Debate: Is Seattle Ready to Go Big on Social Housing?

[00:00:09] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde, here as always with Erica C. Barnett of Publicola. Hi, Erica. Hello. And political consultant Sandeep Kaushik. Hi, Sandeep. Hey, David. All right, this week, in addition to Sandeep and Erica, we've got something extra special, a debate on social housing or a particular form of publicly owned affordable housing, which is on the ballot in the February special election here in Seattle.

[00:00:37] And before we get to this debate, I just want to thank the major political party leaders who asked us to moderate this debate. We definitely appreciate the nudge. This is our second Seattle Nice debate after last year's raucous town hall debate for the citywide city council seat, only this time no live audience, which I personally am a little bit sad about. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, it was cool to do it in front of a live audience.

[00:01:03] That crowd got super raucous when we were doing the Tanya Wu-Alexis Frank debate, and they were pretty, you know, it was a pretty one-sided crowd and very derisive. So I don't know, you know. That is not going to deter us. That is not going to deter us from doing live debates this year for all of the races. So if you're listening to this and want to book Seattle Nice to Do Your Debates, let us know. We'll be thinking about that.

[00:01:26] So today, on one side, we've got the social housing measure known as Proposition 1A, which would create a new payroll expense tax on jobs at bigger businesses, meaning jobs that pay over a million dollars annually. That tax would fund a recently formed Seattle social housing developer, which is a public development authority created by a ballot measure that voters passed last year. The plan is to build a new form of mixed income social housing in Seattle.

[00:01:55] Tax is estimated to raise $50 million a year, and it would be permanent. Speaking for Prop 1A, Tiffany McCoy, formerly at Real Change, now co-director of the How's Our Neighbors Coalition. Tiffany, thanks so much for joining us. Yeah, thanks for having me. All right, and that brings us to Proposition 1B, which would take $10 million from the existing Jumpstart Payroll Expense Tax on big businesses to pilot social housing for people making 80% or less of the median income.

[00:02:25] That funding would end after five years unless it's renewed or some other source of funding is found. And speaking for Proposition 1B, Jesse Claussen, a land use attorney and partner of McCullough Hill. Jesse Claussen, thanks so much for doing this. No problem. All right, and Erica C. Barnett has our first question. This question is for Tiffany. Your site argues that social housing will help pay for itself because it's mixed income.

[00:02:52] So people making more money will subsidize those making less money by paying higher rents. This has never been tested in Seattle before. What's the basis for thinking this will work and that the social housing developer won't require additional government subsidies in the future? Yeah, I appreciate that question. This has not been tested in Seattle, but Seattle is not a snowflake that is different from the rest of the nation. This model is working in Montgomery County, Maryland, which economically is quite similar to Seattle.

[00:03:20] I will say as well that this model is also now being utilized in Atlanta and is in discussion in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in California, in Hawaii, across the nation. People are desperate for more housing models to address our affordability crisis and don't want to solely rely on what the federal government will allocate every year. So, yes, the cross subsidization, as you outlined, Erica, is critical.

[00:03:45] That's why Prop 1B is not a real alternative to what we are proposing through Prop 1A, because it handicaps the model from being able to actually cross subsidize those at the lower income from those at the higher income. So it's about penciling the math. And we have a really great CEO of the Seattle Social Housing Developer who has over two decades of experience in affordable housing that will make this happen. Jessie, do you have a response to that? I do. I mean, so Tiffany mentioned Montgomery County.

[00:04:15] And you're right that social housing is working in Montgomery County. And I think that what Prop A is and the social housing developer that does not have a plan is proposing is very different from Montgomery County. And so just I want to like I work in facts. I'm a lawyer. I work in facts. So in Montgomery County, actually, what happened is they had their housing authority.

[00:04:39] So the same corollary as SHA, our Seattle Housing Authority, which was created at the same time in 1937. Same federal authorizing legislation that created Montgomery County. They created SHA. And so it was an existing housing authority that then was said, hey, what about mixed income housing, which is basically a social housing model. And they created a plan and then asked for funding.

[00:05:07] And so that is very different from what is happening now where there really is no plan and funding is being asked for. And I think that's why, you know, we're saying let's do Prop 1B where let's have a plan. Let's know that, you know, we have a plan first. Then we can figure out the funding. And then, you know, let's see if social housing can work here. I agree. Seattle is not a snowflake.

[00:05:34] I think social housing is potentially a great thing. Really what it is is mixed income housing. The other thing that Tiffany mentioned, and I think your question was really about like, well, isn't this model, you know, kind of self-sustaining so it doesn't need subsidization. And Prop 1A or I guess How's Our Neighbors when they were doing the initiative, part of the selling point with the voters was it doesn't need subsidization. This is a self-sustaining model.

