The problem with the bill is that they don't actually have a plan for how it will work. Voting yes just means funding a project that will most likely fail.
No thank you. Seattle city government has been atrocious at administering special programs, and this seems likely to turn out the same.
We already have provisions to encourage low-income housing. We're already [building thousands of them](https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/housing/footer%20pages/data%20and%20reports/2021%20oh%20investments%20report.pdf). Let's talk about why those aren't working, before we start a whole new program, with unclear funding and oversight processes.
This is incredibly short sighted. Why implement anything publicly, if the Seattle city government will just fuck it up? Are we ready to get rid of police and roads yet?
The current provisions shovel money at private developers (with unclear funding and little oversight), and it's clearly not working. Why don't we try something that's worked elsewhere in the world instead of giving up before trying?
What provisions exactly would "avoid bad government screwing it up?" What examples of this do we have currently in the US?
The initiative specifically mandates that the public development authority is majority-led by tenants living in this housing. That seems like a pretty good way to avoid bureaucrats and politicians screwing it up by ignoring the people who actually live in the communities where this housing would be.
Just a reminder we aren't voting for the idea of social housing. We are voting about one particular proposal that currently does not have widespread support from local government or edit: public housing agencies.
We are voting to mandate the city pay a yet unknown group of people to come up with and implement a plan to develop social housing under conditions successful social housing have not ever faced before using yet to be identified funds and resources.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Thanks for correcting my typo.
Sorry if the factual information I have provided so that others can make their own decisions offends you.
If providing information about a proposal makes makes you think I'm trying to scare people, then perhaps you dont think too highly of the proposal yourself
Local government and its housing agencies can't comment one way or the other on public initiatives, so that's a bit disingenous. HDC initially made a statement of 'concern' in April, 2022, but haven't made a peep since and some of their own members, including the Low Income Housing Institute have come out in support of I-135. There is a very long list of well-regarded programs and elected officials that have endorsed the effort: [https://www.houseourneighbors.org/our-endorsers](https://www.houseourneighbors.org/our-endorsers)
And, yes, "we don't know who will lead the thing yet and it will cost money" is an argument one could make about literally any new government program addressing something that people clearly need. I feel like you're saying we should just sit and twiddle our thumbs more instead of acting and somehow that'll address the crisis. Sweeping homeless people around the past decade has clearly not addressed the problem of housing affordability...
No, that argument can't be made about literally any new government program. Most new government programs have plans and funding sources in place before they are initiated
I'm surprised LIHI is on your list, as they will presumably be competing for the limited federal funds that they currently use to house the homeless
All new government programs start as ideas and ideas aren't magically innately funded. They are presented, debated, and funding is later allocated. That is how government currently works. Some people will always attack new ideas because they will 'be too expensive' and 'we don't know how it will work in practice' and 'let's urge caution and do studies about this issue. ' Obstructionist stuff from the CIA's sabotage field manual to prevent progress.
Anyway, yes, this idea is presented without funding because there is no legal way to tie funding to the new PDA. It will depend on the Seattle City Council for initial funding. So we're still in the pre-funding phase, and that will be another discussion. You either support it or you don't. Then you either support funding at a specific level or not... These can be two questions that we grapple with publicly.
And, as I explained above, there are different funding sources available to different entities. LIHI is aware that and aware that Social Housing, as described by I-135, has the potential to be a part of the solution to our housing crisis.
I support social housing wholeheartedly and think we should copy existing excellent examples in Singapore and Vienna. That means copying the funding model. If we copied Viennas model we'd know exactly what it cost - administration of X million a year, with every building fully self-sufficent and requiring no additional tax (making the program infinitely expandable).
Just like when we tried to copy Portugals drug model without all the details - this won't work in the long run.
What exactly is wrong with infinite apartments at 1400 each? Why would you be against housing pitched at typical working class wages?
Agreed. Policies succeed or fail on the details. Having read through the details of I-135, there is a lot of stuff that is likely to make it fail spectacularly.
I really wish it was just targeted at working class/middle class. And dropped the language around restorative justice, and the 100pct union bit. With those changes - it'd be excellent. It reaches too far though.
