Editor’s Note: Wallyhood 2.0 relaunched the website with a spirit of innovation and change. This article is a test of supporting opinion pieces from our Wallyhood neighbors. Let us know what you think of these types of articles, and let us know your thoughts about this important topic’s impact on Wallyhood in the comments.
Wallyhood welcomes Glenn Singer as writer, and trailblazer for citizen opinion pieces at Wallyhood.
PROPOSED 2016 HOUSING LEVY
This August Seattle voters will be asked to approve a Housing Levy that will replace and expand the existing 2009 Housing Levy that expires at the end of this year and it will provide $290 million over seven years. This proposed Levy would provide funding that will support numerous programs and services to help make Seattle more affordable for everyone.
Here is how a property tax levy works. The city of Seattle sets a percentage rate for imposing taxes, called a levy rate, which is calculated against the assessed value of each home owner’s property. The final determination is the individual property tax for that resident.
Mayor Murray will be asking voters to approve the new Levy of $290 million dollars which is DOUBLE the old 2009 levy that is $145 million. According to www.zillow.com the median price of a Wallingford home is currently $742,100 so the proposed levy would cost the owner of the median Wallingford home $188 per year. This is an annual increase of approximately $100 per year. It is also important to note that Seattle property taxes have increased over 15% in the last decade.
Housing levies are not new to Seattle voters. As you can see by the chart to the right (chart from excellent Seattle Times Article on the topic) , housing levies have remained relatively stable from 1986 through 2002 but increased significantly in 2009 with another significant increase requested in 2016.
I am not opposed to housing levies in general or the fine work that the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Authority or the other housing offices are doing to assist in providing affordable housing opportunities for low income citizens of Seattle. The Stoneway Apartments, here in Wallingford, offers a portion of its apartments to lower-income residents as it participates with Seattle’s Office of Housing which is partially funded by the current Housing Levy. I am, however, not sold that the Mayor’s proposed housing levy needs to be doubled.
My concerns are simple and focused on the category of RENTAL PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION. 
This category goes from a current budget of $104 million to a proposed budget of $201 million and it will only deliver 2150 new units and 350 retrofitted units which is less than the previous levy delivered for half the price (see table at left)! When I brought this issue up at a recent meeting of the Select Committee for the 2016 Housing Levy I was told that this doubling of the budget was a result of projected increased cost of land, building materials and labor as well as a loss of a United Way grant of $21 million. While I am familiar with the concept of cost inflation, the construction industry has never experienced this rate of cost inflation.
Recently I met with Councilperson Mike O’Brien (District 6 covering the north end of Wallyhood) to discuss my concerns about the Levy and, although the meeting was congenial, I really didn’t get an answer to my questions concerning the proposed Levy amount. I also recently spoke with a top aide of Councilperson Tim Burgess (Citywide Representative) who is the chairman of the Housing Levy Committee and learned that Mr. Burgess is aware of the sensitivity of the requested Levy amount and he is attempting to ensure that Levy priorities are cost-effective. Although Mr. Burgess’ aide provided some additional information which was useful, I still find that I am not in a position to support the proposed Levy based on the current data that the city has provided me.
Perhaps continued dialogue with Councilperson Burgess’ office will shed more light on this issue and if it does, I will keep you posted.
Bravo. I wonder if you asked Mr. O’Brien the color of the sky whether you’d get a clear answer. Anyway, I’m not supportive of the levy, (sadly, because it addresses big problems in our city that need innovative and sometimes politically unpopular solutions such as Housing First), because it sends ever more money to the same homeless service providers during whose watch the situation has continued to grow. Tent cities and other organizations that move very few if any people to permanent housing, that don’t offer case management, that advocate for filthy encampments on the roadsides and sidewalks. Nope. I’ve voted for every levy for the past 13 years but this one is where I stop.
The fact is that the color of the sky isn’t something easy to answer. So are you praising O’Brien or not. I am confused.
Can anyone honestly say the city has been good stewards of our tax dollars? Think about all the big ticket items we have to pay, with more to come. To name a few, we have the Bertha debacle years behind schedule, and waaay over budget. Not to mention the new 520 bridge. Plus taxes alone won’t even cover these costs; they are going to continue to increase tolls as well. The city recently spent $7 million for a PARKING LOT for about 20 derelict RV’s in Ballard. And where are we going to find the money mandated by the legislature to bring our schools up to par?
Oh, and let’s not forget ST3 which will be on the ballot this November. If the doubling of housing levy to $290 million over seven years will jack our median taxes up $100, what will the mind blowing price tag of $50 BILLION do? That’s assuming no overruns or delays, wanna bet on that? And even ST says that sum won’t be enough to cover the cost. Many of us will be dead before the thing is even built.
Mayor Murray wants to shove unwanted development down our throats while he takes away our irksome right to have any voice in the design or scope of new projects that impact our neighborhood. And now he wants to make us subsidize his agenda even more? I don’t think so……..
Hey City Hall: You say you want density and affordability? Stop letting developers get away with paying no impact fees. If we’re going to change zoning on top of all the other variances we already give developers, make THEM pay for it instead.