[00:06:02] And now they're here asking for $50 million a year. So it's a little bit of a bait and switch, I'll say. And I think, again, that's why we're like, okay, A, come up with a plan. B, then here's some funding that is coming from existing sources, has some, you know, governors on it that we all know so that we can know that it works. And then let's move. Like, it's, we think it's potentially a great model.

[00:06:26] So, Tiffany, you heard what Jesse just said where, you know, she said when the original ballot measure was passed to create the social housing developer, the promise was that this would be operationally self-sustaining housing. And in fact, that we'd be able to bond against the operational profits essentially from operating this kind of mixed income social housing to build more housing. And that promise seems to have fallen by the wayside. So, or has it, right? Where are we on that?

[00:06:55] And, you know, have you backed away from that promise that this housing will sustain itself? Yeah. So, I would first call attention to the fact that when Jesse responded to the difference between us and Montgomery County, she did not talk about any outliers of how we are different. She just talked about how Montgomery County is a housing authority and how the SSHD is not. That's completely true. That does not answer the question of how this is fundamentally different from what we're currently doing.

[00:07:24] And then as for that promise, I can send you like a dozen plus articles that make it incredibly clear during I-135 that we intended to run I-135 with a revenue source. We learned very quickly that that was not legally possible. And so we made clear that this is a two-step process, that it is creating the vision and the structure, and that then we would go forward with a funding mechanism. I can show you articles from the Puget Sound Business Journal all the way to The Stranger.

[00:07:53] So, covering the ideological spectrum. So, when it comes to a bait and switch, no, unless folks were not reading the news and knowing that this was always going to be a follow-up, then no, this is not a bait and switch. And then second, I think this is a really important thing, and I'm going to take this question in good faith, but it's important for us to suss out the difference between a government subsidy and an investment.

[00:08:15] We are not talking about social housing needing rental subsidies the way that low-income subsidized housing needs rental subsidies. We're talking about a mixed-income model that can cover the operations, the maintenance, and the construction costs by those at the higher end of the income spectrum being able to pay for those at the lower end of the income spectrum. And by self-sustaining, that is what we mean by that, and that was in all of our literature. Sure. So, again, not a bait and switch.

[00:08:42] We were incredibly clear about the plan going forward, and now we are following up with that promise to voters with a progressive revenue source that would serve individuals of a mixed-income nature in the city of Seattle with a new revenue source that is progressive. So, I'm sorry, then what's the $50 million for? Investing in buildings, buying buildings, which is what we do not do.

[00:09:04] But isn't that what you said, that it's like, so if it's a self-sustaining model and it's going to subsidize the construction and the operations and the maintenance, then, like, why do you need $50 million to go out and buy buildings? I mean, it just, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense for a model, a building, to be able to pay for itself. You still need to pay for the building. You need to go out and buy the building, and nor you need to go forward and have the equity to do a construction loan. Let's leave that there. Jesse, a question for you.

[00:09:33] The measure that you support, 1B, is being backed by the business community, which tends to be pretty anti-tax. And 1B basically says no new taxes. So, I want to hear your case for Seattle voters who tend to support progressive taxes. What's wrong with a tax on ultra-high-paying jobs to fund affordable housing? So, I think the problem with 1A really is the lack of accountability. And I think that's really what 1B is about.

[00:10:01] It's not, you know, are we anti-tax or are we pro-tax? Taxes are, is money that goes to the government to pay for stuff, right? That is essentially what a tax is. And you look at a tax and you say, you know, is this a tax that's going to work? Is this a tax that's going to be well spent? Is this a tax that has, you know, I guess, governors on it to make sure, from a good government perspective,

[00:10:26] it's going to actually work to build the housing that we all agree that we need. And so, I really think it's not so much about the tax. It's about, hey, we have a group that just hired its CEO in July, has no plan of how they're going to do this, has a board that has, I think, vacancies at this point, has, you know, a lot of issues.

[00:10:50] They don't even record their meetings at this point that is going to be charged with spending $50 million of taxpayer money. And 1B says, maybe let's not do that. Maybe let's use existing revenue sources and let's run this to the Office of Housing, which is a known entity and knows how to, you know, analyze what's a good investment, et cetera, so that we can get this organization on its feet. And then let's make the model work. So, that's really what 1B is about.

[00:11:20] I hear that, but the business community opposed the original jumpstart payroll tax that's being tapped here. Are there any new progressive taxes that the business community and the chamber would support? And if so, what's an example of that? So, I am not, I am on the board of the chamber, but I am not Rachel, obviously.

[00:11:39] But I would say that every tax that's in front of the chamber, everybody who takes a look at it, looks at, you know, is it's not, you know, let's tax for the sake of taxing. It's, is this a tax that, you know, makes sense to go toward whatever the goal is, right? So, it's not our tax is bad inherently or our tax is good inherently. It is, let's, you know, look at this on its face and see if this proposal is a good idea. And we're saying it's not.

