It’s Special Election Time! Where the turnout is low and the measures are extra confusing.
By now, you should already have your ballot in hand—or in that pile of mail you swear you’ll get around to. This time, we’re voting on if/how to fund a social housing developer, and continuing to close the state’s funding gap for Seattle schools. Let’s dive in.
City of Seattle, Proposition Nos 1A and 1B:
Vote for 1A to fund our social housing developer in a sustainable, actionable way.
This one has a lot of moving parts, so it’s helpful to have some backstory. It starts with I-135, a ballot measure in 2023 (that we also endorsed). Two years ago, House Our Neighbors, the policy arm of Real Change newspapers, brought Seattle a new idea: a law to create a social housing developer. And 57 percent of you voted to make it happen.
The Seattle Social Housing Developer gives the city a chance at long-term affordable housing. They will be equipped with the tools to “build, acquire, own, and manage” housing that, if done correctly, will permanently stay affordable. Instead of market-rate housing, which has become chronically inaccessible for low- and middle-income earners, or government-subsidized housing, which can be put back on the unaffordable market in 20 or 30 years, social housing is publicly owned and operated, out of the hands of private, money-grubbing middlemen, and rents are forever capped at 30 percent of a tenant’s income.
We said it then, and we’ll say it again: Our public housing developer will not solve the immediate housing crisis. But with enough time and political will, this solution could end Seattle’s affordability crisis.
Okay, so what does this have to do with Prop 1 in 2025? This initiative actually funds our social housing developer.
The Yes/No vote reaffirms what we’ve already voted on: Yes, we want a social housing developer. Prop 1A and 1B are the two possible ways that it could be funded.
1A represents the funding model proposed by House Our Neighbors (HON), who envisioned this social housing endeavor. Under this model, the buildings’ costs are recouped by the tenants’ rent, functioning almost as a sliding scale: Residents can make anywhere from 0 to 120 percent of the area’s median income (AMI); because every tenant pays 30 percent of their income, the wealthier tenants effectively subsidize the lower income residents. Equity!
To fund the rest of the project, 1A creates a new payroll tax on employers—5 percent on annual compensation above $1 million paid to any employee in the city. This ongoing tax could generate as much as $50 million in its first year and become a long-term funding source for social housing.
Now, Prop 1B is the alternative funding source proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and city council, who don’t want a new tax on the city’s businesses. Rather than funding a new idea with a new tax, 1B would pull $10 million a year from the Jumpstart payroll tax (sound familiar?) for just five years. When it comes to real estate, $10 million doesn’t get you very far in Seattle. (And if we keep trying to use Jumpstart for everything, it won’t be good for anything.)
It also undermines the “sliding scale” model because Jumpstart funds can only be used for units that serve people who earn 80 percent AMI or below, rather than 1A’s 120 percent. This only works if richer people can subsidize housing for their poorer neighbors. That’s the “social” part.
Keep in mind that social housing is new to Seattle, but it’s not a new idea. Vienna, Finland, and Singapore have all used it successfully to address housing shortages; And here in the U.S., Montgomery County, Maryland, has established its own public developer.
The chamber wants to spook us with the fact that the developer isn’t staffed (right now they only have a CEO), and said repeatedly during our endorsement meeting that they “had no plan.” But we don’t find that concern reasonable. In our endorsement meeting, HON acknowledged that the developer isn’t established yet; They do plan to staff up—which can’t happen without $$$—and once they have that staff, they’ll be equipped to turn these admittedly lofty goals into an actionable plan.
Would we prefer to see a more established developer at this point? Yes! Have they been given the resources to do so? No! Does that mean we shouldn’t give them the resources to do just that? No! In the meantime, the Low Income Housing Institute (which, most notably, has managed many of the city’s tiny home villages, and larger developments around the state) has offered to provide practical support (including compliance, design, and technical expertise) while the developer builds its staffing infrastructure—which, we should mention, did not assuage the Chamber’s concerns, but we agree it would undeniably help the developer get their feet under them.
We’d be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that there is a small Vote No contingency. They argue that we shouldn’t spend money on social housing when we have the immediate need for shelter beds today. We agree that we have an urgent need for shelter. But we don’t believe this is a zero-sum game. If we don’t invest in long-term solutions, too, we’ll keep finding ourselves right back where we are now.
