A small quibble with Dan’s post on the housing levy: Although the Seattle Times’ (and levy opponents’) spin is indeed that the mayor’s housing-levy proposal would “double the size of the levy,” that’s misleading—the proposal the mayor unveiled today would simply renew the existing levy at the exact same rate as the levy adopted in 2002, 17 cents per $1,000. The reason it would raise more is because housing prices have increased. Thus, a 17-cent levy in 2002 raised about $86 million; that same levy passed in 2009 would raise $145 million.
P.S. Dom was at this morning’s press conference and will have a more complete report on the housing levy—including who it will actually help (not, for the most part, people who can afford to buy single-family houses and condos) and its political chances in a few minutes.
who has officially come out against the levy?
Erica, you ignorant cunt, you know that’s what I meant…
Both are correct.
There are lies, damned lies, and then there’s statistics improperly used by people who don’t understand them.
Thank you, Erica. That is not a small quibble, Dan needs to fix his post.
Re your “…would raise more is because housing prices have increased. Thus, a 17-cent levy in 2002 raised about $86 million; that same levy passed in 2009 would raise $145 million.”
Um, doesn’t this ignore the FALLING property values we’re now experiencing, at least since the recession began last year? Sooner or later, those smaller values will show up on the Assessor’s records — the ones that determine property taxes.
Sorry, but when the bubble bursts, its fallout lands in many places.
Just the other day my mom was all housin’ levy math and shit, so I started fucking her in the ass. I was all Marlboro man with her tits while she gnawed on my cock and fingered her nasty snatch with some cat shit. Good times.
Interesting. So since housing values have risen in the interim does that mean the City stopped collecting this levy tax when they hit $86 Million a few years ago or have they continued to collect the money and pocket the difference?
@5, the steep part of the bubble was very short-lived, and post-2002; houses are still worth more than they were in ’02, just not as much as they were in or ’07.
2000 apartments, 180 home buyers, and 550 with rent assistance equals about 3000 households helped for 145 million. That’s about $50,000 dollars for every household helped.
Am I missing something or is that a lot of money when a subsidy of much less than that could help a lot of people rent regular old apartments or houses?
@9,
Building new apartments has very high initial costs, but, assuming they’re built relatively well, those apartments can last long enough to house many more than 2,000 households over a period of decades and might be cheaper over the long run than subsidizing rent on apartments owned by private landlords.
It seems like the Seattle program has been run pretty well, but I have heard stories in New York of landlords charging the city double or triple the market rate for shithole, rat-infested apartments just because they can. I (mostly) trust the city to build affordable apartments more than I trust landlords to be honest about how much their property is actually worth, especially when the government is paying.
@5 – property tax levy rates are based on a rolling three year average of prices.
As of the record dates.
Thus, if your house was worth $450k in 2006, $525k in 2007, and $425k in 2008 and is now worth $265k, you’ll be paying a property tax based on about $475k in valuation.
Mind you, it goes down the next year.
@10 That’s a fair point. I guess it seems that we don’t really have a shortage of housing stock, just affordable housing stock. I am all for money going to affordable housing(honestly 150 million doesn’t seem like enough), but I do want it to be spent effectively.
I hear what you are saying on the idea that building units might be cheaper in the long run as once the upfront costs are paid you only have maintenance to contend with.
Jeez Erica — why the sudden obsession with facts?