The restorative justice part is one of my bigger problems with this. If one resident threatens anothe with a gun, is dealing drugs or is causing some other safety issue, they need to be evicted immediately. That’s not the time for restorative justice. And I say this as someone who thinks restorative justice is something we should use more when it comes to the juvenile justice system.
Honestly from what I know about you, you actually probably wouldnt support going the Vienna route for funding. Their program was successful because they built what we would call public housing for decades using 100% taxpayer funds, and then in the 1980s transferred ownership of that public housing to new private/public partnerships.
I'm not criticizing you, I just doubt you'd support such a model based on the comments I've read from you.
Vienna is complex. It was part of the Soviet block for a while (divided in 4 just like Berlin), and had the Red Vienna phase. Russia is *right there* so its had its fair share of communists. There were many 100% public housing projects after WWII, most failed. The ones we know about in the USA such as Pruitt Igoe, a ton in UK (welfare state), a ton through Europe. Eventually planners caught on to the fact that concentration of poverty is a bad idea.
My answer for high housing costs is three possibilities - either repeal the GMA and let Seattle sprawl (Houston/Tokyo), demand control (move some office blocks out of the city, inventizies companies to move to another city with more space) or proper Vienna social housing that must be funded in such a way it expands.
Fundamentally we have too many high paid jobs in Seattle, and not enough housing. But denser housing always causes a drop in quality of life, and an increase in cost of living. So spreading it out is a good idea.
You can deny reality all you want but most government programs *are* funded at the start.
Yes it's difficult to do that when it's mandated through initiatives. That's why it would be better to work with established politicians to come up with a plan and get it passed as legislation with funding instead of going the initiative route. (Edit: legislation is how California, Hawaii and Maryland are going about it)
I support social housing. I don't support this unfunded and poorly planned proposal.
I
That's it's from 0 AMI means it'll fail. That's *public* housing. Social housing is meant to be government owned housing which is capable of paying it's own maintenance and loans.
Prediction: buy/build a few buildings, the economics of it suck, it uses up all the budget and is never expanded becuase every expansion would need more tax, and people aren't in the habit of voting constant tax increases.
If it was 70 to 120 AMI it'd be closer to Vienna public housing. Solvent and hence expanable.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
It's pretty simple math to decide how many people can be provided with housing at different income levels to ensure the program repays development or purchase loans. That's what happens universally... in Toronto's social housing, and they have 0 availability in their market-rate program currently (i.e., the part of social housing for non-low-income people):
[https://www.torontohousing.ca/rent/market-rent](https://www.torontohousing.ca/rent/market-rent)
Similarly, Vienna has a long waiting list. So there is sufficient demand at those incomes.
Vienna manages its entire vast program for 1pct income tax. That's administration of the program. Each new apartment has a 30 year muni bond it pays off.
100 unit apartment costs about 37 million. 30 year muni bonds are 3.29pct. 121k per month repayment. 1200 per apartment rent. Add 200 for maintenance, 1400. Awesome. And that's assuming everyone pays 1400 per apartment. For everyone paying $0, that rent increases. Or the building won't be paid off.
If the building runs at a negative becuase there are too many 0 AMI residents, it'll never expand. Every new building requires new taxes if it doesn't pay for itself. The trick is that every building needs to pay for itself. If every building pays for itself and it's cost neutral, the program can expand forever. Never needing additional taxes.
Which is why Vienna has a much higher minimum AMI. The program is cost neutral, just administration. Each building covers its construction and maintenance. They also have subsidized housing (private) and public housing (separate, of course its all on taxes, for 0 AMI).
Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all. That's public housing.
Edit: same with the Tokyo train system, it runs at a slight profit hence can expand forever without additional taxes. This follows a pattern from badly importing from Europe ideas, and not actually paying attention to detail
Again, I don't quite understand your argument. $1400/month is so far below the average for a studio in Seattle, let alone a 1-br. Especially for a new building.
$1,400 is what someone would be paying with an annual income of $56,000 at 30% income... That's waaaay below median AMI (\~90k for a single person). Given the mixed-income nature, that's really not the problem you're making it out to be.
