On May 2, 2016, I posted an article on the proposed 2016 housing levy expressing my concerns about the rationale used to determine the amount of the levy, which was double the expiring levy passed in 2009. The mayor’s proposal calls for $201 million vs. $104 million, which was the cost of the expiring 2009 levy. The proposed levy will only deliver 2,150 new units and 350 retrofitted units, which is less than the number of units delivered under the old levy (see table below). After discussions with Councilperson O’Brien and administrative aide of Councilperson Burgess, I still didn’t get satisfying answers to my concerns as to the rationale for determining the levy amount. At the end of my first article I promised that if my future conversations with city officials shed more light on this issue I would keep you posted. So after more investigation and discussion and interaction with city officials, I thought I would provide you with an update on this critical issue.
My main concerns with the proposed levy are as follows:
- What specific rationale was used to determine the amount of the proposed levy and why is it delivering less units than the previous levy?
- What amount of the new levy is earmarked for the mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA)?
About three weeks ago I attended a neighborhood meeting sponsored by the Yes For Housing group in the home of a local Wallingford resident. The purpose of the meeting was to inform Wallingford residents of the details of the proposed levy. Present were two individuals representing the city—the vice mayor and a consultant for the city who is focused on the passage of the levy. As you might guess I asked the two questions I just outlined. Here were the answers I heard.
What specific rationale was used to determine the amount of the proposed levy, and why is it delivering less units than the previous levy?
Once again, the city’s response was vague and the same. The answer centered around the increased cost of land, building materials, and labor. Based on my 50+ years in the construction industry, I never have and never will see the doubling of these cost factors. The consultant also added that the 2009 levy delivered more units than its original goals and the same will most likely happen with this levy. I used to play that game as well, its called “under promise and over deliver.”
What amount of the new levy is earmarked for the mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA)?
The answers to this question were widespread and confusing. First the group was told that “the housing levy is key to HALA.” Then, later, we were told that the levy really had nothing to do with HALA. These responses were extremely worrisome. Some immediate thoughts going through my mind were “Was I getting the runaround?” and “Are there hidden cards involved?”
What is the specific impact the levy will have in contributing to the mayor’s goal of housing affordability?
This was a question that was asked by another participant in the neighborhood. I thought that it was a good one. The answer was simply “We can’t answer that.” I found this answer kind of disturbing as it really didn’t exhibit a fiscal “grasp” as it relates to the large sum of property tax that is associated with the levy.
Something else that is important to share is what I heard during an April 15, 2016, meeting of the select committee for the housing levy. Central staff presented some options for use of the increased 2016 housing levy. These options included recommendations to add a new Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program, to add $30 million to the Acquisition and Preservation Program, to add funding to the Homeless Prevention Program, to add a new Foreclosure Prevention Program, and to add a new Affordable Housing Prevention Program. The biggest and most astonishing recommendation came from Councilperson O’Brien who wanted to increase the amount of the proposed levy by a minimum of $30 million! What I heard during this session was city officials looking for ways to spend the increased levy funding, which, to my mind, didn’t exhibit good fiscal responsibility.
So at the end of the day here is my bottom line—I still cannot support the proposed 2016 housing levy because the city officials and the mayor have not demonstrated to me that it is a solid business proposition based on facts and reality. I would also like to see some better fiscal management on the part of the city, as one only has to look at the Pronto fiasco, the extended time and cost of the seawall project, and the proposed spending of $160 million on a new north district police station. Maybe money does grow on trees!
So, this fall we will see the ST3 $54 BILLION dollar tax proposal on the ballot. It will be a massive tax increase that will never expire, even after the thing is finally built decades from now. Furthermore, our schools are underfunded by billions of dollars, and we can’t comply with the McCleary Decision.
So now comes along Mayor Murray with his plan, on top of all the other tax increases we’re staring at, to DOUBLE the Housing Affordability Levy.
Let me get this straight: the mayor, developers, and housing activists all join together to make the “Grand Bargain” that is HALA. They deliberately exclude neighborhood representatives and single family homeowners from the discussion, and call it “balance.” They take away the rights of neighborhoods to have any say in the Design Review Process, let developers build tall, ugly apartments with hundreds of units and ZERO parking, and push to add density and increased strain on our sewers when we can’t even stop the existing sewage overflows from polluting Lake Union and Lake Washington.
Meanwhile, the city and their lapdogs in the urbanist movement routinely label SF homeowners and neighborhoods like Wallingford as “racist” and “exclusionary.” And they say we should willingly vote to jack up our property taxes even more, because we’re “lucky” and did nothing to “deserve” the increased equity in our homes. Equity that simply means higher taxes until we sell, IF we want to leave the neighborhood we love. Yet the Mayor ADMITS that no affordable housing will be built in neighborhoods like Wallingford, regardless.
So now they literally want us to vote to double the taxes we pay for “affordability,” to help fund the very program that taking away our rights and destroys our communities? Not just “no,” but “HELL NO!”
Excellent points Hayduke. It seems as though the “urbanists” are fine with raising homeowners’ property taxes. My husband and I don’t make over $45,000 a year and most of that is Social Security. I will always vote for schools but these housing and transportation levies are too much, especially along with the annual property increases brought about by million dollar houses. It’s particularly absurd for us if the city subsidizes up to 60% AMI housing. We don’t even make that. It looks as though I will be forced to leave the city sooner than I ever imagined. It makes me very sad.
Very sorry to hear that Berta. I really hope you can stay. You’re the kind of neighbor I’d like to see stick around.