[00:12:09] And that's why 1B is there. I think that the fact that we're able to evade this question and that Jesse wasn't able to answer it straight on is something that I hope listeners hear. The chamber is notoriously anti-tax when it comes to revenue that is going to be coming from their shareholders' pockets and from their members' pockets. They were for jumpstart after it would not have to raise more taxes to cover the budget gap. But prior to that, they were against it.

[00:12:36] But folks should remember that during the height of the pandemic, they sent in a letter to the city council asking for a pause, not just on the jumpstart revenue tax, but also on the business and occupation tax for all businesses. And then we see investments in property taxes that they support, but they do continue to go against any progressive revenue that we know we need in order to fund more housing in our city. So, I would say this is about not raising new taxes on the wealthiest businesses in our city. And that's where we differ on that specific proposal.

[00:13:06] I want to ask a question about 1B, the alternative to the original social housing measure that was put on the ballot by the city council. Supporters say that it's a better option because it only subsidizes lower income housing for people making 80 percent or less of median. But I guess I don't really understand why the proponents are calling this social housing.

[00:13:31] What it looks like to me is taking $10 million of existing funds that are supposed to already go to affordable housing from Jumpstart and just putting it into more standard affordable housing. So, to the bait and switch question, is that a bait and switch? Is this social housing that you're proposing or that your side is proposing and how so? Well, it is social housing because we're not saying that the city money couldn't go to a project that included, you know, what we call, you know, market rate housing essentially.

[00:14:01] I think what what one of the big concerns with 1A is that, you know, there have been various, you know, things said about how the social housing buildings will work. But we have government money, taxpayer dollars actually going to subsidize market rate people living in a building. And we don't think that is that is right.

[00:14:28] We think that, you know, the need in Seattle and in King County and King County has said in Seattle specifically, our greatest need is 60 percent AMI and below. And there is not a reason why we should be using taxpayer dollars to do more than 80 percent AMI. Right. So you can still have a building that has mixed income. Right. That is paid for partially. You know, the there's all sorts of funding sources. Housing, housing finance is very complicated.

[00:14:58] Right. So you can have city money that goes into to finance just, you know, the 80 percent below. And then if you want to have mixed income buildings, you can have other sources of funding, including private investment. Right. So you can get creative with that. And I think, again, because the need is it really 60 percent below. But, you know, we're saying up to 80 percent AMI. We want that city money to really be focused on that. I have to say as a follow up.

[00:15:24] I mean, this reminds me I've been around long enough that I remember the debates over Hope Six and the idea of putting, you know, various kinds of units into one development, which we have now at places like, you know, Yesler Terrace. When we have these mixed income developments all over the city. And I guess, you know, if you're talking about doing low income housing, you're talking about essentially projects. And that is there is a place for that, certainly.

[00:15:50] But I guess I just don't I don't understand how why you're making that argument against against mixed income housing now. Oh, no, we're not. I mean, to be clear, we're not making an argument against mixed income. I mean, that what we're saying with Prop 1B is that we're let's try social housing. Let's actually try it in a way where we think that we can help make it work rather than and actually have governors on how this money is going to be spent.

[00:16:19] You know, this is a board that was just formed a year ago, isn't complying with the Public Records Act. You know, all of these things that it's like, you know, it's new. It's shaky. Let's like get it on its feet. Let's have, you know, some good government principles around it to make sure that the money is being spent wisely so that it can start working. And then, you know, let's have another conversation later. And so I guess to be clear, we're not saying that that it could not be used for a mixed income building. What it means is the money.

[00:16:48] And this this happens, frankly, in Office of Housing, you know, generated funds today where the funding is really going toward those 80 percent and below units. But that's not to say that you can't have, you know, market rate units in the building. What we're saying is we do want the focus on lower income building or lower income units. And we want the focus on the taxpayer dollars paying for the lower income units as well.

[00:17:13] So if I could jump into this, because it seems this is a good point to add into the conversation here that there is a third campaign that is formed, right, of folks who are opposed to both Proposition 1A and 1B. And just so our listeners understand, the way the ballot is structured here is it's a two part question on the ballot. But the first part says, would you support, you know, a I forget what the language exactly is. And Jesse or Tiffany, please fill in on it.

[00:17:42] But it basically asks, would you support funding social housing? And then regardless of how you answer on the first question, it asks you, would you prefer 1A or 1B, right, the two different options. And there's a campaign that's formed to get people to vote no on question number one, to vote no on both of these. And their argument essentially is that we have a huge need at the bottom end for particularly very low income and homeless housing.

[00:18:07] And that there's an opportunity cost here of taking precious public dollars that are being raised and spending them on housing higher income people rather than addressing the, you know, the most glaring housing need, which is for people who are at the very, very bottom end. And so I want to ask both of you, let's start with Tiffany, though. Tiffany, how do you respond to those folks?