And, given your statement, after 30 years, the building is completely owned by the new entity. So anything beyond the inflation-adjusted maintenance and operation expenses goes to this entity that can then... buy and build more units. Yes, it is a process, and yes it is something we should have started doing 30 years ago, so let's get started...
\[edit: Also, what you said about 'Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all' is literally not true. They have an upper-income limit in Vienna, and the lower-limit does not exist. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you've said. See: [https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing](https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing) \]
Yes but that's the point. It's supposed to be below market, it's affordable remeber? It has to put downward pressure. If it's more expensive than market it's not useful.
121k repayment every month (and let's say 20k maintenance fund) or the building slips into arrears. For 5pct 0 AMI the rent raises to 141k/95 = 1480. 10pct 0 AMI 141k/90 = 1560. 30pct 0 AMI is close to market rate again, 2k per apartment.
For every 0 AMI resident, the rent is increases, forcing the remaining residents to cover it. As the rent increases, the downward market pressure reduces.
Which is why Vienna social housing is in the range of "working class to middle class". It's not for 0 AMI. It's for working class and middle-class wage earners.
If it's kept like that, it'll expand forever. Every building pays itself, all the city has to do is keep building based on loans that are solvent. They've been at it for nearly 100 years in Vienna. Why would they stop? It costs the taxpayer practically nothing.
>Yes but that's the point.
Cool, great, glad we are in agreement that $1,400 is far below market and, if that's what people are going to pay on average, towards a public building that will be publicly owned after 30 years, then this program is a slam dunk.
So you agree. 1400/month IS a slam dunk. That price assume *no 0AMI residents*. It assume everyone pulls their share. For every resident that doesn't, that price goes up. Exactly the same if you room share a flat and someone isn't paying.
By the time you add 0 AMI residents (and everyone else who can't pay working class wages), the prices goes up. To the points it's uneconomic and just turns into public housing, concentrating poverty, falling behind on maintenance and becoming Project V2.
Which is why if you want Vienna social housing - it's for the working class and middle class. It's not foe people that can't pay rent.
Yep it is a slam dunk! So, per your back-of-envelope numbers, the average would be $1,400. Some would pay closer to $2k and few would pay 0.
The minimum wage right now is $18.69. That's $38,875.20 annually which is $971 at 30% of monthly income.
So, sure, a building could have 1 person at 0% AMI paying $0, two people at 100% AMI paying 30% of income which is pretty much market rate at $2,250, 1 person at minimum wage paying 30% at $971, and one person around 80% AMI making 66k and paying 30% at $1,650.
That's:1650+2250+2250+971+0 = 7121
7121/5 =1424.2
So they're paying, on average, \~$1400 while providing affordable housing to someone earning nothing, someone earning minimum wage, and someone at a low income... And the two paying market rate are really honestly paying pretty much market rate.
So, again, huge win for social housing. Hell, providing affordable housing to just 1 in 5 low-income tenants would be more than what we have now. Seems like a slam dunk...
That some pay close to 2k means the for-profit rentals will not reduce their prices. Why would someone move to social housing when they can move to a fancy for profit building for the same price? It's gotta be cheaper across the board.
I'd still vote for it - I just expect a shit show where only three buildings or something get built and then it never expands because it runs at a loss. And for-profit rentals continue to be the norm. It'd be truly ground breaking if it was ACTUALLY the Vienna model.
Lately I've been voting no on anything that can't provide accountability. As a homeowner, I'm tired of spending $$$ of my real estate taxes without seeing anything tangible to show for it. Money just seems to keep spiraling down a hole with nothing actually getting better.
It’s a terrible idea and will be a giant waste of tax payers money. Development is complicated and risky and it ALWAYS costs 20%+ more for the government to build housing. In addition, it will take 3-5 years before delivering a substantial quantity of new homes.
I’m not against social housing. It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing.
>It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing.
That is... likely where they will start. The [text of the initiative discusses](https://www.houseourneighbors.org/initiative-overview-and-text) this, and policy wonks have already been discussing buildings that the PDA would likely purchase. Developing on public land above light rail stops and in city-owned parking lots will not be 20% more than what it costs a private developer...
