This week, the city council started duking it out over the $20.8 million generated from the South Lake Union property it sold to Paul Allen last month. In one corner are progressive Council Members Nick Licata, Judy Nicastro, and Peter Steinbrueck, who want to spend at least 25 percent of the money on subsidizing low-income housing. They define low income as tenants earning 60 percent or less of the median income. (Unbelievably, the current standard is 80 percent.) In the other corner, meet budget chairwoman Jan Drago, who would rather spend nearly all of the proceeds on transportation improvements in the South Lake Union neighborhood.

After the 4.7 acre sale was announced last month, the council's lefty trio figured it actually had a shot at getting funding for low-income housing, because it takes a three-fourths vote--a supermajority--to earmark new, unbudgeted city income. [Five to Four, Josh Feit, May 24.] So, to spend any of the $20.8 million, the council had to woo the three lefties. However, Drago found a way to circumvent the housing-friendly contingent and introduced a resolution on June 4 outlining how the money would be spent--90 percent of it on transportation improvements. Drago's resolution will be voted on in the budget committee this week.

To the chagrin of housing advocates, only a simple majority of council members (five) has to agree on passing a resolution. So Drago's plan jeopardizes the chances that Licata, Nicastro, or Steinbrueck can extract any meaningful amount of money for low-income housing.

However, Drago may get beaten at her own game. Steinbrueck passed a resolution of his own during last year's budget process, mandating that the city spend the first $2 million of any excess general fund revenues on affordable housing. "I'm invoking [this resolution]," Steinbrueck says, because "we now have $20.8 million in unanticipated revenue, and I just want my share of it."