3000 units.

That's like 1/10th the number of population added each year.

Or 1/40th the missing housing we actually need.

"Nelson’s amendment would allow OH to use up to $9 million of the levy’s $630 million pot for rental production and preservation (RPP) to fund units at 61-80% Average Median Income."

You'd think someone at the Stranger would realize "average median" is not a thing, but then again, it is the Stranger after all. AMI stands for AREA median income.

80% AMI for 2023 is $70,650. I can't imagine Seattle voters will want to subsidize housing costs for people making over $70,000 annually.

Look, when it comes to the grindingly dark art of holding political grudges, the Stranger learned from Seattle’s very best, McGinn and Sawant. Mayor Harrell defeated the Stranger’s candidate, and did so with such an overwhelming share of the vote that their candidate’s once-promising political career was terminated. So nothing Mayor Harrell says, does, or thinks shall ever receive the Stranger’s approval. We all know this.

That said, words do indeed have meanings, and it should be obvious any legislation debated in Council, at length, with proposed amendments, should not receive the cliche, “rubber-stamp.” Whether said legislation is worthwhile or not is another question, but this headline post clearly describes a spirited dialog amongst legislators, not their rote submission to authority.

Nelson’s amendment would use up to 1 and1/3 % of the total levy amount- a very small portion of the overall levy. That’s hardly a game changing amount.

@9: But @4’s point could still be valid. Subsidizing at too high an income level, even if the number of such subsidized housing units is very small, can be a reason to vote against.

@8 Yeah, exactly. Debating multiple amendments in committee before moving to a full council vote is the complete opposite of a rubber stamp.

That said, no one realistically expects meaningful legislative analysis from Hannah Krieg.

@13: Rents always go up. This levy will be used as the excuse this time, yes.

@14: Nope, he said there would be a real connection between this levy and rental increases. I replied this stated connection would be presented as if true, but remain fictional.

Please do try to keep up.

@17: Read harder. @12 clearly says the property tax levy will cause rental increases. In reality, rents will rise whether the property tax levy passes or not; if it does pass, it will be used as the excuse to raise rents. Assignment of cause, and actuality of cause, are two very different things.

Thanks for playing!

I will have to raise the rent on my house to cover the difference in the property tax. No other reason.