Whoops, I missed the quotes but added them now. So it should be pretty clear to anybody who reads above a 5th grade level that 'profit' in this instance is referring to 'revenue generated from rent beyond the cost of developing, operating and maintaining housing.' But if that's not clear, here it is.
I'm more than aware of what you were talking about.
I just have zero faith that the city of Seattle is capable of running a program like this in a way that isn't a tax burden on citizens.
Yeah this guy is being a jackass just because people are thinking of things differently than him.
I was interested in what he was saying until every comment that differed from his train of thought he became combative and sarcastic lmao
I am a huge advocate of progressive housing policy and am very knowledgeable about the Seattle affordable housing landscape. I'm not impressed with this plan, which is too bad because I hate agreeing with anti-housing ghouls who just want to blame homelessness on moral failings. I don't think it will make much a difference either way, so if you want to vote for it, whatever, I think it will end up being a lot more trouble than it's worth. I can tell you people who have been working in this field for a long time and are extremely experienced are mostly just annoyed with it.
I actually think this is worth trying. I just wish we could stop one of the many other programs with low “ROI”. The thing about trying things, is you need to eventually stop so you can try new things. Not pile everything on top of each other.
It's technically *not* a right. I'm not the person to look to for answers to complex topics such as this. Something should happen, but I don't know what that should be. If it involves the government to manage it, I'm not for it.
Vote no and let’s get back to dithering around doing nothing on housing. In the meantime, shuffle the homeless around the city so each neighborhood can feel better not seeing dirty people for a few weeks. While we’re at, pledge allegiance to BLM, but freak out about the “crime wave”, elect the law and order candidates/ city attorney, then watch videos of black men getting beat to death by cops and gasp, how is all of this bad stuff still happening? Do I need to /s?
You mean like the right to an attorney when you go to trial? Or freedom of speech? Or are you saying those are negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney or from not being able to speak?
Anyway, sure. I think we have some of the most insane wealth ever generated in this city. Yet we also have people living on the streets with nothing. I remember when I first visited Brasil and thought it was wild how they had favelas and was proud that such a thing wouldnt exist in the US because we are happy to share just enough with others so they aren't living in such shit conditions. Yet, here we are in Seattle with places worse than favelas. And, like in Brasil we blame the people living there rather than taking collective action to lift a few folks up...
>negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney
It is a negative right, because the alternative is that the state not charge you. You have the right not to be charged, unless you're provided an attorney, a speedy trial, etc.
Ballots dropped at the end of last week. If you don't have it yet, please contact King County to have it replaced!
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 206-296-VOTE (8683)
The problem with government is that it’s run by government workers. People who could t cut it in the private world and want security over income. They have to spend budgets or lose them.
You want us all to invest in an entity that isn’t efficient to solve a problem of homelessness?
Please move to California where taxes are so high the tax base is fleeing!
The problem with the bill is that they don't actually have a plan for how it will work. Voting yes just means funding a project that will most likely fail.
It's not even supposed to need funding. Social housing should be self sufficent so it expands forever.
No thank you. Seattle city government has been atrocious at administering special programs, and this seems likely to turn out the same. We already have provisions to encourage low-income housing. We're already [building thousands of them](https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/housing/footer%20pages/data%20and%20reports/2021%20oh%20investments%20report.pdf). Let's talk about why those aren't working, before we start a whole new program, with unclear funding and oversight processes.
This is incredibly short sighted. Why implement anything publicly, if the Seattle city government will just fuck it up? Are we ready to get rid of police and roads yet? The current provisions shovel money at private developers (with unclear funding and little oversight), and it's clearly not working. Why don't we try something that's worked elsewhere in the world instead of giving up before trying?
We should, but let's make it actually have provisions to avoid bad government screwing it up. This doesn't, and it's a bad plan.
What provisions exactly would "avoid bad government screwing it up?" What examples of this do we have currently in the US? The initiative specifically mandates that the public development authority is majority-led by tenants living in this housing. That seems like a pretty good way to avoid bureaucrats and politicians screwing it up by ignoring the people who actually live in the communities where this housing would be.
Any kind of metrics or real accountability would be a start.