[00:18:40] Hey, Seattle nice listeners. Seattle politics got you low. Well, get high with Uncle Ikes. Pissed at the mayor? Relax with a dollar joint. Pop a tire in a pothole? Eat a $2 gummy and chill. Whether you need something to pump you up for Saturday's protest or a mellow strain for your next sit-in. Ikes is your best friend. Now is the time to roll up, Seattle.

[00:19:09] Download the Ikes app today or head on over to Ikes.com. That's Ikes.com. Yeah, I would say that some of the arguments that those folks are making, Jesse is making as well. And it's really unfortunate because the chamber, you know, argued for the Jumpstart Revenue Plan. A lot of the money which went to housing the lowest income individuals is now subverted and not in existence anymore.

[00:19:38] Now all that money is in the general fund. And homeless service providers and low-income housing providers now have to go to the council every year and fight for that money again as opposed to it being allocated for those who are the most in need. I will say, too, that I really take issue with this idea that public dollars shouldn't go to Seattleites making between 80 to 120 percent of the area median income. Are we saying then that like Seattleites who are in that income range, if their house is on fire, they can't call the fire department.

[00:20:07] They need to call a private fire department in order to come and serve them. Or does this mean like I can't take my kid to my local public school or to our local library? This idea that we should only have public dollars going to the lowest income is an idea of means testing that social housing gets away from. We should be investing in housing as a public good and all of the money that would be going through Prop 1A to purchasing these buildings and or acquiring these buildings,

[00:20:31] which then those at the higher end of the income spectrum would be paying back those loans is an investment in our future. It's an investment in our workforce. It is an anti-displacement tool is something that we should absolutely be doing and investing in. And it really sounds to me like Jesse and those are just advocating for the Seattle process to happen again, which is exactly why we went through the initiative process. So we weren't talking behind closed doors with electives and with leaders in SHA and others to have a five,

[00:20:59] 10 year plan to maybe solve the housing crisis or to maybe create social housing. We went straight to the voters and now we have a mandate. And Prop 1A is the only alternative that delivers on that mandate. And I think it's interesting because some of it is really some of the same conversations that we get about, you know, the multifamily tax exemption and sorry to bring in a whole nother program. Right. But where people say, well, gosh, that, you know, that tax shift or that tax exemption,

[00:21:24] you know, that's not fair because that's really, you know, subsidizing a market rate building with 80 percent AMI units and, you know, property tax shift. So, you know, I think really, as I understand their argument is that we shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to, you know, subsidize market rate folks.

[00:21:47] And, you know, we share some of those sentiments, especially when the need is so great. That's not to say, again, that we don't believe that social housing could work and should work and that, you know, there's other ways of getting the money other than subsidizing market rate folks. You know, you can have a mixed income building where the subsidy is just going to the lower income. And then, you know, the model could work just fine.

[00:22:15] Tiffany, question for you. City has a lot of needs, as you know, that it's a long list of stuff that we could fund with progressive new taxes. And it includes affordable housing. As Erica mentioned earlier, we already have systems in place to build affordable housing, including mixed income housing like New Holly. Nothing exactly like this, but there's a lot of infrastructure kind of already out there.

[00:22:41] The Prop 1A social housing folks haven't built any housing yet. Don't really have that track record. So why should voters support a big new progressive tax in this instance, especially when there's no end date? Yeah, I would say first, just as a reminder, voters already passed this vision and this mandate by a 14 point margin in February 2023. We entrust private developers, governments, nonprofits to build housing.

[00:23:09] None of the people on those boards are elected. None of them have a public process for election that people get to participate in. The Social Housing Developer Board is different in that way. The mayor gets to make one of the appointments. The city council gets to make two of the appointments. MLK Labor gets to have a representative. The Green New Deal Oversight Board gets a representative. Renters of social housing in the future will be able to have also a say and put seven people onto their board.

[00:23:37] So this is actually a lot of process, a lot of people, a lot of input that go onto this. And as I said before, the sales social housing developer does have a CEO, Roberto Jimenez. And he started and he's overseen hundreds of millions of dollars of pipeline projects being the head of Mutual Housing California. So the track record is actually quite good for this. I know that it is a point from the opposition to just sow doubt.

[00:24:01] I will say, too, just to push back on something Jesse said earlier, please do, listeners, go to the Social Housing Developer website. And you can see every single minute, every single meeting minute that they've ever had on the website. Those are all there. And as for just some of the vacancies, I will say a lot of that lays at the feet of the city council. Council Member Moore is not appointing people to the Renters Commission. The Renters Commission is responsible for appointing the members to the board right now.