I’m sure all the hipsters and urbanistas would be happy to see you go, however. They’ll tell you that any equity increase you saw in your house you didn’t “earn” and you don’t “deserve” it. You’re just “lucky” and “privileged.” So you should really take one for the team and move off into the sunset and let someone more deserving live where your house stands today.
They just want you to make sure you vote to jack up our taxes and double the housing levy before you go, okay? Because after all, they really care so much about making Wallingford,” right?
More data (fairly accurate estimates of population, inflation calculator used: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)
The long term solution to housing affordability is to increase the ratio of public/NGO housing to private market housing. Yes, the urbanists are jerky reverse dog-whistlers and reactionaries in “progressive” sheep clothing, and yes we have a regressive tax structure that relies too much on property taxes, but we do pay lower rate than many cities. The levy helps or at least prevents the ratio from getting worse. I’m voting yes.
Well we agree on this one. Should probably be bigger, if anything.
We agree to a point. As with the Park District and many other government projects, the measure is lacking is sufficient transparency and accountability. But the problems with it are systemic, and until they’re fixed, if ever, we need to do the righter thing. (Or “lefter” as is my inclination)
A major fix is to elect people with democratic values. We have been stuck on too much neoliberalism for too long. Elections matter. I am hopeful that Honest Elections Seattle will help us produce a majority leftist democratic City Council. Districts helped, but we need to get the money control out as well.
I have a suggestion, Bryan. You don’t think even DOUBLING the housing levy is enough? How about you put your money where your mouth is and step up and pay Berta’s share, because she can’t afford to keep paying ever higher property taxes on their $45,000 income.
Come on now, you DO want to keep Wallingford affordable for people like Berta, don’t you?
Yes: By-right duplexes or triplexes, ADUs and DADUs would provide a great way for folks on limited income currently in solo SFHs to use their capital gains to downsize (or subdivide) and age in place in the neighborhood without being priced out.
VOTO DOWN THIS LEVY!!
Hello, everyone. I voted against the Parks Levy and $1 billion Transportation levy, but I am voting FOR the Housing Levy. Why? Because it produces tangible results — new 100% affordable units for our most vulnerable. Permanent housing is a proven solution that provides stability for formerly homeless families and others. Land and building costs have increased and there is less subsidy available from other sources. At least you know your hard-earned tax dollars will build something effective.
Alex: “At least you know your hard-earned tax dollars will build something effective.” I wish I shared your optimism. I’m voting no, mostly because of the mayor’s and HALA’s continual deceptions and obscurantism. The fact that our council representative, Rob Johnson, accepts hefty donations from developers gives me absolutely no confidence in him either. I fully support publicly owned low-income housing for low-income people, however.
I agree that several of the HALA items are troublesome, especially how they are pushed by vested interests onto a seemingly unstoppable political freight train with no patience for genuine input. Anyone who asks a question is labeled a “NIMBY.” The good news is that the Housing Levy is not HALA. The Housing Levy is tried and true, already building thousands of high-quality apartments for the lowest incomes.
The Housing Levy has a long history of fulfilling its promises, and is the envy of other cities that haven’t marched our record of creating affordable housing. It is totally independent of the HALA, although the HALA counts the Housing Levy among its key funding sources. The Housing Levy should be judged on its own merits.
It’s the same old scam they’ve always used, bait and switch. The ballot will say this is just the renewal of an existing levy but each time the levies are renewed they are doubled in cost but you have to read the text of the ballot measure carefully to figure that out. Seattle is not only pricing out the middle class based on rent but also based on property taxes. You watch and see. The sheeple will fall for it again and up go the property taxes yet again, every single election more and more levies. My property tax statement says that over half the property taxes I am paying are due to voter approved increases over the state limit. Thank goodness they even bother showing me that statistic, most likely Republicans mandated that the government must at least inform the taxpayers of that statistic because what we pay is so far above the state limit. I’m paying close to $500 a month in property taxes alone for my little place. Seattle is apparently only for the wealthy. We’ve liked living here but when we retire we intend to cash out and move as far from Seattle as possible. Seattle politicians and voters would gladly take our whole life savings for all their “good causes”.
I’m going to disagree with you on a couple of key points: The doubling of the levy amount has been openly stated. In fact, my data shows that in constant dollars, the increase is 79%, not 100 (doubling).
More to the point, the “state limit” on local taxation you reference—requiring endless votes—is a result of Eymanism. Makes you sound like the Republican; who do you vote for?
And BTW, the place “as far from Seattle as possible” is called our antipode, and here it is:
Thank you. A vote for the Housing Levy will increase the average
homeowners’ taxes by $61 a year.
It’s the cumulative effect that is troubling, built in increases for parks, additional levies, increases in property values and consequently taxes. All this stacked up against stagnant wages. Hell…they need a levy for middle class housing affordability. Seattle…the shining city on the hill that nobody except the 1% can afford to live in.
i would like to visit the antipode! Who’s got a boat? 🙂
There has to be some recognition by Seattle City government that wages are not increasing at the same rate as property taxes. I live within a budget. I prioritize my needs. I save, and implement things over time. Seattle needs to develop some fiscal responsibility. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Seattle is becoming a shining city on a hill that nobody can afford to live in except the 1%. Some Republicans are considering voting for Clinton, I’m actually glad Eyman put this in place. I’d like to see property tax increases linked with wage increases. I hope you’re not advocating for a society that positions the elderly on ice floes in Puget Sound when they can no longer afford to stay in their home…LOL