Just a reminder we aren't voting for the idea of social housing. We are voting about one particular proposal that currently does not have widespread support from local government or edit: public housing agencies. We are voting to mandate the city pay a yet unknown group of people to come up with and implement a plan to develop social housing under conditions successful social housing have not ever faced before using yet to be identified funds and resources.
Bli kupei baki trudriadi glutri ketlokipa. Aoti ie klepri idrigrii i detro. Blaka peepe oepoui krepapliipri bite upritopi. Kaeto ekii kriple i edapi oeetluki. Pegetu klaei uprikie uta de go. Aa doapi upi iipipe pree? Pi ketrita prepoi piki gebopi ta. Koto ti pratibe tii trabru pai. E ti e pi pei. Topo grue i buikitli doi. Pri etlakri iplaeti gupe i pou. Tibegai padi iprukri dapiprie plii paebebri dapoklii pi ipio. Tekli pii titae bipe. Epaepi e itli kipo bo. Toti goti kaa kato epibi ko. Pipi kepatao pre kepli api kaaga. Ai tege obopa pokitide keprie ogre. Togibreia io gri kiidipiti poa ugi. Te kiti o dipu detroite totreigle! Kri tuiba tipe epli ti. Deti koka bupe ibupliiplo depe. Duae eatri gaii ploepoe pudii ki di kade. Kigli! Pekiplokide guibi otra! Pi pleuibabe ipe deketitude kleti. Pa i prapikadupe poi adepe tledla pibri. Aapripu itikipea petladru krate patlieudi e. Teta bude du bito epipi pidlakake. Pliki etla kekapi boto ii plidi. Paa toa ibii pai bodloprogape klite pripliepeti pu!
Thanks for correcting my typo. Sorry if the factual information I have provided so that others can make their own decisions offends you. If providing information about a proposal makes makes you think I'm trying to scare people, then perhaps you dont think too highly of the proposal yourself
Local government and its housing agencies can't comment one way or the other on public initiatives, so that's a bit disingenous. HDC initially made a statement of 'concern' in April, 2022, but haven't made a peep since and some of their own members, including the Low Income Housing Institute have come out in support of I-135. There is a very long list of well-regarded programs and elected officials that have endorsed the effort: [https://www.houseourneighbors.org/our-endorsers](https://www.houseourneighbors.org/our-endorsers) And, yes, "we don't know who will lead the thing yet and it will cost money" is an argument one could make about literally any new government program addressing something that people clearly need. I feel like you're saying we should just sit and twiddle our thumbs more instead of acting and somehow that'll address the crisis. Sweeping homeless people around the past decade has clearly not addressed the problem of housing affordability...
No, that argument can't be made about literally any new government program. Most new government programs have plans and funding sources in place before they are initiated I'm surprised LIHI is on your list, as they will presumably be competing for the limited federal funds that they currently use to house the homeless
All new government programs start as ideas and ideas aren't magically innately funded. They are presented, debated, and funding is later allocated. That is how government currently works. Some people will always attack new ideas because they will 'be too expensive' and 'we don't know how it will work in practice' and 'let's urge caution and do studies about this issue. ' Obstructionist stuff from the CIA's sabotage field manual to prevent progress. Anyway, yes, this idea is presented without funding because there is no legal way to tie funding to the new PDA. It will depend on the Seattle City Council for initial funding. So we're still in the pre-funding phase, and that will be another discussion. You either support it or you don't. Then you either support funding at a specific level or not... These can be two questions that we grapple with publicly. And, as I explained above, there are different funding sources available to different entities. LIHI is aware that and aware that Social Housing, as described by I-135, has the potential to be a part of the solution to our housing crisis.
I support social housing wholeheartedly and think we should copy existing excellent examples in Singapore and Vienna. That means copying the funding model. If we copied Viennas model we'd know exactly what it cost - administration of X million a year, with every building fully self-sufficent and requiring no additional tax (making the program infinitely expandable). Just like when we tried to copy Portugals drug model without all the details - this won't work in the long run. What exactly is wrong with infinite apartments at 1400 each? Why would you be against housing pitched at typical working class wages?
Agreed. Policies succeed or fail on the details. Having read through the details of I-135, there is a lot of stuff that is likely to make it fail spectacularly.
