to $200 a month.

Posted by Anna Markee on June 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM