Two Social Housing Measures Enter. One Measure Leaves.

[00:00:03] [SPEAKER_00]: Hey, Seattle Nice listeners, Seattle Politics got you low.

[00:00:08] [SPEAKER_00]: We'll get high with Uncle Likes.

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_00]: Pist at the Mayor, relax with a dollar joint.

[00:00:16] [SPEAKER_00]: Pop a tire and a pot hole, eat a $2 gummy and chill.

[00:00:21] [SPEAKER_00]: Whether you need something to pump you up for Saturday's protest or mellows strain for your next sit-in,

[00:00:27] [SPEAKER_00]: Iikes is your best friend.

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_00]: Now is the time to roll-ups, Seattle.

[00:00:33] [SPEAKER_00]: Download the Ix app today or head on over to ix.com.

[00:00:38] [SPEAKER_00]: That's ix.com.

[00:00:52] [SPEAKER_03]: Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice.

[00:00:55] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm David Hyde here as always with Erica C. Barnett of Publicola, Hayerika.

[00:00:59] [SPEAKER_03]: Hello and political consultant, Sandeep Kaushik, High-Sundee.

[00:01:04] [SPEAKER_02]: Hello from DC.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_01]: Not an undisclosed location, okay?

[00:01:08] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.

[00:01:09] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I'm in an undisclosed location in the Washington DC Metro area.

[00:01:13] [SPEAKER_03]: A bunker in the Washington DC area with Dick Cheney or without Dick Cheney.

[00:01:17] [SPEAKER_03]: That's the question.

[00:01:18] [SPEAKER_03]: I want to ask you both about our new advertiser Uncle Ix.

[00:01:22] [SPEAKER_03]: How are we feeling about this? I mean, this is our anchor.

[00:01:27] [SPEAKER_03]: I've got, I've gotten some feedbacks.

[00:01:29] [SPEAKER_02]: I have to see, you're not only thoughts, though.

[00:01:31] [SPEAKER_03]: Ha ha ha.

[00:01:32] [SPEAKER_03]: That's pretty funny.

[00:01:34] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm trying to make sure you show about your act.

[00:01:35] [SPEAKER_03]: This is what I got.

[00:01:36] [SPEAKER_01]: No, but I will say you know a lot of people consider pot-free harm

[00:01:40] [SPEAKER_01]: Reduction so there's tie in there.

[00:01:42] [SPEAKER_02]: There you go.

[00:01:43] [SPEAKER_01]: We love you and Eisenberg.

[00:01:45] [SPEAKER_02]: There we love you and Eisenberg.

[00:01:47] [SPEAKER_02]: He can do no wrong.

[00:01:49] [SPEAKER_01]: I believe in the separation of circumstances

[00:01:51] [SPEAKER_01]: Stayed on editorial and advertising so I have no comment.

[00:01:57] [SPEAKER_03]: All right.

[00:01:58] [SPEAKER_03]: Today in the show, should the city of Seattle raise police hiring bonuses?

[00:02:03] [SPEAKER_03]: Questions swirling around that as we'll find out in a minute with looming budget shortfalls.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_03]: So we're going to be talking that over debating that one.

[00:02:11] [SPEAKER_03]: But first, a proposed alternative to the social housing initiative 137.

[00:02:17] [SPEAKER_03]: This is the one y'all voted on, but it wasn't funded yet.

[00:02:21] [SPEAKER_03]: And the initiative 137 is basically a tax on employers with workers who make more than a million bucks a year to fund housing.

[00:02:28] [SPEAKER_03]: And this isn't alternative to that, right, Erica?

[00:02:31] [SPEAKER_03]: That just got voted on today Thursday afternoon.

[00:02:36] [SPEAKER_03]: That's what we're talking about.

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_01]: Right. Yeah.

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_01]: The council voted to approve this so-called alternative.

[00:02:43] [SPEAKER_01]: You know, I'm not sure that that word.

[00:02:45] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, that word is doing a lot of work because-

[00:02:51] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, it's just not even.

[00:02:53] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, it's just a completely different proposal that does not build the same kind of housing.

[00:02:59] [SPEAKER_01]: And it doesn't have a funding source, which is the entire point.

[00:03:02] [SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't have a new funding source, I should say, which is the entire point of initiative 137.

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_01]: So initiative 135 passed and you know, they said this proponent said at the time,

[00:03:12] [SPEAKER_01]: this is just the first part because we, you know, we can't violate the single subject rule.

[00:03:18] [SPEAKER_01]: And initiatives were going to come back with the funding source.

[00:03:20] [SPEAKER_01]: Funding source is basically as you described it, it's a tax on employers with workers that make more than a million dollars.

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_01]: But it's only on the what's called the excess compensation.

[00:03:30] [SPEAKER_01]: So it's everything over a million dollars.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_01]: The proponent's estimate was that that would bring in about $50 million a year.

[00:03:37] [SPEAKER_01]: The council's alternative would remove $10 million a year from jumpstart revenues that are coming in

[00:03:44] [SPEAKER_01]: that are already allocated to other affordable housing to build housing for people, you know, who are middle income and lower income.

[00:03:53] [SPEAKER_01]: So the entire premise behind social housing would also kind of be thrown out the window.

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_01]: That premise was that you would have a whole mix of incomes all the way up to 120% of the area median income.

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_01]: So that those higher income folks could subsidize the rents of the lower income books.

[00:04:09] [SPEAKER_01]: So this is basically just saying we're going to take jumpstart money and use it to fund traditional affordable housing through the city's office of housing.

[00:04:18] [SPEAKER_01]: And so it is nothing at all like the social housing initiative.

[00:04:22] [SPEAKER_03]: Sunday cash.

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_03]: The second thing that I think is the first thing that I think is the second thing that is going to be a little bit of a big issue.

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_03]: I think it was an alternative by any other name is not an alternative.

[00:04:26] [SPEAKER_02]: There's a number of things to say about this, but I think first we should start with a little bit of history of how we got to where we are right now, which is that it was a couple years ago, right?

[00:04:39] [SPEAKER_02]: And five, the original measure which had no funding attached to it but created a it was put forward by the folks at real change, none of them had any.

[00:04:49] [SPEAKER_02]: Have any experience actually building housing or doing affordable housing projects.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_02]: But what they put forward was a measure that created a PDA public development authority that and it in charge the city to give the PDA some start up money.

[00:05:03] [SPEAKER_02]: So if they could work on it that PDA has been stood up.

[00:05:06] [SPEAKER_02]: It's track record so far I will say has been less than stellar it hasn't been able to kind of you know meet sort of basic obligations of transparency and posting stuff on the website and about the privately I hear there's a lot of internal issues with that that that PDA and the people that got appointed to it again many of whom or most of them have no experience doing affordable housing.

[00:05:31] [SPEAKER_02]: But nonetheless we're now here where the PDA stood up for better or worse and we're now going to now they're coming back and asking for what is essentially a blank check right there's saying 50 million dollars on this tax on jobs that are above of where they earners are making more than a million dollars.

[00:05:51] [SPEAKER_02]: And the Americans you say access profit so.

[00:05:53] [SPEAKER_02]: That's where we are I think there are a lot of questions and that's what led to the alternate.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I mean I think that you know I mean I don't know what private conversations you know you've had that suggests that there are you know unsmisfied problems in the PDA I mean I you know I think that it's very hard to judge the performance of a.

[00:06:15] [SPEAKER_01]: An authority set up to build housing if we don't fund them to build housing and I think that you know the basic thing that's going on here is that the city council is saying.

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_01]: We is they're agreeing with you Sunday and they're saying let's just go ahead and cut their legs out for them under them before they even had a chance to pass this initiative that would actually fund them you know which you know by the way not for nothing I mean they got 26,000 ballot signatures and you know from voters who wanted to see this happen.

[00:06:44] [SPEAKER_01]: And the city council is basically saying now that we don't trust these folks.

[00:06:50] [SPEAKER_01]: We don't trust the concept of social housing.

[00:06:53] [SPEAKER_01]: We don't trust the concept of you know of having higher income people subsidized lower income people in a mixed income.

[00:07:03] [SPEAKER_01]: Environment and so we're going to instead fund traditional sort of segregated lower income housing where everyone is you know is making 80% you know or less of median income I mean that's that's fine but we build a lot of that stuff.

[00:07:19] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is you know and should be building more and should be funding more but this is a totally different concept and and so they're saying let's just kneecap it and not let it happen and so I just I think that is you know maybe getting lost in this idea that this is just a different alternative to do the same thing it's not it's an alternative to keep doing the same old thing.

[00:07:41] [SPEAKER_01]: And she used existing funds instead of adding to the pot and so basically you know in addition to doing the same old thing it's really doing nothing because jumpstart already has to go to affordable housing primarily.

[00:07:56] [SPEAKER_01]: So they're just saying we're going to dictate a little bit of the details of what kind of affordable housing and it'll fund but we're not going to increase funding to actually improve the affordable housing situation during a housing crisis.

[00:08:08] [SPEAKER_03]: Okay so so Sunday cash like this council skeptical of the original concept here at the air is saying didn't like the outcome of the first vote and now they're looking for a different result essentially it's a little they're trying to gain the system.

[00:08:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Sunday cash like what do you think I don't think that's a fair characterization at all right. I think what what this alternative measure actually does is it gives the social housing folks $50 million to $10 million a year and I think it's I think it's Maritz who said this.

[00:08:35] [SPEAKER_02]: You know in her statement about this I'm not opposed to this idea but let's give these people some money so that they can show proof of concept.

[00:08:44] [SPEAKER_02]: Right I mean this is something when we originally talked about this I think I may have used the same phrase proof of concept about this like.

[00:08:49] [SPEAKER_02]: But the concept is gone well you know we can argue about whether 80 or 120% of AMI I mean I'm going back to the house our neighbors website back in the for the original 135 and one of the things they were promising back then is to bond against rent.

[00:09:05] [SPEAKER_02]: And that that money would be used to acquire bill new buildings and so some of that stuff which was sort of associated with going higher on the income scale has now fallen by the wayside they're not talking about bonding against rents anymore.

[00:09:18] [SPEAKER_02]: And in fact at the time I remember asking some of the more traditional affordable housing developers what do you think about this bond he is rent concept because it did seem kind of intriguing to me like if you can pull that off and they were kind of like.

[00:09:31] [SPEAKER_01]: That's not really going to that's not the money is not going to pencil on that like well I mean you're doing you're doing a lot of like sort of my new.

[00:09:40] [SPEAKER_01]: Gotchas on the details of the initiative from two years ago a lot has happened since then and the concept behind this funding plan really doesn't work if you're only going up to 80% I mean that's why I say it's kneecapping them if you you can say.

[00:09:56] [SPEAKER_01]: Here's some money and let's see if it works but if you say that that you cannot take in more in rents from people making higher incomes it's just it's not going to pencil out I mean it is not that is not the basic concept the basic concept is mixed income not just lower income and if you say it's just low income housing I mean.

[00:10:15] [SPEAKER_01]: The people who support this are saying it's not going to work like you can give us 10 million dollars you can give us 50 million dollars but it doesn't pencil out and again like I haven't seen all the numbers.

[00:10:27] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm not saying that it definitely will work or won't work but I know that you know it's if the idea is to have higher income folks subsidize the rents of lower income folks.

[00:10:39] [SPEAKER_01]: It's not going to work if everybody is 80% or less because there's just there's just no way.

[00:10:44] [SPEAKER_02]: I guess I think there's a there's a more threshold question here of do these people have their shit together enough to actually build any housing and I think you're saying they don't trust them but.

[00:10:56] [SPEAKER_02]: You know they're saying trust us now and everything's going to be great on this concept that is unproven and.