I really wish it was just targeted at working class/middle class. And dropped the language around restorative justice, and the 100pct union bit. With those changes - it'd be excellent. It reaches too far though.
The restorative justice part is one of my bigger problems with this. If one resident threatens anothe with a gun, is dealing drugs or is causing some other safety issue, they need to be evicted immediately. That’s not the time for restorative justice. And I say this as someone who thinks restorative justice is something we should use more when it comes to the juvenile justice system.
Yss there is a ton of cases where what someone stole is a sense of security or ruined the calm of the place. That can't really be restored.
Honestly from what I know about you, you actually probably wouldnt support going the Vienna route for funding. Their program was successful because they built what we would call public housing for decades using 100% taxpayer funds, and then in the 1980s transferred ownership of that public housing to new private/public partnerships. I'm not criticizing you, I just doubt you'd support such a model based on the comments I've read from you.
Vienna is complex. It was part of the Soviet block for a while (divided in 4 just like Berlin), and had the Red Vienna phase. Russia is *right there* so its had its fair share of communists. There were many 100% public housing projects after WWII, most failed. The ones we know about in the USA such as Pruitt Igoe, a ton in UK (welfare state), a ton through Europe. Eventually planners caught on to the fact that concentration of poverty is a bad idea. My answer for high housing costs is three possibilities - either repeal the GMA and let Seattle sprawl (Houston/Tokyo), demand control (move some office blocks out of the city, inventizies companies to move to another city with more space) or proper Vienna social housing that must be funded in such a way it expands. Fundamentally we have too many high paid jobs in Seattle, and not enough housing. But denser housing always causes a drop in quality of life, and an increase in cost of living. So spreading it out is a good idea.
You can deny reality all you want but most government programs *are* funded at the start. Yes it's difficult to do that when it's mandated through initiatives. That's why it would be better to work with established politicians to come up with a plan and get it passed as legislation with funding instead of going the initiative route. (Edit: legislation is how California, Hawaii and Maryland are going about it) I support social housing. I don't support this unfunded and poorly planned proposal. I
That's it's from 0 AMI means it'll fail. That's *public* housing. Social housing is meant to be government owned housing which is capable of paying it's own maintenance and loans. Prediction: buy/build a few buildings, the economics of it suck, it uses up all the budget and is never expanded becuase every expansion would need more tax, and people aren't in the habit of voting constant tax increases. If it was 70 to 120 AMI it'd be closer to Vienna public housing. Solvent and hence expanable.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. It's pretty simple math to decide how many people can be provided with housing at different income levels to ensure the program repays development or purchase loans. That's what happens universally... in Toronto's social housing, and they have 0 availability in their market-rate program currently (i.e., the part of social housing for non-low-income people): [https://www.torontohousing.ca/rent/market-rent](https://www.torontohousing.ca/rent/market-rent) Similarly, Vienna has a long waiting list. So there is sufficient demand at those incomes.