[00:24:29] So if we want to point fingers, let's ask Council Member Moore why it's been over a year. She has not held any hearings or appointment process for the Seattle Renters Commission. Jesse, did you want to respond? Yeah, I would love to. I mean, I think, you know, I represent housing developers. That is my job. So we represent private developers, low income developers, housing authorities, you know, people who are building housing.

[00:24:54] We represent developing housing, buying buildings, financing housing is really, really, really complicated. And, you know, the charter that was created by the initiative for the social housing developer does not require specific knowledge of housing finance, housing developers.

[00:25:19] I think right now there are there's maybe one there is one for sure, maybe two people with actual, you know, housing background on the board. And I think when you're going to be getting, you know, $50 million a year, which, by the way, is I think half of what the Seattle housing levy will create every year.

[00:25:40] So they're getting, you know, big time dollars every year to go spend like we really want to make sure that those dollars are spent wisely and that they're spent with people with real experience. I think, you know, the CEO, his background looks great. I think that's a really great first step.

[00:25:56] And I think what we're saying is that, you know, the developer is maybe not quite ready for prime time yet and maybe needs a little bit more time to, you know, get situated before they just all of a sudden have this influx of cash to just go spend. We do want this to work. That is why we have PropB on the ballot and we have an alternative to, you know, give some cash, have some governors on, and then let's really see if this experiment works in Seattle.

[00:26:25] As a follow-up to that, Jessie, you've talked about your housing credentials. And from that perspective, you know, I want to ask, is $10 million a year enough to really build anything? Your site's proposal would only last, I believe, five years. Is that enough time with $10 million a year to really prove anything one way or another? We don't know what the social housing developer's plan is yet because we don't have a plan. But what I've heard Tiffany say today is that it's really about acquiring buildings now.

[00:26:53] You know, before it was talking about construction of new buildings, et cetera. I think $10 million when combined with, you know, bond funds, you know, all of the funds that you get together, frankly, on the private side as well, loans, all sorts of sources of financing. You really can go and acquire buildings to start this with $10 million a year. You absolutely can.

[00:27:15] And if you set it up so that the, you know, the model that is anticipated by the social housing measure, the 120% people subsidizing, the folks making, you know, 80, 50, 30%, I mean, how can it, I guess, I guess my question is, how can that possibly at the end of those five years succeed in the sense that the social housing measure wants to, or is proposing to? Yeah, I mean, I think it could.

[00:27:41] I will say that, you know, based on what I've seen with the social housing developer currently, the way that they have it is they have much more market rate folks, I think, proposed in those buildings than, like, say what they do in Montgomery County, where they have, I think, at least a quarter are required to be under 60% AMI.

[00:28:03] But I think that, you know, you get into the ends of the four or five years and you start taking a look, you know, again, is this working, you know, the first building? Is it, you know, how, what are the financials looking at? And again, you need a board and you need, you know, people, frankly, from the Office of Housing, which is why we have them involved, taking a look at those finances and just seeing, like, is this actually sustaining? Is this actually working?

[00:28:26] And so I think you absolutely could be seeing progress in those, you know, the three, four or five year timeframe to see if this is working. And then, you know, we can go to council, we can, you know, ask the question again and see, is this the time to really pump up the funding source? And again, this is how, they had a plan first in Montgomery County and King County, actually, with Gurmeyer's proposal. They are studying something like this with his bond proposal right now.

[00:28:55] But they have, they are studying a plan first before, you know, actually just going and getting the money first and then having a plan. A question for Tiffany. Tiffany, I was talking a few months ago with a housing developer, politically progressive housing developer, and I was asking about your proposal, Prop 1A. And I said, you know, is this workable? Could this really work?

[00:29:22] And what he said to me was, yes, maybe, but it would require the social housing developer to really make this effective for them to partner, you know, in a kind of public-private partnership with experienced developers who know how to build housing and know what they're doing. And that's something that's explicitly banned, essentially, from the initial enabling I-135 measure that's passed.

[00:29:48] And so, given what he was saying to me, isn't that a problem here? You can't do any kind of public-private partnership. How is that going to work? Yeah, I appreciate you bringing that up because I did re-listen to your discussion on this last time. I mean, you did mention this progressive developer. I would like to clarify at the top something that is not a fact that Jesse brought up earlier, that the charter does not require any housing finance or development expertise. Please, listener, read the charter.

[00:30:16] It does require a public housing finance expert. It has two nonprofit developers on there, a green building developer. So, read it on your own, and you'll see that that is incorrect. Getting to the public-private partnership. Yes, I think this is an important distinction, Sundeep, and I'm glad you asked it. We absolutely envision, and I think it's important for me to make clear now, I, Tiffany, am representing How's Our Neighbors. I'm representing the Prop 1A campaign. I do not speak for the Seattle social housing developer.

