It's Official: You'll Vote this August on Doubling the Housing Levy

Comments

1
this is a piss-poor way to address the housing crisis in this city, but probably the only tool available. eventually these special-election levies will wear out the patience of even the most liberal home owners.

with 3000 people sleeping on the streets every night, 2000 units is not even close to enough. try 10,000.
2
I voted for Move Seattle, and the dedicated bike lanes in SE Seattle (that would help me and my children not get crushed by a truck) magically disappeared once it passed. A serious bait in switch, so I'm gonna go ahead and voted no for this new levy ( the first time I have ever voted no for a Seattle levy BTW).
3
yes, yes, typos galore, as usual.
5
@4: a WPA or CCC assumes a Federal response to this crisis. the Federal government has no intention of doing anything. the State has no will to do so, either. both are being held hostage by the Stupid Party's insistence on Austerity.

Cities are on their own.
6
I wish the levy were larger. 2000 units over 7 years is a drop in the bucket for a city that needs at least 40,000 additional units of housing for people who make less than 50% AMI, not to mention the thousands of homeless people who don't make anything. It is very disheartening to see people who call themselves social justice fighters describe this as a "regressive" tax, when the additional amount the average homeowner will pay is only $5 per month. I plan to do my extra bit by donating as often as I can to DESC.
7
Regressive as usual. Layered on top of Transit and Schools.
No, nope.
FWIW have heard no support for it among my usually sure-thing 'tax us for social services' crowd.
8
In 2012 I bought a townhome, and my property tax was about 2400 a year. This year it will be 5,000. If all of the levies pass, and values increase again (and a value increase only matters when you sell) I could be looking at $7,000 next year. almost $600 a month just in prop tax for a townhome in Columbia City. The tax is already near 50% of my P&I and at this rate in 5 years I will be paying more in taxes than actual P&I.

Voting no. I have to stop worrying about housing IN SEATTLE for refugees, the addicted, the uneducated, the bad luck crowd, and the whatever-sob-story-they-have leftovers so I can concentrate on not joining them.
9
@4 & @8 I couldn't agree with you more. Property taxes are climbing fast. I do believe that the overall goal is to tax the middle class into the suburbs. The wealthy can pay more taxes and the poor will provide more votes for council members. If people can't afford Seattle then move South to Fife, North to Lynnwood, East to..... ok North or South. My family lived in Princeton NJ and commuted to NY daily by train. Other big cities get it because they have been big for a long time. Seattle is new to this.

WE HAVE A FREEWAY THAT GOES DOWN TO TWO LANES! The city never wanted transit to be good.
10
I saw somewhere that approximately 4,000 "households" would benefit from this. That breaks down to about $73k per. I have not and never will understand those who vote to fund these programs knowing that the city is EXTREMELY inefficient with money.

Murray has yet to address any problem by any means other than throwing more money at it. His leadership has created a culture of unaccountability.
11
Raising taxes isn't going to help people afford to be able to continue living in this city. Nor are the ever increasing utility bills and traffic enforcement fines.
12
A stupid and ineffectual waste of money. I can hardly wait to vote "no."
13
2000 units? Pointless. A drop in the bucket. Wasted effort.
14
I'll vote NO. When they build what is promised in the last levy, then I'll think about voting for another one.
15
mistral @3: "Reinstate the vagrancy laws, loitering and panhandling laws."

All of which have been declared (to one degree or another) unconstitutional, so unless you're planning to amend the Constitution that idea is DOA.
16
Even if you could build 2000 one and two bedroom apartments renting for $750/850 a month the homeless people still could not afford to live there. Add on utilities and minor maintenance and the cost goes up even further. It would help lower paid high tech workers but not do much of anything for the homeless.