It’s funny how these “temporary” taxes and levies always seem to end being permanent. I have voted for pretty much every levy and tax increase up to this point. It’s time we reel our elected officials back in and tell them, “No more!”
BTW: Welcome, Glenn!
Come on Hayduke you can do better than this! Bertha, 520 bridge, and ST3 – none of these are examples of the city managing your tax dollars. And the city has little role to play in convincing the Legislature to adequately fund schools.
Fair enough, but the above mentioned projects all went ahead with the blessings of our city leaders.
But OK, you want some more localized examples? How about Pronto!, does that example work for you? Or our “partnership” with a hedge fund gazillionaire to build yet another stadium with taxpayer support? Or the SLUT? Or those fancy new bike lanes with their own traffic signals that no one seems to understand? Or the public art they funded… at the DUMP?
How about the people the city wants to pay to invade our privacy and check our trash to make sure we’re separating it properly? And what about how the city lets SHARE get away with extorting money out of it to support their tent cities? How many people has SHARE lifted out of homelessness, considering the millions we give them? How about the $365K we spent on “studying” whether to rename the downtown library? Or the money spent on rainbow crosswalks? Or all the overpaid incompetent heads of various agencies like Seattle City Light?
How about the $1 million dollar fence they wanted to build around the “Jungle” that a 5 dollar pair of wire cutters would defeat? Would it even protect the plumbing that Sawant said we should install there?
And we know how Seattle’s into the tiny home movement. How about tiny brothels? Because that’s what we spent $5 million dollars on when we bought those 5 high tech public toilets a few years back. Let’s just say they weren’t used for their, ahem, intended purpose. When that little experiment failed, the city sold them online for, wait for it… $12,549!
Think the idea of neighborhood opinion pieces on the site is an excellent idea.
From a recent Seattle Times article on the levy: “The levies have together helped fund more than 12,500 affordable
apartments for seniors, low- and moderate-income workers and formerly
homeless people, according to the Office of Housing. The levies also
have provided down-payment loans to more than 800 first-time homebuyers
and rental assistance to more than 6,500 households.” (Seattle Times, 2/3/16, Mayor proposes doubling size of Seattle Housing Levy)
With the city facing unprecedented growth and serious problems with affordability, kicking in an extra ~ $10/month (even if this represents a large percentage increase) seems completely reasonable to me.
Nick, ALL these feel good programs sound reasonable.
Until the bill comes due.
For people who have lived in their houses for a while, a rise in property values can mean the difference between affording their property taxes and not. Remember, many are already paying thousands of dollars in property tax. And they are often low-income, too. The funding should not come from regressive property taxes but from progressive income taxes. The growth in Wallingford that comes from folks who make good incomes and are accumulating wealth, regardless of whether that wealth includes property, should help fund the affordable housing.
“While I am familiar with the concept of cost inflation, the construction industry has never experienced this rate of cost inflation.”
This seems to be the crux of the issue, so can you back that thought up with anything besides not being able to personally comprehend it? As discussed, it’s also related to *land* cost, not just materials & labor – I don’t think anybody living in this neighborhood (or city, really) in the last few years would be shocked by the city having to project quite a big increase overall. Consider the economy in 2009 vs now and the construction boom is real, so contractors are getting a premium price, if you can pay to secure the land first. A loss of a $21m grant is huge, too, and shouldn’t be dismissed in the analysis.
Oh, and a separate point others have brought up – a statewide progressive income tax would be great, so would genies granting wishes to take care of the housing issue. For now, homeowners in this city have to carry the burden until the state can make the real shift away from sales & property taxes to pay for everything. I don’t like it, but I’ll vote for it rather than not having the services.
We are looking forward to retiring and moving as far away from Seattle as possible. Property tax increase after property tax increase. Seattle has declared war on the middle class. Seattle is becoming a city exclusively for the well to do. In the long run I can’t afford these ever rising property taxes. Seattle also has ludicrous laws exempting some apartment buildings from taxes for years. Insane!
Maybe if our taxes went to really solving things. The gall of the city to say, with a straight face, “Trust us to address homelessness with even more of your money.” And still many will feel guilty and vote yes.
The problem is induced by middle class neighborhoods refusing to build density. So when the demand goes up, there is not enough supply, therefore the price goes up and squeeze out the middle class. If Wallingford is full of 6 to 12 level condos right now, it’d have stayed an affordable place for middle class.
And a thoroughly charmless wreck (witness Ballard at 15th and Market) with shadows cast over entire blocks. Is it possible to add density without going that high?
this is an excellent example of a well-written opinion piece which i’d like to see more of here.
my only critique is the use of zillow sale price in place of the actual assessed value, which for most homes is well under the zillow sale price. king county property assessments are a matter of public record, so the author could have used a more reasonable number to estimate the cost of this levy to wallingford residents.
Let’s break down some of the line items for this little gem of a levy, shall we?
“operations and maintenance:” $42 million.
“administration:” $26 million.
And, “homelessness prevention:” wait for it…… $11.5 million.
Glad to see they’re cutting the fat and prioritizing!
Classic Murray.