[00:11:05] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean it's not a model that's not in the right and Seattle it's it's I mean it's not a model that doesn't exist in other.

[00:11:11] [SPEAKER_02]: But also by people who have never themselves built any housing right there a bunch of you know a group of activists and well intention they're saying and they're asking for funding and perpetuity I think what the council says.

[00:11:23] [SPEAKER_02]: We're going to give you some money show us you can build some housing if you can do it and it's cost effective then okay then we'll go forward but for that to be true they'd have to fund it.

[00:11:33] [SPEAKER_03]: Show proof of concept and then go to the original concept you know which they're not doing here right like her point is.

[00:11:40] [SPEAKER_03]: They've changed the the concept significantly and and and made it so it's impossible to work the thing that you're skeptical about can't possibly work and.

[00:11:50] [SPEAKER_03]: No they're not giving a chance to prove that concept they're giving a chance to prove this other concept even if you wanted to make the argument as you're doing.

[00:11:57] [SPEAKER_03]: That that was some kind of threshold your point do these people have their shit together enough to build any housing at all well if you want to set that test for them and you know.

[00:12:06] [SPEAKER_03]: The voters didn't get a choice the first time they just got to now hey all right there's two social housing measures but but the point is you know she's she's making good point isn't she that there there there's no chance to prove the original concept here.

[00:12:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Right I mean look if if these people I I take that plane I think there there's a there's a substantive point there there is a difference between how going to 120% of AMI and.

[00:12:27] [SPEAKER_02]: I think they're not going to be staying at 80% which is a traditional level on affordable housing that doesn't make a difference in this and look but.

[00:12:34] [SPEAKER_02]: And I guess I would say if these folks can actually get their shit together enough to spend this money where it doesn't turn into a monitor style boondoggle and they actually even just build some housing.

[00:12:45] [SPEAKER_02]: Get it up and running get some people in there and operate I maybe it's not going to be breaking even operationally because of this 80% AMI restriction but even if they can do that I think there's a conversation to be had of look okay.

[00:12:58] [SPEAKER_02]: Dialysis expand this and go up to 120 we think we can really make this work but I think there's still a threshold question about whether these people can do that you know I mean I've talked to Ben Meritz about this Erica you mentioned him is the person who wrote to.

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_02]: The extent there is any plan it's a spreadsheet and you know when you when you probe on this stuff there are some.

[00:13:18] [SPEAKER_02]: Real questions I mean one of the things that I won 35 said is that you can't have a public private partnership right to build the housing so they can't work with a private developer to build any of this.

[00:13:29] [SPEAKER_01]: I think that's one of the public housing right but that's one of that is that is again a concept that you know that is different than just the standard stuff that we already do I mean.

[00:13:39] [SPEAKER_01]: You know during the comments the public comments on this have been overwhelmingly against the council you know taking this action and.

[00:13:50] [SPEAKER_01]: Traditional housing groups like Lehigh you know and a plimath housing have come and said please don't you know a kill this you know new form of potential housing but be you know please don't take away funding you know please don't rob Peter to pay Paul by taking away funding that you know is currently going to groups like plimath groups like Lehigh and and putting it into this new affordable housing concept because you know it's it's just.

[00:14:19] [SPEAKER_01]: It's not it's not fair.

[00:14:22] [SPEAKER_01]: You know to use a corny word to take out of the same funding source and say you know.

[00:14:29] [SPEAKER_01]: Sanker swim to these to this new organization that wants to build social housing and you know screw you to everybody else who you know is is relying on funding from jumpstart.

[00:14:39] [SPEAKER_01]: I do want to say real quickly you know you keep saying that these people don't have their ship together.

[00:14:44] [SPEAKER_01]: I think there's a real question about whether the city council has it shipped together when I've been watching these meetings you know.

[00:14:51] [SPEAKER_01]: It is not entirely clear to me that they entirely understand the concept behind social housing.