[00:30:44] But what we wrote in I-135 is that the buildings could not be sold into a public-private partnership. Not that there couldn't be public-private partnerships. I envision that the Seattle social housing developer absolutely could utilize a nonprofit developer in the first couple of years to build housing or to help to a renovation on acquired housing. The SSHD does not need to build up its own development department.

[00:31:10] Why shouldn't it be able to partner with a private developer or a public developer or a nonprofit developer to use their expertise in-house to be able to make the project happen a lot quicker? So, that is not actually disavowed in I-135. Jessie, do you want to weigh in? I mean, that's true. I think the social housing idea is that the buildings will remain in public ownership.

[00:31:36] And that's part of how, you know, that's really one of the main tenets of the social housing model is that it's publicly owned. You know, again, similar kind of to SHA housing. And my understanding is that they could partner with, you know, even for-profit developers, frankly, if you want to do a fee developer and they make something off of it and then, you know, it's actually owned. But it can't be sold. I don't know enough.

[00:32:05] Again, there's no plan from the social housing developer to understand, you know, because there's a, there's naturally, and you saw this actually with Yesler Terrace where SHA decided, okay, we're going to redevelop Yesler Terrace. We're going to sell off lots. So, that provision in the charter could be some sort of a limitation in the future where if you did want to get rid of buildings because it made sense to do so so that you could pump more money back into the program, you know.

[00:32:31] But there's no real plan that the social housing developer has at all. So, we don't know if that's going to be a limiting factor for them. It could be. Tiffany, I have a question that Erica is going to hate, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Let's do it. Too abstract. Because David's going to take us to college. Too airy-fairy. But anyway, the charter for the, I'm interested in this, and I think some of our listeners might be.

[00:32:55] Anyway, and this is, it's a genuine question really for both of you, but the charter for the PDA says social housing is publicly owned and removed from market forces and speculation. And I'm wondering if you can say more about that phrase, removed from market forces and speculation, which to me sounds a lot like progressive criticisms of neoliberalism, which is a word that you can read on Twitter. So, it's not that far removed from our society.

[00:33:20] The idea that market-based reforms are basically not solutions to the problems in our economy or our society. Bill Clinton was wrong about that. Barack Obama is wrong about that. So, in this case, what we need is public ownership of housing to solve our housing crisis. And I'm wondering if you could just say more about that phrase and why it's in there, removed from market forces and speculation. And if you want to bring up the word neoliberalism, our listeners can take it. Thanks, David.

[00:33:49] I'll actually bring up the word commodification. The reason that we have that in the charter is because housing has become a commodity in our society. It is seen as an asset on a balance sheet. It is not seen as one of the most fundamental needs that our species needs. We need housing in order to climb Manslow's hierarchy of needs. So, we want to make sure that this is not treated as an asset on a balance sheet.

[00:34:15] As Jesse just brought up before, which actually segues really great into my answer, Yesler Terrace. It is absolutely a fact that sometimes nonprofit developers need to sell their buildings in order to meet their mission. You know, if a nonprofit developer only has limited funds from the federal government, and it makes sense for them to sell a Capitol Hill building in order to serve two times the renters in, say, Kent, that makes sense to them from their mission. And we want them to keep doing what they're doing.

[00:34:43] But why do we not also have this other housing system in our city that is directly competing with the monopoly of the private market, that is treating housing as a public asset that we should keep in public hands for perpetuity, like we do schools, police, the fire department, our libraries. Why do we see it as something that only has affordability for 30 to 80 years, as opposed to something that we will need in perpetuity, like other cities in our country do,

[00:35:10] and also that social housing programs do internationally. So, that's why it's so important. That's why we also do not allow the selling of the SHA property that Jesse brought up under the social housing developer, because unfortunately, so much of our public dollars and our public land has gone to low-income housing and then has been sold off. So, that public asset, that public benefit, that public investment is now gone forever, and we should be doing everything we can to keep those assets in public hands in perpetuity.

[00:35:39] So, Jesse, we got a public education system. What's wrong with Tiffany's perspective here? I guess, take the role of Bill Clinton versus Bernie Sanders. No, I shouldn't say that. No, because I will just say, like, Prop 1B is not about no on social health. Just to be clear, like, that is not what it is. I have to be as clear as possible. And I think it's a potentially great model.

[00:36:06] I think what Prop 1B is doing is saying that there is no actual plan right now and that we don't, you know, go ask for money before we have a plan. And we want it to succeed.

[00:36:22] So, I don't disagree, actually, with what Tiffany said in terms of, you know, having some sort of housing, you know, just like public schools, fire, police, you know, it's a public good, et cetera. I question just a little bit, you know, that all of a sudden, you know, there's so much low-income housing that's been sold off. I'm not sure that that's really the case. I mean, I think, you know, Lehigh and our friends at Bellwether and everybody might argue a little bit about that.