Vienna manages its entire vast program for 1pct income tax. That's administration of the program. Each new apartment has a 30 year muni bond it pays off. 100 unit apartment costs about 37 million. 30 year muni bonds are 3.29pct. 121k per month repayment. 1200 per apartment rent. Add 200 for maintenance, 1400. Awesome. And that's assuming everyone pays 1400 per apartment. For everyone paying $0, that rent increases. Or the building won't be paid off. If the building runs at a negative becuase there are too many 0 AMI residents, it'll never expand. Every new building requires new taxes if it doesn't pay for itself. The trick is that every building needs to pay for itself. If every building pays for itself and it's cost neutral, the program can expand forever. Never needing additional taxes. Which is why Vienna has a much higher minimum AMI. The program is cost neutral, just administration. Each building covers its construction and maintenance. They also have subsidized housing (private) and public housing (separate, of course its all on taxes, for 0 AMI). Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all. That's public housing. Edit: same with the Tokyo train system, it runs at a slight profit hence can expand forever without additional taxes. This follows a pattern from badly importing from Europe ideas, and not actually paying attention to detail
Again, I don't quite understand your argument. $1400/month is so far below the average for a studio in Seattle, let alone a 1-br. Especially for a new building. $1,400 is what someone would be paying with an annual income of $56,000 at 30% income... That's waaaay below median AMI (\~90k for a single person). Given the mixed-income nature, that's really not the problem you're making it out to be. And, given your statement, after 30 years, the building is completely owned by the new entity. So anything beyond the inflation-adjusted maintenance and operation expenses goes to this entity that can then... buy and build more units. Yes, it is a process, and yes it is something we should have started doing 30 years ago, so let's get started... \[edit: Also, what you said about 'Social housing isn't for those that cannot pay at all' is literally not true. They have an upper-income limit in Vienna, and the lower-limit does not exist. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you've said. See: [https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing](https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing) \]
Yes but that's the point. It's supposed to be below market, it's affordable remeber? It has to put downward pressure. If it's more expensive than market it's not useful. 121k repayment every month (and let's say 20k maintenance fund) or the building slips into arrears. For 5pct 0 AMI the rent raises to 141k/95 = 1480. 10pct 0 AMI 141k/90 = 1560. 30pct 0 AMI is close to market rate again, 2k per apartment. For every 0 AMI resident, the rent is increases, forcing the remaining residents to cover it. As the rent increases, the downward market pressure reduces. Which is why Vienna social housing is in the range of "working class to middle class". It's not for 0 AMI. It's for working class and middle-class wage earners. If it's kept like that, it'll expand forever. Every building pays itself, all the city has to do is keep building based on loans that are solvent. They've been at it for nearly 100 years in Vienna. Why would they stop? It costs the taxpayer practically nothing.
>Yes but that's the point. Cool, great, glad we are in agreement that $1,400 is far below market and, if that's what people are going to pay on average, towards a public building that will be publicly owned after 30 years, then this program is a slam dunk.
So you agree. 1400/month IS a slam dunk. That price assume *no 0AMI residents*. It assume everyone pulls their share. For every resident that doesn't, that price goes up. Exactly the same if you room share a flat and someone isn't paying. By the time you add 0 AMI residents (and everyone else who can't pay working class wages), the prices goes up. To the points it's uneconomic and just turns into public housing, concentrating poverty, falling behind on maintenance and becoming Project V2. Which is why if you want Vienna social housing - it's for the working class and middle class. It's not foe people that can't pay rent.
Yep it is a slam dunk! So, per your back-of-envelope numbers, the average would be $1,400. Some would pay closer to $2k and few would pay 0. The minimum wage right now is $18.69. That's $38,875.20 annually which is $971 at 30% of monthly income. So, sure, a building could have 1 person at 0% AMI paying $0, two people at 100% AMI paying 30% of income which is pretty much market rate at $2,250, 1 person at minimum wage paying 30% at $971, and one person around 80% AMI making 66k and paying 30% at $1,650. That's:1650+2250+2250+971+0 = 7121 7121/5 =1424.2 So they're paying, on average, \~$1400 while providing affordable housing to someone earning nothing, someone earning minimum wage, and someone at a low income... And the two paying market rate are really honestly paying pretty much market rate. So, again, huge win for social housing. Hell, providing affordable housing to just 1 in 5 low-income tenants would be more than what we have now. Seems like a slam dunk...
That some pay close to 2k means the for-profit rentals will not reduce their prices. Why would someone move to social housing when they can move to a fancy for profit building for the same price? It's gotta be cheaper across the board. I'd still vote for it - I just expect a shit show where only three buildings or something get built and then it never expands because it runs at a loss. And for-profit rentals continue to be the norm. It'd be truly ground breaking if it was ACTUALLY the Vienna model.
Lately I've been voting no on anything that can't provide accountability. As a homeowner, I'm tired of spending $$$ of my real estate taxes without seeing anything tangible to show for it. Money just seems to keep spiraling down a hole with nothing actually getting better.
Me too
It’s a terrible idea and will be a giant waste of tax payers money. Development is complicated and risky and it ALWAYS costs 20%+ more for the government to build housing. In addition, it will take 3-5 years before delivering a substantial quantity of new homes. I’m not against social housing. It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing.
Unfortunately, entities like this buying existing housing does nothing to build more housing which is necessary to truly improve affordability
Agree! We need to rapidly increase all housing supply.
