Making informed choices at the ballot box is crucial for shaping the future of our communities. For progressive voters in Seattle, understanding the nuances of each proposition is especially important. This guide focuses on Propositions 1A and 1B, both designed to address Seattle’s pressing need for social housing – a concept gaining traction as a vital solution to the housing affordability crisis. Approved by Seattle residents through Initiative 135 in 2023, social housing aims to create permanently affordable housing with greater resident control. But how do Propositions 1A and 1B propose to fund this vision, and which aligns better with progressive values? This guide will break down each proposition, helping you make an informed decision.
What is Social Housing and Why It Matters in Seattle?
Social housing encompasses various models focused on delivering permanently affordable housing and empowering residents. Initiative 135 laid the groundwork for this in Seattle, envisioning a system where rents are affordable (less than 30% of household income), green building standards are met, and diverse income levels are integrated. This initiative established a public developer to oversee publicly-owned social housing, mandated city support for its initial phase, and called for a study on housing needs. Crucially, Initiative 135 didn’t include a funding mechanism, which Propositions 1A and 1B now seek to address.
Seattle is grappling with a severe housing affordability crisis. Skyrocketing rents and home prices are pushing long-term residents out and hindering the city’s vibrancy. Social housing offers a long-term solution by removing housing from the speculative market, ensuring affordability remains consistent for generations. It fosters stable, mixed-income communities and provides a crucial safety net, especially for essential workers like teachers and nurses, alongside lower-income individuals.
Proposition 1A: A Bold Step for Social Housing Funding
Proposition 1A presents a significant opportunity to invest in social housing through a dedicated funding source. Spearheaded by the same community organizers behind Initiative 135, it proposes a new 5% tax on employers for annual compensation exceeding $1 million paid to any employee in Seattle. This “high earner” tax is projected to generate approximately $53 million annually, specifically for the public development authority to build social housing across the city.
This proposition embodies a progressive approach to funding social programs. By taxing high earners, Proposition 1A aims to redistribute wealth and invest it directly into a public good – affordable housing. It allows Seattle to make a substantial investment in creating publicly owned housing accessible to a broader range of income levels. This model is designed to support not only those with very limited resources but also essential workers and middle-income residents, fostering economically diverse communities within social housing developments. The revenue generated would directly enable the construction of new social housing units, making a tangible impact on the affordability crisis.
Proposition 1B: A Limited Approach to Affordable Housing
Proposition 1B offers a contrasting, more constrained approach to funding social housing. Proposed by the conservative-leaning majority of the Seattle City Council, it suggests redirecting $10 million from the existing city payroll tax to the public development authority’s affordable housing initiatives. While seemingly contributing to the cause, Proposition 1B operates by shifting existing funds rather than creating new revenue.
Furthermore, Proposition 1B includes restrictions on how the funds can be used. It mandates the hiring of specific leadership staff within the development authority and restricts housing eligibility to individuals earning no more than 80% of the average income in the development area. While aiming to support affordable housing, this proposition is considerably smaller in scale and scope compared to Proposition 1A. Redirecting existing funds provides a limited impact and does not address the root issue of underfunding affordable housing initiatives in the face of a massive housing shortage.
Progressive Voting Recommendation: Yes on 1A
Considering the scale of Seattle’s housing crisis and the long-term vision of social housing, a clear choice emerges for progressive voters. We recommend voting Yes on question 1 and then voting for Proposition 1A. This vote represents a genuine commitment to building a more affordable and equitable Seattle for all.
Proposition 1A offers a bold and necessary investment in social housing. It provides a dedicated and substantial funding stream, enabling the city to make significant strides in addressing the housing shortage. It aligns with progressive values by ensuring that those who can contribute more do so to support essential public services like affordable housing.
Proposition 1B, while seemingly supportive, falls short of providing a meaningful solution. Redirecting existing funds is insufficient to tackle the magnitude of the housing crisis, and the imposed restrictions may hinder the effectiveness of social housing initiatives. To create a truly vibrant and inclusive Seattle, we must be willing to make real investments. Proposition 1A is that real investment.
Conclusion
Social housing is not just about bricks and mortar; it’s about building stronger, more equitable communities. By voting Yes on Proposition 1A, Seattle voters have the opportunity to take a significant step towards realizing the promise of Initiative 135 and creating a future where housing is a right, not a privilege. This Progressive Voting Guide encourages you to support Proposition 1A and invest in a more affordable and thriving Seattle for everyone.
