Most unfortunate. We have over 30,000 people on waiting lists for those units. We don't have the resources to build that many more units. Moving those who were able to work and self-sufficiency would have been a win for those residents, a win for those on the wait list, and a win for the community who would have collected more taxes from those moving out of SHA housing because of higher incomes.

@1: the SHA is most assuredly not run by "a few clowns".

look at the overreaction here - people (including council members) freaking out without even understanding the who, what, why and how of the proposal. they had to come up with a way to address budget shortfalls. asking those able to work to contribute to their subsidized rent seems like a reasonable approach. can you think of a better one?

from the stranger's own reporting:
SHA wants to move to its Stepping Forward regimen in part because of budget cuts related to sequestration at the federal level, which it says will reduce its funding by $12 million over the coming decade. But the only reason it can propose a plan like this is because it's one of 39 public housing agencies around the country given a waiver by HUD under the "Moving to Work" program.

There are a limited number of these subsidized units, so the current residents are basically screwing the people (many, many immigrants) who are arriving after them. The proposed rent increases are gradual and small, so that tenants can be softly transitioned to market housing - which is scary if you have a very limited budget, BUT, these protests are incredibly selfish. It's not like the city is trying to make a profit off of these people, they're just trying to spread around a very small pot of social services (and, when the current residents are handed the cup to take a sip, they're refusing to pass it to the next person).

This is excellent news. The way to deal with the budget shortfall is to place a greater burden on those with the most resources--not those with the least. It's ridiculous that, in a city as rich as ours, we have such a difficult time paying for basic human services. Our priorities are askew.

TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT...yes indeed we are entitled to our freedom of speech; but until you have lived in a situation and see the imminent danger ahead of a proposal that would have been detrimental to those involved you wouldn't make snap judgement's.The facts are :that not even the incoming to the housing authority would have been successful with the proposal as it stood.My question to the people that can't or won't over stand is this: would you put the family that you strive to nurture ,love and protect into the eye of the storm F5,F5,F5just think about it !!!

@5: isn't that what the proposal did? ask the residents with the most resources to pay more rent?

it's the SHA that has limited resources, thanks to the GOP in DC. "in a city as rich as ours" has nothing to do with it.

I liked the proposal. Helping people gain upward mobility is progressive. Helping them stay at the bottom is oppressive.

@5 But, that's a different issue. I'm all for increasing the amount of money going to social services, but as it stands now, there is a finite amount of transitional housing to go around. The people with the pickets should be protesting at the budgetary stage, since if you translate their current message, it basically says "I have mine, screw you newcomers."

In the moment you need to work with how the world is, not how you wish it to be. You can strive toward a better future, but TODAY, there are literally hundreds of people arriving that are in a more vulnerable position than the people in the photo.

Right on shotsix

@9 I find it difficult to believe you know many people in that photo or how very vulnerable they are. All rent increases do to these people is push them further and further out to the suburbs. Destabilizing families, gentrifying cities, and cutting people off from basic human services as well as cultural and intellectual enrichment.

Services are so minimal that, really, we're just shuffling people around in them--not really providing the stability and support actual people need to "step forward". Kick those people in the photo out today, and you'll find them down in Rainier Beach or Tukwila tomorrow. Is that really the goal here?

And yes, we do need to work with the how the world is. And in my world, Seattle is teeming with billionaires. Good on those folks in that photo for making this plan politically unfeasible (which is now exactly "how the world is", much to your chagrin, apparently) ! Maybe when those at the bottom of the spectrum start to flex their political muscle, the range of politically viable options will start to widen again. I, for one, am standing with them!

@5 We fund basic human services at a higher rate per capita then any city in the Western United States and rank near the top nationally.

Outside of King County, homelessness has been falling according to data collected by the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Other communities have been very strategic in investing dollars in programs that get results in moving people toward self-sufficiency. In King County, and Seattle, despite spending more money than just about everyone else, homeless is rising. It isn't the money, it is the approach.

We couldn't possibly create the expectation that if we invest in people innate intelligence and aspirations that they could move out of deeply subsidized housing to less subsidized housing, or that they might, in time, become self-sufficient.

@11, Means-tested (meaning you have to document to government that your household is in, or within shouting distance of, poverty) social spending in the U.S. is $960 billion per year. Divide that by households in poverty and you get $64,000 per household. It is spread over 100 different programs, some of which are channeled through states to award to counties and cities, who then award the money to non-profits. At every layer, contracts are required, contract monitoring is required, accountants are required, etc., etc,, etc. Would we not be better off just to write each one of these households a $64,000 check?

We would be better off by buying 100 square blocks of housing in Detroit and giving the deeds to our generational welfare families who will never be an asset to anyone. How about a five year total limit for any person between age 20 and 60?

Who pays for welfare housing? The homeowners who pay real estate taxes and anyone who pays rent to a private real estate owner. Without subsidized housing "low wage" corporations might have to subsidized their own employees.