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.