[00:14:58] [SPEAKER_01]: Tony Wu notably was asking the central staffer the other day what is social housing you know and she was saying well is it up to 80% or is it 50% and you know the staffer was kind of explaining no it's up to 120 and then.

[00:15:15] [SPEAKER_01]: You know her response was well I think that it's better for you know really poor people to get housing and not these these wealthy or people.

[00:15:23] [SPEAKER_01]: She's sponsoring the legislation and I think it's pretty important to understand what you're sponsoring before you sponsor it and put your name on it and it just it just feels a little bit you know chaotic right now on the council and so I think that.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_01]: You know if we're going to denigrate people who are trying to build housing you know maybe we should also question you know how much the city council is is really aware of what they're doing.

[00:15:50] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not I don't mean to denigrate them and I don't think the city council sponsors of this mean to denigrate them either I think what they're saying those we're going to give you 50 million dollars over the next five years.

[00:16:01] [SPEAKER_02]: Show us what you can do with it and if you can you know.

[00:16:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Demonstrate some basic competency about this I think Ritz of it's very clear saying I'm not opposed to it conceptually but I want to see.

[00:16:15] [SPEAKER_02]: Some results before you know we kind of hand you the you know the keys to the bank fall.

[00:16:21] [SPEAKER_01]: Well what's realistically going to happen though is this will be a five year thing I mean if they're version passes is it'll be a five year thing and then it'll go away like let's let's not like.

[00:16:30] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean I think that you know but the point of proof of concept is proof of concept show us that you can do something and.

[00:16:38] [SPEAKER_02]: And then and then we'll make a decision at the five year point but to your point about the other or traditional affordable housing providers I understand why some of them might be freaked out by this proposal right I mean.

[00:16:48] [SPEAKER_02]: But this goes to the larger question of the city's budget deficit right now and the reason why I think this alternative is the one that's moving forward rather than some of what I've heard internally we're considered as alternatives.

[00:17:01] [SPEAKER_02]: Is that this is something I think we're going to find out pretty soon on the budget process starts is that there's more money at the city that the city has to play with.

[00:17:11] [SPEAKER_02]: Then then has been sort of publicly realized right we've talked about the big deficit to our fifty to our sixty million dollars but the delta between where jump start revenues are actually coming in and where they projected them be is really big.

[00:17:26] [SPEAKER_01]: And goes a long way towards a racing that deficit without cutting anything so I think there's a volatile source though right I mean that's the thing whenever the city decides to rely on a source of funding that comes from the you know a very small number of companies.

[00:17:41] [SPEAKER_01]: That is risky I mean I don't know how risky it is but it is definitely you know risky to rely on a volatile tax and especially for long term stuff.

[00:17:51] [SPEAKER_01]: And so especially even even five years out we don't know what jump start revenues are going to look like and we can't just you know assume that the arrow will just you know it endlessly go up into the right I mean it's you know it's possible they could decline and then.

[00:18:05] [SPEAKER_03]: Fifty million dollars might start looking like a lot of money it is a different concept you keep calling it Sunday proof of concept and kind of ignoring that point about proof of proof of new concept.

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_03]: But you know how about just you know well why shouldn't voters get another crack at it next year is there anything sort of Erica in principle wrong with that like what's wrong with a new concept that's a different concept.

[00:18:32] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah it's clearly the one that rits and people on the council prefer and the voters at the ones that get to decide they want when they originally voted for this thing.

[00:18:40] [SPEAKER_03]: I think we could probably all agree that they voted for it because they were like social housing that sounds great I support that we need more affordable housing period.

[00:18:47] [SPEAKER_03]: Now we're going to have a debate now we're going to have discussions not like you know this is necessarily this alternative is necessarily going to be the one that passes so what's the big deal there's going to be two things on the ballot.

[00:18:55] [SPEAKER_01]: You know why won't the better one if that's the social housing you know I want 37 why won't that just pass well I mean it may shock you to learn this but sometimes we don't elect the best people and we don't vote for the best things.