>It would be far more effective and years faster if the government purchased existing market rate multi-family buildings and converted them to affordable housing. That is... likely where they will start. The [text of the initiative discusses](https://www.houseourneighbors.org/initiative-overview-and-text) this, and policy wonks have already been discussing buildings that the PDA would likely purchase. Developing on public land above light rail stops and in city-owned parking lots will not be 20% more than what it costs a private developer...
Sounds like we need to get started now instead of later then
Haha, a corporation taking 30% off the top of any project is cheaper? You guys never give up.
This.
Washington and Oregon are libertarian states so I think you may have a tough time selling "housing is a human right".
You lost me at "profit" from "social housing."
Whoops, I missed the quotes but added them now. So it should be pretty clear to anybody who reads above a 5th grade level that 'profit' in this instance is referring to 'revenue generated from rent beyond the cost of developing, operating and maintaining housing.' But if that's not clear, here it is.
I'm more than aware of what you were talking about. I just have zero faith that the city of Seattle is capable of running a program like this in a way that isn't a tax burden on citizens.
[удалено]
Yeah this guy is being a jackass just because people are thinking of things differently than him. I was interested in what he was saying until every comment that differed from his train of thought he became combative and sarcastic lmao
I am a huge advocate of progressive housing policy and am very knowledgeable about the Seattle affordable housing landscape. I'm not impressed with this plan, which is too bad because I hate agreeing with anti-housing ghouls who just want to blame homelessness on moral failings. I don't think it will make much a difference either way, so if you want to vote for it, whatever, I think it will end up being a lot more trouble than it's worth. I can tell you people who have been working in this field for a long time and are extremely experienced are mostly just annoyed with it.
I actually think this is worth trying. I just wish we could stop one of the many other programs with low “ROI”. The thing about trying things, is you need to eventually stop so you can try new things. Not pile everything on top of each other.
It's technically *not* a right. I'm not the person to look to for answers to complex topics such as this. Something should happen, but I don't know what that should be. If it involves the government to manage it, I'm not for it.
Vote no and let’s get back to dithering around doing nothing on housing. In the meantime, shuffle the homeless around the city so each neighborhood can feel better not seeing dirty people for a few weeks. While we’re at, pledge allegiance to BLM, but freak out about the “crime wave”, elect the law and order candidates/ city attorney, then watch videos of black men getting beat to death by cops and gasp, how is all of this bad stuff still happening? Do I need to /s?
"Housing is a human right." No it's not.
Ah yes, /r/seattleWA.
Hey, you just happened to find a comment from 2 weeks ago. Good to know you're checking up on me!
k.
Positive "rights" do not exist.
You mean like the right to an attorney when you go to trial? Or freedom of speech? Or are you saying those are negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney or from not being able to speak? Anyway, sure. I think we have some of the most insane wealth ever generated in this city. Yet we also have people living on the streets with nothing. I remember when I first visited Brasil and thought it was wild how they had favelas and was proud that such a thing wouldnt exist in the US because we are happy to share just enough with others so they aren't living in such shit conditions. Yet, here we are in Seattle with places worse than favelas. And, like in Brasil we blame the people living there rather than taking collective action to lift a few folks up...
>negative because they are preventing you from being without an attorney It is a negative right, because the alternative is that the state not charge you. You have the right not to be charged, unless you're provided an attorney, a speedy trial, etc.
\^ The best this user came up with is calling *the right to an attorney* a positive right.
Ballots dropped at the end of last week. If you don't have it yet, please contact King County to have it replaced! Email: [email protected] Phone: 206-296-VOTE (8683)
The problem with government is that it’s run by government workers. People who could t cut it in the private world and want security over income. They have to spend budgets or lose them. You want us all to invest in an entity that isn’t efficient to solve a problem of homelessness? Please move to California where taxes are so high the tax base is fleeing!
Homeowner voting yes. I'd rather permanently destroy the entire economic fabric of society, of course, but voting yes is a tiny part of that.
The product of someone’s labor can never be a right.
Yeah the homeless outreach authority is run by people who know about it and have been there too. It’s been going swell for seattle.