[00:36:52] But I do think that there is room for the social housing model. So, I just want to be clear. We are – I think it's great. So, if I can jump on to this question because I think it gets at the – at least what it seems to me is the root of the pitch for Prop 1A and social housing.

[00:37:15] And Tiffany weigh in first, but – which it seems to me a lot of the pitch here is about the socialism or socialistic piece of this, right? That what we're talking about here is a new model of self – of grassroots, self-governing, you know, housing where you'd have the renters themselves in control of the decisions about the housing and its policies and how it's going to work.

[00:37:43] And that – and that – and that the promise here, I'm not hearing you saying we're going to build affordable housing cheaper or faster. But what you're saying is we're going to build this new model of housing that's more egalitarian and less driven by market forces or less enslaved by market forces. So, weigh in on that, Tiffany. And am I right about that or am I full of shit?

[00:38:11] Well, Sandeep, it sounds like we're getting back to your description of social housing and the charter we created as that intersectional nirvana. Yes. Yeah. I do think there was some intersectional nirvana going on. Yeah. Yeah. You're bringing up the word socialism now. Fortunately, we live in Seattle, so I'm not too concerned about that. But, yes, we absolutely do see housing as a – I would say a universal good. And we in this country do not treat housing as a universal good.

[00:38:41] It is overwhelmingly dominated by the private market as a for-profit venture. I'm happy to share this spreadsheet with you. We actually crunched some numbers of how much of our housing stock in the city of Seattle is actually owned as affordable, including MFTE, as Jesse brought up earlier. We're talking about 6% or less. That's all. So the rest of housing needs of Seattleites, we are leaving to the private market.

[00:39:06] We are leaving to those who decide, oh, I'll only build this if I can make 10% profit or more. So, yes, we do see a different vision. We do see a different future. But I would say that this is not self-governing. I would say it's somewhat similar to, like, what a homeownership association would be in a condo. I live in a condo. I get to have some governance and where I get to spend my money. But ultimately, I would say that what we created here is kind of a top-down and a bottom-up.

[00:39:33] So we have the top-down board and then the bottom-up as well because we want residents to be able to have, like, a tenants union if they want in their building. And if they don't, then they don't have that. That's up to them. But this is really going to be up to the board and also the staff in order to decide a lot of the future and the vision, too. But we did want to make sure that we weren't duplicating boards that we currently have for a lot of our affordable housing,

[00:39:56] which, you know, oftentimes do have, like, bankers or wealth managers who have just different interests at the end of the day. Jesse, I want to go back to your argument for using existing funds and using $10 million from the existing Jumpstart Fund, which is already supposed to be allocated for affordable housing and other purposes, and then waiting to see after five years if this has worked. As we've been talking, it kind of reminded me of the arguments against allowing more density in the comp plan,

[00:40:25] which I know that you are in favor of more density in the comp plan, or I believe that you are. But, you know, we're hearing similar arguments. Let's just wait. Let's allow, you know, a little bit of density in neighborhoods and, you know, or let's allow density but saddle it with affordability requirements that are unrealistic and nothing will get built. I mean, I'm just, I'm struggling to understand how this isn't an argument for delay. I mean, Tiffany has talked about the need for housing, nonprofits, selling off buildings, you both discussed.

[00:40:54] We do need housing now in the city of Seattle, and there is a loss of nonprofit housing that's going on urgently as we speak. So how is this not just an argument for delay if you're not proposing any new funding and you're saying we should wait for five years? Yeah, I don't consider it to be delay at all. Yes. And for the record, yes, very pro additional density in the comp plan. We need that now. That's, you know, part of the issue as well.

[00:41:20] But getting back to the housing and the funding, I guess one of the things that we say specifically, which is different from every other low-income housing developer or middle-income housing developer, anybody who gets money from the city for housing is social housing developer. This is dedicated funds. So this is not like they have to go and compete for this $10 million. Like, this is for them.

[00:41:48] So that is different from just, like, putting them into the pool with everybody, right? And I don't consider it to be a delay. I go back to a good governance principle. Again, we are not saying that the social housing model couldn't work. We are saying that we don't think that this developer is ready for prime time. They've had a year to get it together. They just hired a CEO in July. They don't have a CFO.

[00:42:17] They don't have any other staff. I mean, you know, it takes some time. And so what we're saying is let's, you know, we're great with a funding source. We agree. We need more housing now. Let's build, build, build. But we just need some governors on that to just make sure it works.

[00:42:34] I mean, let's just think about if they have $50 million, they have a board with very little staff, you know, a board, frankly, with not a lot of experience in either acquiring buildings or building new buildings or whatever it is that their plan is going to be. They have no plan right now. They could not tell you today how they will spend that $50 million. And we're sitting here in three years. And, you know, what's happened? Right.