[00:19:08] [SPEAKER_01]: So I mean why won't it just pass I mean I think it actually I would not be well it's got a chance does of course it has a chance but I mean I do think that when you know we have a we have an initiative process in this state that allows the people to put items on the ballot and let people vote on them and when.

[00:19:25] [SPEAKER_01]: Elected officials metal in that process and they are allowed to do so but when they do they are fundamentally doing something that is you know slightly anti democratic you know if if this is a bad idea.

[00:19:38] [SPEAKER_01]: If social housing is a terrible idea there should be no need to muddy the waters and try to confuse voters by putting a similar measure on the ballot I mean the same thing happened with with preschool.

[00:19:50] [SPEAKER_01]: While years and years back when there were two measures you know one that was unfunded and it was I believe it was supported by unions and one that was funded and supported by the city the city funded one.

[00:20:01] [SPEAKER_01]: The city supported one ended up passing and so they're responding but you know it was it was you know a really messy campaign because.

[00:20:09] [SPEAKER_01]: You're you're looking at two ballot proposals you know and the other alternative is no one either and it does make it more likely that the one that you know was the original initiative will fail.

[00:20:21] [SPEAKER_01]: I think if the idea so bad the council should just put it on the ballot and campaign against it and let the voters decide I mean why money the waters.

[00:20:29] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think there's anything anti democratic this has been from the ground up built into our system right when when when a group goes out and flexing the terms to put an initiative on the ballot in the city.

[00:20:40] [SPEAKER_02]: The council has three options right they can move it onto the ballot right which is your preference they can let's what they usually can pass it themselves or they can place it on the ballot with an alternative if they think they have concerns about the initiative and this council obviously does.

[00:20:55] [SPEAKER_02]: I have some concerns that I share about whether you know why 137 is currently written is not going to turn into some you know big boondoggle right so they've come up with an alternative here right that that now the voters will will decide which they want.

[00:21:12] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean if you've worked on campaigns a lot can you really say with a straight face that putting a second option on the ballot is not an attempt in general to confuse voters and to split the vote.

[00:21:23] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know if I didn't attempt to confuse voters and split the vote it's an attempt to try to refine the idea and put something in this case with less risk on to the ballot.

[00:21:33] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm going back to you mentioned in I think it's 2014 when we had the two measures on one was a.

[00:21:39] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it's a child care funding measure put forward by by by labor by S.E.I.U. and then there was a city sort of.

[00:21:47] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it's a city precaid pilot program right and and I did that campaign right I would I did the city precaid pilot campaign.

[00:21:56] [SPEAKER_02]: That was a situation where there were negotiations with the union for months leading up to that and they wouldn't agree on how to.

[00:22:15] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it's a situation where there were.

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_02]: is fully baked?

[00:22:31] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, I think that you are assuming a lot of high-mindedness

[00:22:34] [SPEAKER_01]: on the part of this council

[00:22:36] [SPEAKER_01]: that you would not attribute to previous councils.

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_01]: And so I think it's an ideological preference

[00:22:42] [SPEAKER_01]: on your part to have the council's version pass.

[00:22:45] [SPEAKER_01]: But again, I'm not quite as convinced here

[00:22:49] [SPEAKER_01]: in the questions that I've heard from the council

[00:22:51] [SPEAKER_01]: about the very, very basic fundamentals

[00:22:55] [SPEAKER_01]: of what social housing even is.

[00:22:57] [SPEAKER_01]: That they totally have thought through every nuance of this

[00:23:02] [SPEAKER_01]: in the way that you seem to think that they have.

[00:23:05] [SPEAKER_01]: So, I mean, your confidence in this council

[00:23:08] [SPEAKER_01]: is quite a bit different than in other councils.

[00:23:11] [SPEAKER_01]: So maybe you're right, but I think that,

[00:23:14] [SPEAKER_01]: cynically, I think this is an effort

[00:23:15] [SPEAKER_01]: to kill social housing.

