Vacancy rates in areas including North King County and the University District dropped below 3 percent.
The Seattle Times reported that 41 people bid up the price of a house to double the asking amount despite the fact that it was so dilapidated that it required a safety waiver to enter.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition reported that housing in this state is so pricey that renters would need to make $23.13 an hour to afford rent on a two-bedroom apartment, and that there is a deficit of almost 100,000 units for those at or below 30 percent of the area median income ($89,600 for the Seattle-Bellevue metro area).
The list goes on, but the data is clear: Seattle, like many growing cities, has a housing shortage that has major consequences for its ability to support its low-income citizenry.
On Aug. 2, Seattle voters will have an opportunity to make a dent in these steadily worsening statistics with a vote on the newest version of the Housing Levy, a tax on property owners meant to create and preserve housing at the same time as it helps keep people on the margins in the homes and apartments that they already have. Ballots hit the mail July 13 and are due Aug. 2 at drop-off boxes or in the mail.
The measure renews an expiring levy that voters approved in 2009, but it also expands it by doubling the amount from $145 million over seven years to $290 million in the same time frame. If approved, the average property owner would pay just over $10 a month, roughly double what they do now.
The Department of Housing predicts that the levy could produce and preserve 2,150 affordable apartments, reinvest in another 350 and support operations at 510 units in Seattle. Money also will be set aside to help buy rental properties, help families on the cusp of homeownership and invest in preventing homelessness.
Those goals “are set based on the reality of the day,” which is determined by what kinds of outside funding city officials think they can secure, said Todd Burley, spokesperson for the Department of Housing. That’s estimated at $3 for every $1 of levy funds.
“We try not to go too crazy or too hopeful and go with what seems realistic,” Burley said.
If anything, history has proven past goals to be a little conservative, he said. Levy outcomes are central to Mayor Ed Murray’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (hala), which attacks the skyrocketing price of housing from a number of angles, including supply. The action plan calls for 50,000 units created and preserved over the next decade, and asserts that 20,000 of those should be considered “affordable.”
Unlike many campaigns with so much riding on them, the levy has no formal, organized opposition. No groups filed paperwork with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission regarding fundraising, although Glenn Singer, who worked in the construction industry for 50 years and served on several of the industry’s main boards and bodies, and Brianna McDonald, listed as a “concerned homeowner,” penned the statement against the measure for the voter guide.
The pair focused their critiques on Seattle City Hall’s alleged silence on the reason for doubling the levy and assert that previous levies haven’t solved the big problems seen in Seattle like the increase in homelessness.
“Vote ‘NO’ on this Levy and tell the City of Settle (sic) we need a NEW POLICY for TODAY that addresses CAUSES, not only symptoms of this large problem our City faces!” they wrote in the voter guide.
Housing advocates argue that the Housing Levy would address those causes by increasing the supply of housing at multiple levels of affordability such as extremely low income (30 percent of area median income) and “workforce” (between 50 and 60 percent area median income).
Even groups that got heavily involved in the 2009 debate, such as the Seattle Displacement Coalition, stayed out of the ring this round.
The spending decisions track closely with the plan for the 2009 levy, and the proposed funding level was reasonable, said John Fox, member of the Displacement Coalition and long-time housing advocate.
“Although the funny thing, I kept getting calls from people to write the ‘against’ statement,” Fox said.
The levy received full-throated support from nonprofits and private parties interested in the housing debate. Despite having no opponent except ignorance of the issue, the YES! for Homes campaign had received $258,789 from 103 donors.
The campaign will use that money to launch educational efforts, said Sandeep Kaushik, a consultant for YES! For Homes.
“Seattle voters have been generous in supporting efforts like this, but they want and need to be informed about what they’re voting on,” Kaushik said. “They want to hear from us and make a case to them about why this is a good investment.”
They don’t have to reach all that many.
Primary voters are a dedicated, dying breed. Approximately 39 percent of eligible voters in King County turned out for the Aug. 7 primary in 2012, the last presidential election. In the general election, held in November of that year, 83.58 percent of King County voters cast a ballot.
Voter turnout might be better in the primary this year with the Housing Levy and the primary race to replace outgoing Jim McDermott in Congress.
Officials scheduled the Housing Levy for August to give voters a chance to look at it without the distractions of the general election, Kaushik said.
The Nov. 8 election will settle the presidential question, but it will also offer another chance for Seattle and King County voters to tax themselves, this time for a $53.8 billion transportation investment called Sound Transit 3.
“Putting (the levy) on the August ballot gives the attention it deserves,” Kaushik said.
Those concerned about housing production in the Seattle area don’t seem to worry too much about voters shooting down the levy. They do, however, worry that other aspects of housing policy are falling by the wayside.
Sharon Lee, executive director of the Low Income Housing Institute (lihi), celebrated the decision to increase the amount of the levy. But she said she wants to see other, more difficult political action, including doing away with the state prohibition on rent control.
She also wants to see City Hall put more skin in the game.
“I think we can be doing a lot more with the city’s bonding capacity and dedicating portions of revenue from new development,” Lee said.
Fox believes that new development pushes people out of the city and also puts the existing stock of older, more affordable housing under pressure. It’s part of the reason that the Seattle Displacement Coalition opposes the proposed upzoning of the University District, the practice of allowing taller, denser buildings in exchange for benefits like affordable housing.
“We need that levy fund, we need all of the sources of funding we can secure,” Fox said, “but we’re chasing the wind if we don’t deal with these runaway market forces.”