This is a brand new proposition in this city, and we’re not arguing that it’s perfect, but it’s more than good enough that our city should let the public developer find whatever kinks there may be and work them out. We’re in a housing crisis. We can’t afford to sit on our hands. The possibility of problems, which are inevitable with any new solution, should not be enough to dissuade us from bold action. We need to give social housing a real chance in Seattle, and the only way to do that is to fund it.
So vote Yes on Proposition 1, and vote for 1A.
Schools, Proposition 1:
We’re a levy town. We love to pass ‘em. And we think that’s great. They fund transit! They fund schools! We love these things!
This time, we’re funding schools, and the district is proposing two levies that, combined, come out to about $2.5 billion. Before we dive in, though, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. After the district threatened to close as many as 21 schools last year, these levies are under more scrutiny than usual. The chaotic back-and-forth didn’t inspire public confidence in the district’s finances, or how they were being managed. We agree that the district’s actions warrant scrutiny. But whether or not we feel confident in how they’re spending this money, kids still have to show up to school every day, by law. And if we require them to be in these buildings day in, day out, they deserve a safe, clean, supportive environment.
Now for the next question: “Aren’t our schools funded by the state?” you ask? Yes! They should be. And for the most part, they are. But the funding falls short of our districts’ needs, so statewide, districts have been forced to supplement what we get from the state with levies like these.
Prop 1 uses a property tax that covers about 16 percent of our operating costs. (The Feds cover less than 10 percent, and the rest is covered by the state.) This year, Prop 1 would cover a third of the districts’ special education costs, and provide funding for arts, athletics, security specialists, and multilingual staffers.
If last year’s school closure panic taught us anything, it’s that our district’s funding is on a razor’s edge. We can’t afford to lose this funding.
Vote Yes on Proposition 1.
Schools, Proposition 2
Now for the big one. Prop 2 proposes $1.8 billion for a “capital levy.”
What’s the difference? This one doesn’t just buoy the district financially—it allows for investment in buildings, security measures (in particular, an inter-building intercom system, cameras, and key cards), technology, etc. Seattle moderates have some mild reservations about this one: After last year’s drama with a messy closure plan foisted on families and then abandoned, can we trust how the district would spend this money? (They dare to propose $150 million to replace an aging elementary school, for example. The gall.) We agree that last year’s showdown invites some scrutiny about how the district makes its decisions, but we absolutely disagree that withholding funding from a struggling school system is the way to do that.
Vote Yes on Proposition 2.
More Murphy Winter less Krieg in these SECB writeups, please and thank you. I appreciate the reduction in smug zoomer nonsense.
So the ECB members have been sleeping with the proponents of social housing and school levies.
Good to know.
If you like Seattle’s high housing costs, high sales tax, high rent, and poor streets: then keep funding these initiatives.
If you would like to send a message to our leaders that we are not a bottomless well of money, and that you would like a more efficient bureaucracy, then vote against these initiatives.
We have already paid for these services many times and they have not been delivered.
What is the definition of insanity?
Consider that the district cannot make up its mind if and which schools it may close. SPS has gone through many painful public exercises to shutter up to 21 schools (nearly 1/5 buildings!) and then decide actually zero — except that maybe soon we will actually close schools. Voters should not be funding capital projects until the Board demonstrates some vision for its future.
Charging a flat 30 percent of income may be good politics but can’t really be called “equity” (unless it was meant tongue-in-cheek). Thirty percent of $2,000 a month is obviously a much heavier burden than 30 percent of $10,000 a month. That said, count me in.
Instead of supporting these two levies, we should pressure our state legislators to fully comply with the McClatchy decision and fully fund the district. In other words, statewide taxes should be raised. This is the time for the legislature to pass an income tax and see whether the state Supreme Court will uphold it. ( Unlike decades ago when such a tax was turned down. )
Don’t vote for school levies, considering what they’re inundating kids with these days.
It will be interesting to see if voters punish the school district for the unsustainable union contract and the empty threats to close the schools. Personally, I plan to vote for the school levy, but I wouldn’t blame anyone who said screw ‘em, they deserve a budget cut for their shenanigans.
I am undecided on the capital levy but isn’t the problem not that they are replacing an elementary school but they won’t say which one? Just that it’s “in the NE” somewhere? Where there are about 20. Kind of weird to ask for 150 million just for “if we want it for something.”
@1 >> love Krieg, miss Rich, getting use to Winter. Ahh change.