[00:23:17] [SPEAKER_01]: And I think that as a born cynics,

[00:23:20] [SPEAKER_01]: I think somewhere in there, you agree with me

[00:23:24] [SPEAKER_01]: to some extent.

[00:23:25] [SPEAKER_03]: Let me wrap it up with just one question,

[00:23:28] [SPEAKER_03]: which I don't know if either of you have the answer to it.

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_03]: If it is a $10 million a year,

[00:23:32] [SPEAKER_03]: or even if it's more,

[00:23:33] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, how much housing do we get for $10 million these days?

[00:23:37] [SPEAKER_02]: We don't have a lot to go on here, right?

[00:23:38] [SPEAKER_02]: But we do have the spreadsheet that Ben Ritz

[00:23:40] [SPEAKER_02]: is, as Erica referenced, put together

[00:23:42] [SPEAKER_02]: for the social housing folks.

[00:23:43] [SPEAKER_02]: And they're talking about 600,000 in that

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_02]: they talk about the cost of building these units

[00:23:48] [SPEAKER_02]: as about 600,000 dollars a unit.

[00:23:52] [SPEAKER_02]: So you can do the math on that, whatever that works out to.

[00:23:56] [SPEAKER_02]: It's building housing in Seattle has gotten,

[00:23:59] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, here's a bar broader problem.

[00:24:00] [SPEAKER_02]: I've gotten super fucking expensive, right?

[00:24:03] [SPEAKER_02]: And it makes it hard to,

[00:24:05] [SPEAKER_03]: 10 billion divided by 600,000 is this wrong?

[00:24:08] [SPEAKER_03]: Is 16.

[00:24:10] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, over but then five years of it, right?

[00:24:12] [SPEAKER_02]: So over five years you would be able to do.

[00:24:14] [SPEAKER_02]: 16 times five?

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, it's not a fight, come on, that's nothing.

[00:24:18] [SPEAKER_01]: Like even, I mean, even if, yeah, so like,

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_01]: so two years.

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_03]: At 20 units, over five years.

[00:24:24] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, but $50 million is not nothing, right?

[00:24:26] [SPEAKER_02]: That's real money.

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, it is real, Millie.

[00:24:29] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I mean, I mean, that raises the question just

[00:24:32] [SPEAKER_03]: generally to me, which is just like how the fuck does anybody

[00:24:35] [SPEAKER_03]: build anything, especially without private money,

[00:24:39] [SPEAKER_03]: like how do we afford what we really need?

[00:24:41] [SPEAKER_03]: We just had a $1.1 billion measure that passed

[00:24:45] [SPEAKER_03]: building like 2000 units, right?

[00:24:46] [SPEAKER_03]: But last question I really have here is

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_03]: about who's backing this.

[00:24:50] [SPEAKER_03]: The chamber has heavily involved, right?

[00:24:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I mean, the chamber, I mean,

[00:24:55] [SPEAKER_01]: this is going to be a tax on the very wealthiest people

[00:25:00] [SPEAKER_01]: that people making the most money.

[00:25:01] [SPEAKER_01]: And so a lot of those companies are in the chamber

[00:25:05] [SPEAKER_01]: represented by the chamber.

[00:25:06] [SPEAKER_01]: I will say, I mean, I think the chamber supports

[00:25:11] [SPEAKER_01]: a more business friendly option duh.

[00:25:13] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, to me, like the substance of it

[00:25:15] [SPEAKER_01]: is much more important and interesting and relevant

[00:25:18] [SPEAKER_01]: than the fact that, of course, the chamber

[00:25:21] [SPEAKER_01]: is supporting the provisiness version.

[00:25:23] [SPEAKER_01]: I think voters should look at the details

[00:25:25] [SPEAKER_01]: of both of these measures now

[00:25:28] [SPEAKER_01]: that they're going to be on the ballot.

[00:25:30] [SPEAKER_01]: And sort of ask, do I want 16 units a year or whatever it is

[00:25:36] [SPEAKER_01]: of traditional affordable housing?

