So, I am going to.
I decided to engage Copilot in a conversation on the subject.
I should warn y'all: I sound like a flaming socialist.
Maybe I am.
Wrapped in capitalist grape leaves.
***********************************************
Oddly, I have some thoughts.
I assume The Stranger is just keeping its powder dry for a few more days, so I'm waiting to see what they say before I vote, but here are my thoughts to date.
I voted for establishing the SSHD in 2023. I did that with as much research as I could do and, finally, a leap of faith. The proposition was to establish and fund with a little bit of money - I think it was $250,000 - an agency that, when/if it got funded would build, own and manage housing for a mix of incomes. I think I remember that the proposition included a broad outline of how the thing would function if it ever got funded. Briefly, I remember that it was going to build housing for a market consisting of people who could afford housing and on down the income ladder. It was asserted that people who could pay "market rate" for housing being a part of the residence base would make it possible to offer a better deal on an accelerating level to people back on down the income scale. The advantages, it was asserted were that there would be real communities, not Hooervilles and TrumpTowers; all the participants would be mixed in housing that differed only by how many people it needed to accommodate, not how much money anybody was able to pay. I liked the sound of the whole thing. The City and the developer establishment hated it and attacked it in various predictably irrational ways, but if you boiled it all down, the City hated losing control of the program (SSHD is new and independent of the City) and the developers hated not being able to build economically segregated housing.
So now it's 2025 and SSHD has survived and is coming back and has a ballot measure that says "so now fund us".
That's Ballot Measure 1A.
It estimates a fund inflow of $50,000,000 annually to build socially integrated housing, the only rheostat on rental fees being the ability of the resident to pay and the only rheostat on quality being non-existent.
When you boil down the objections to 1A they all come down to "the City hates losing control of the agency/program and the developers hate not being able to build economically segregated housing".
Ballot Measure 1B, on the other hand, says "we the City will take what, compared to the requirement for building housing is a pittance, annually ($10,000,000) from existing taxes, and not tell anybody how we are going to backfill that transfer, and keep control of the function and continue to build economically segregated housing at a snail's pace - just like we have been doing for all these years that we have been talking about eliminating the homeless crisis.
This is, on its face, an underfunded feint by the City at retaining power, draining not enough money from a place already in need of said money, to keep a program in place that should be an embarrassment, not an objective.
Maybe "embarrassment" is too benign a term: "an object of abject political and managerial incompetence" might better suffice.
So, I talked to Copilot.
Here is what she had to say.
***********************************************************************************
Noel: What does The Stranger think about Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B?
Copilot: I couldn't find any specific information about The Stranger's stance on Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B. However, I can provide some context about these propositions:
Proposition 1A: This proposition proposes a new payroll tax on employers, imposing a 5% tax on annual compensation above $1 million paid to any employee in Seattle. It aims to generate around $50 million annually to fund social housing projects.
Proposition 1B: This proposition, proposed by the Seattle City Council, suggests using funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax to allocate $10 million annually for five years to the Seattle Social Housing Developer.
Both propositions aim to address the funding needs for affordable social housing in Seattle, but they differ in their approach and the amount of funding they would provide.
Would you like to know more about the arguments for and against these propositions?
Noel: yes
Copilot: Great! Here are some arguments for and against Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B:
Proposition 1A
Arguments For:
Progressive Tax: Proposition 1A proposes a 5% tax on annual compensation above $1 million paid to any employee in Seattle. This tax is aimed at large employers and is seen as a progressive way to generate revenue for social housing.
Dedicated Funding: The revenue generated from this tax would be dedicated to the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), providing a stable and long-term funding source for social housing projects.
Broader Impact: With a larger budget, SSHD could potentially serve a broader range of income levels, addressing the housing needs of more residents.
Arguments Against:
Additional Tax Burden: Critics argue that imposing a new tax on employers could discourage businesses from operating in Seattle or lead to higher costs for consumers.
Existing Taxes: Some believe that Seattle already has sufficient funding for housing through existing taxes and that a new tax is unnecessary.
Proposition 1B
Arguments For:
Utilizes Existing Funds: Proposition 1B proposes using funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax to allocate $10 million annually for five years. This approach avoids creating a new tax and uses already collected revenue.
Accountability: By allocating funds through the Seattle Office of Housing, Proposition 1B ensures that the money is used effectively and with proper oversight.