@2 >> Rich’s endorsement of Prop 1A would have been better, at least a few F-bombs for the council’s attempt to change social housing to be entirely low-income city-administered housing. The city has Jump Start money, they can get into that game if they want to already but so far have (wisely) chose to partner with the regional response. Go social or go (guess I can’t say “home” here).
@3 >> where do you think is better than Seattle? I am probably not the only one to tell you to go there. Texas hates taxes, you should go there… of course Texas leaders seem to hate their people so you will fit in.
@4 >> Yep. Close one or two schools a year and re-assess. Closing 20 schools in a year was the height of arrogance.
@5 >> 30%? missing something.
@6 >> yep. What is proposed instead is SB5020 that provides wealthy seniors a shield so they don’t pay state or local taxes to fund schools. Shameful Rs! How about free transit for seniors! That would cost a fraction of SB5020 and really help seniors living on the edge of poverty.
@7 >> Texas doesn’t like taxes… you should live there.
@8 >> Unsustainable union contract? really? Public school teachers are the best deal that you have ever gotten in your entire life! I hear Mississippi has poorly compensated teachers, give them a try!
Thanks for the comments all…
@6 Totally agree, go for an income tax test case and full state school funding — but in the meantime vote yes on the levies. (Budget cutting never, ever, leads to better schools. I understand why some people think it should, but in the real world it just doesn’t.)
@7 “Inundated” with what, exactly? That’s some MAGA-level innuendo.
@11 the legislature approved the initiative last year that banned an income tax so they can’t make any changes to the initiative for at least 2 years. Beyond that to create an income tax they would need to pass a constitutional amendment and then put it to a vote of the people. The Supreme Court had their opportunity to revisit the previous decision on income as property last year during the capital gains tax debate and they passed. You are not going to get a case in front of them. Right now the Dems do not have the supermajorities needed to pass a constitutional amendment (the R’s definitely won’t vote for this) so at best you are looking at 2 years out and then hoping people in WA would vote for this. I personally don’t think it would pass a statewide referendum.
All of this ignores the fact that tax revenue has grown in the state faster than both population and inflation. Revenue is not the issue here, its about priorities. The state could direct funds to education but they would in turn have to reduce investments in other programs. I would still have an issue with SPS signing an agreement with their union knowing they could not pay it and hoping the state comes to bail them out. That is bad governance and should make you wonder if given additional funds whether they would manage them appropriately or just end up in a similar situation a few years from now.
STEB continues to live an alternative universe.
Seattle Public Schools has a board that WANTS to close schools. School closures are not off the table, and there is an appetite to close Option Schools. It is time for STEB to actually involve themselves with Seattle Public Schools or refrain from making school board and other endorsements when it comes to Seattle PublicSchools.
And why would you support $2.5B levies when we have a board that did away with the finance committee, decreased audit committee meetings, increased board approved capital expenditures from $1M to $5M and more. Please.
Vote NO on the capital levy and send a message to the board. They can put another levy on the ballot.
Dear jmath aka #10,
As my mamaw from Mississippi says, there’s a big hole in your screen door.
As my daddy from Texas says, you’re all hat and no cattle.
As my Canadian wife says, you’re dumber than a goose deuce.
As we say in Seattle, are you in the Transit Riders Union?
Thanks for your critique of everyone.
You guys are dumbasses about 1A. Its a horrible idea, as a 35yr capitol hill resident older than you.
@10: “Public school teachers are the best deal that you have ever gotten in your entire life! I hear Mississippi has poorly compensated teachers, give them a try!”
Thanks, but I’ve gotten way better deals in my life than I ever got from the public schools. 😉 Besides, I literally said, “Personally, I plan to vote for the school levy.” 😆 Don’t tell me your beloved public school teachers didn’t teach you reading comprehension! 🤣
The school district awarded a union contact in 2022 knowing that it wouldn’t have the money to pay for it. Now that the bill is coming due, they’re threatening to close schools.
They play this game every time: They demand the teacher raise, or they threaten to go on strike and then mom will have to stay home with the kids instead of working. Then to pay for the teacher raise, they demand a tax increase or they threaten to close the neighborhood schools and then little Timmy will have to spend two hours a day getting bused.