[00:43:02] So I think, again, let's maybe start little baby steps in some ways. Not to say that it's not let's go, but let's, you know, let's set them up for success, I think. And Tiffany, I want to give you a chance to respond. And then we're going to wrap up with some closing comments after that. Yeah, thanks, Erica. I think that it's just really clear after this conversation that we're painting very different futures of Seattle.

[00:43:29] Myself and the Prop 118 team are painting a future where we have a social housing developer that has money directly that can act on the market incredibly quickly. The Low Income Housing Institute wants to buy currently a building in the international district, 300 units and its market rate. And it's the seller somehow selling it for a very low price.

[00:43:51] And the Office of Housing, unfortunately, is not going to be able to give Lehigh the money they need to acquire this building and to bring that building into the fold of nonprofit and or public ownership. That is one of the onericities of the Office of Housing and one of the guardrails that Jessie's talking about, which is the vision that she is painting is delay, is slowing down, is funding social housing, but social housing how they want it to happen, 80 percent and below. So basically duplicating everything that we're already doing.

[00:44:20] We don't need another 80 percent and below AMI developer in the city of Seattle. We have plenty of incredibly well-skilled people to do that. What we need is a public option for social for housing in the city of Seattle. And that's the vision that we're painting. We want to make sure this voter mandated developer has the money it needs to act quickly and to staff up and to do everything that it needs in order to meet the charter and to meet the goals. We're in a housing crisis now, not two, three, four, five years from now.

[00:44:47] And we need the money now in order to make a real dent in the future and make sure that we don't continue to lose more of our neighbors to surrounding municipalities because they can't afford to live here. And also, as enrollment continues to drop here, one big factor is that families can't afford to live here once their kids get into kindergarten, first, second, third grade. So we need to make sure that we're creating a Seattle now that can accommodate everyone where everyone can afford to live and thrive. All right. Well, let's end here, starting with Jesse.

[00:45:16] And the question is closing comments. But, you know, is there anything that we should have asked you that we didn't? That's a that's a really good question. No, I don't think so. I mean, I guess you've heard all of the things about why we're, you know, pro 1B and pro social housing. I mean, I think if you really support social housing and you really want it to succeed, you should vote for 1B.

[00:45:44] It provides a reasonable amount of money to actually get out the door. And it has the support and accountability of the Office of Housing, which, you know, Tiffany is kind of casting aspersions on the Office of Housing saying, you know, it's not going to fund a Lehigh thing. It may be that Office of Housing is determined that that's maybe not a great investment of the public dollar.

[00:46:06] So, I mean, I think when we're talking about public dollars, we really do need public accountability and, you know, public looking in to make sure that that those dollars are being well spent. And that's really, I think, the crux of 1B. I think we're, you know, super interested in seeing social housing succeed. We agree that we think all different types of housing models, you know, it's yes and, yes and, yes and.

[00:46:36] And so that's really why we are focused on 1B. Tiffany, same question for you. Any questions we should have asked that we didn't and just your closing thoughts? I would just say that, yeah, just overall, like a vote for 1B is a vote against social housing.

[00:47:03] It's a vote against the model that voters created through I-135. We don't need longer time to address our housing crisis. We need it now. And unfortunately, based on the city of Seattle City Council, removing the Jumpstart spending provisions, which invested upwards of 50% of that revenue into affordable housing, into housing for our most vulnerable, into housing for those who are experiencing homelessness. Now that money is just going into the general fund.

[00:47:30] So we don't even have that revenue that we did for the past couple of years going into those who need it the most. So we are just facing a future in the city where we are not making the investments at all that we need in order to make sure that the city is affordable and that the city doesn't just turn into a playground for the wealthy. And that's what we want to address very concretely and very boldly through Prop 1A.

[00:47:51] I'll say for the guardrails and governors, this PDA, just like all other public development authorities, have the ability of the city council and the mayor to audit it. Look at the end of the charter. There's all of the provisions there that have governors. Yes, this doesn't go through the Office of Housing, but the ability to audit and for there to be accountability by the mayor and the city council is already enshrined in the charter. So I just ask voters to make sure to vote yes on 1 and yes on 1A.

[00:48:18] Tiffany McCoy, thanks so much for making the case for 1A. Thanks, David and Sandeep and Erica. And Jesse Klaassen, thank you. Thank you. Thanks for you both coming on. I really enjoyed the conversation. And remind everybody, election date is what, February 13th? 11. Oh, February 11th. Thank you. When did the ballots come out? Don't miss that, Dave. He's trying to suppress the vote. I'm mailing my ballot in on the 13th.

[00:48:46] Ballots go out on the 22nd, January 22nd. So a week from tomorrow. A week from tomorrow. All right. That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice. She's Erica C. Barnett. He's Sandeep Kashuk. I'm David Hyde. Our editor is Quinn Waller. And thank you all so much for listening.