Focused Funding: The funds would be prioritized for developments serving lower-income residents, ensuring that the most vulnerable populations benefit.
Arguments Against:
Limited Funding: Critics argue that $10 million annually is not enough to address the housing crisis in Seattle and that a larger, more stable funding source is needed.
Reduction in Existing Funds: Using funds from the JumpStart payroll tax could reduce the amount available for other housing projects and initiatives.
Both propositions aim to address the pressing need for affordable housing in Seattle, but they differ in their approach and the amount of funding they would provide. It's a complex issue with valid points on both sides.
What are your thoughts on these propositions?
Noel: My impression is that 1A has substantially more money and that 1B has among other design points that it kills the SSHD passed by voters in 2023?
Copilot: Your impression is quite accurate. Proposition 1A proposes a new payroll tax on employers, which could generate up to $50 million annually for the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD). This would provide a substantial and long-term funding source for social housing projects.
On the other hand, Proposition 1B suggests using funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax, allocating about $10 million annually for five years. This approach provides less funding and imposes additional oversight requirements, which some argue could hinder the SSHD's ability to effectively carry out its mission.
There are concerns that Proposition 1B might undermine the SSHD established by Initiative 135 in 2023, as it diverts funds from other low-income housing projects and imposes restrictions on the SSHD's operations.
Noel: But 1B keeps the money under non SSHD control?
Copilot: Yes, you're correct! Proposition 1B proposes using funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax, which means the money would be controlled by the Seattle Office of Housing rather than the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD). This could potentially limit the SSHD's autonomy and ability to manage the funds as they see fit.
Noel: Not only potentially limit, but surely kill - for lack of funds - the SSHD?
Copilot: Yes, you raise a valid concern. Proposition 1B's approach to allocating funds from the existing JumpStart payroll tax, rather than creating a new tax like Proposition 1A, could indeed result in significantly less funding for the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD). This reduced funding might severely hinder the SSHD's ability to operate effectively and achieve its goals.
Supporters of Proposition 1A argue that the substantial and dedicated funding it provides is crucial for the success and sustainability of the SSHD. Meanwhile, proponents of Proposition 1B might believe that existing resources should be managed more efficiently without imposing additional taxes.
Noel: I think that I understand that the SSHD, if funded, will build properties that are equally nicely featured, not segregated by the expected income of the renters. Is that correct?
Copilot: Yes, that's correct! The Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD) aims to build properties that are equally well-featured and not segregated by the expected income of the renters. This means that all residents, regardless of their income level, would have access to high-quality housing with the same amenities and features.
The goal is to create inclusive and integrated communities where people from diverse economic backgrounds can live together. This approach helps promote social cohesion and ensures that everyone benefits from well-designed and maintained housing.
Noel: And that capability is provided because the cost gets spread across the capability to pay of the entire expected population?
Copilot: Yes, that's correct! The concept behind the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD) is to create a mix of income levels within the same housing developments. The idea is to spread the costs across a diverse population, allowing people of different income levels to live together in high-quality housing.
By ensuring that the housing is affordable for a wide range of incomes, the SSHD can create inclusive communities where everyone benefits from the same amenities and features. This approach helps promote social integration and reduces economic segregation.
It's a forward-thinking model that aims to provide equitable and sustainable housing solutions.
Noel: Might be some sociological advantages?
Copilot: Absolutely, there could be several sociological advantages to the inclusive and mixed-income housing approach promoted by the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD). Here are a few potential benefits:
Social Integration: Mixed-income housing can help foster a sense of community and belonging among residents from diverse economic backgrounds, reducing social barriers and promoting inclusiveness.
Economic Mobility: Living in a mixed-income community can provide lower-income residents with greater access to resources, opportunities, and networks that can aid in economic mobility and personal development.
Reduced Stigma: By creating housing that does not segregate residents by income, it reduces the stigma often associated with low-income housing, leading to greater social cohesion and mutual respect among neighbors.
Improved Quality of Life: All residents benefit from the high-quality amenities and services provided in these developments, leading to a higher overall quality of life and well-being.
Community Stability: Mixed-income housing can contribute to more stable and resilient communities by encouraging long-term residency and fostering a sense of pride and ownership among residents.
It's a forward-thinking model with the potential to create more equitable and vibrant communities.