It’s just threat after threat after threat, no matter how much money we shovel at them. They get away with it because they have a strong hand. Mom’s gotta get to work, and nobody wants little Timmy to get bused. But you can’t keep abusing the public over and over and expect not to get stung, even if the sting hurts the public, too. See: two-time president Donald Trump. 😂
I’m with #13 – STEB does NOT know Seattle Schools. They might take the time to ask people who actually know the district. I’m one of them.
It’s an interesting thing because before I put my endorsements for SPS up at my blog – Seattle Schools Community Forum blog – I already had enraged parents saying they would not vote for the capital levy (BEX). They all are voting for the very important Operations levy.
STEB sniffed at any pushback on the mystery school in the NE that will get a $150M rebuild. Why shouldn’t voters expect clarity on a levy? No one is saying there are not any schools that need that rebuild but which one and why? That’s the basic minimum.
Next, do not fool yourself. The district is building very large schools in anticipation of closing small ones. They are renovating Montlake Elementary to fit over 600 students; that site has the smallest plot of almost any other elementary. That means in order to have a large building to fit all those kids, they took away playground space. From little kids. Some other elementary will close to fill that mega-school. Ditto over in West Seattle. And, the district isn’t going to give those schools assistant principals. One person in charge of all that? Nope.
And to understand, other districts in our region do NOT pay anywhere near what SPS pays for renovations. One good example is Rainier Beach High School. Their first budget was $240M and in contrast Garfield High was rebuilt for half that. But they keep have costs arising that they KNEW about when they created the original budget. The Board just okayed another $750k. By the end of all the building, I predict their budget will put them in the list of 10 most expensive high schools in the country. That’s not a badge of honor.
To put out there, I advocated for YEARS for RBHS to be rebuilt. Somehow they were always at the bottom of the BEX list. They deserve the building. But there is no way it has to cost this much and that’s on SPS.
The district has borrowed capital dollars to fill the budget deficit. No truly smart district would do this and yet here we are. When do those dollars get paid back?
One other fun fact. As others have mentioned, the district wanted to close nearly all the Option Schools. Those schools are not cookie-cutter schools and offer safety to some students who cannot do a regular school. What’s weird is that despite being hugely popular AND with good performance, the district refuses to move their waitlists even when there is clearly room.
Vote NO on the BEX capital levy. It is the only way to make the district hear that they need to 1)listen to parents, 2) believe parents, and 3) take parents seriously.
@12 The income tax ban initiative is probably an unconstitutional constraint on legislative power. Tim Eyman tried something along those lines a decade or so ago and was slapped down pretty fast. But I can understand why Democrats and tax reform advocates might choose other battles right now.
@10 Read the article, and you’ll know what I was referring to in #5.
Funding anything with propety taxes in this city is the worst idea ever.
We need an state income tax.
Until then I’m voting no on:
Schools, Proposition 1
Schools, Proposition 2
I’m not going to call out individual fools in the comments above, just state my educated experience. We have Elon Musk and his employee Donald Trump trying to destroy our Democratic Republic because of far too many poorly educated fools. That’s why even though I have no children, I believe tax dollars need to go to schools first!
@6: if you’re referring to McCleary, et al. v. Washington (Supreme Court Case Number 84362-7), then it’s the McCleary Decision. Which clearly the Legislature is still figuring out how to fund.
@3 I couldn’t agree more, and voted no on the school district props for that exact reason.
Just an aside though – the definition of insanity is not that oft quoted “doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” Insanity has never meant that.. Look it up if you must.
Well, here I am, a last-minute voter representing my household. So I did “our” homework, and we are going with Yes/1A and yes on both school propositions because who could say no to those kids on my flyer? (No I’m not that easily manipulated, but) I also noticed that these building improvements will include air quality — and I think that will reduce the spread of viruses via the schools which are filled with little viral containers who then go forth in their communities and share the love even more.
On 1A vs 1B, Mayor Harrell speaking for B sent 3 flyers to our home and not one of them was addressed to “moi,” who has been voting in almost election in the United States for 50 years. Little did he suspect that family elder is not only “not” politically obsolete, but that everyone else is so busy, they relied on “moi” todo the homework and make the decision for everyone. Also, the Stranger sent 1 flyer to our home for 1A and included each person’s name on it. And I was impressed by that detail, so I voted for 1A. (No, just kidding here, as well.) But “we” thought both sides had some good arguments but ultimately with 1A because IB does not raise enough money, and they’ll just have to be on their toes to demonstrate effective results given concerns about how much money is being handed over to mere novices with stars in their eyes. But we need to try something.