[00:25:38] [SPEAKER_01]: Like we're already building our do-in want

[00:25:40] [SPEAKER_01]: to try something new that would create these mixed-income

[00:25:45] [SPEAKER_01]: communities of people in all different walks of life,

[00:25:51] [SPEAKER_01]: that might actually be self-sustaining.

[00:25:54] [SPEAKER_01]: And so I think look at the details.

[00:25:56] [SPEAKER_01]: Obviously, business support business

[00:25:58] [SPEAKER_01]: back to measures and measures benefit business.

[00:26:01] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, I don't know.

[00:26:02] [SPEAKER_01]: I know others are going to get very exercise about that

[00:26:05] [SPEAKER_01]: and call this a big business chamber initiative.

[00:26:08] [SPEAKER_01]: And that's fine, but I just think it fails on the merits alone.

[00:26:12] [SPEAKER_03]: All right, we're almost out of time.

[00:26:14] [SPEAKER_03]: So I just want to do a lightning round on police bonuses.

[00:26:18] [SPEAKER_03]: This is a proposal right Erica

[00:26:21] [SPEAKER_03]: to increase bonuses to try to bring in more cops.

[00:26:25] [SPEAKER_03]: I don't know what the total cost of this thing is,

[00:26:28] [SPEAKER_03]: but it's a pretty significant amount of money

[00:26:30] [SPEAKER_03]: in a time when we've been talking about them dealing

[00:26:32] [SPEAKER_03]: with some serious budget issues.

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_03]: And so kind of what's the story?

[00:26:36] [SPEAKER_03]: What's your take?

[00:26:37] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, it's about a million and a half a year.

[00:26:40] [SPEAKER_01]: It's going to come out of SPD's existing budget,

[00:26:43] [SPEAKER_01]: which as we know is sloshing around with all kinds

[00:26:45] [SPEAKER_01]: of extra money because we have plenty of police positions

[00:26:49] [SPEAKER_01]: that are not being filled.

[00:26:51] [SPEAKER_01]: And so instead of putting that money back

[00:26:52] [SPEAKER_01]: towards other purposes, the city retains it in SPD

[00:26:55] [SPEAKER_01]: as a kind of slush fund.

[00:26:57] [SPEAKER_01]: So it wouldn't actually impact the rest of the budget.

[00:27:01] [SPEAKER_01]: But I think that we've seen

[00:27:03] [SPEAKER_01]: and there's been studies that show that bonuses

[00:27:05] [SPEAKER_01]: are not really what you provide

[00:27:09] [SPEAKER_01]: instead of for people to come work for SPD

[00:27:11] [SPEAKER_01]: and to stay there.

[00:27:13] [SPEAKER_01]: And these would be increasing lateral bonuses

[00:27:15] [SPEAKER_01]: to $50,000 a year, which is quite a bit more

[00:27:18] [SPEAKER_01]: than a minimum wage full-time worker makes in a year.

[00:27:21] [SPEAKER_01]: What does seem to work is raising the pay.

[00:27:25] [SPEAKER_01]: And the council has already done that.

[00:27:26] [SPEAKER_01]: The city has already done that rather.

[00:27:28] [SPEAKER_01]: And so police are actually making over $100,000

[00:27:33] [SPEAKER_01]: when they start now.

[00:27:34] [SPEAKER_01]: And that seems to have increased the number of folks

[00:27:37] [SPEAKER_01]: who are applying to be cops in Seattle.

[00:27:39] [SPEAKER_01]: And so I don't really understand this obsession

[00:27:42] [SPEAKER_01]: with providing bonuses.

[00:27:45] [SPEAKER_01]: But it sounds like they're gonna do it.

[00:27:47] [SPEAKER_01]: So $50,000 for lateral higher.

[00:27:50] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I guess that quickly way

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_02]: and I think as Erica says, we've seen up

[00:27:54] [SPEAKER_02]: some positive developments in terms of police recruitment

[00:27:57] [SPEAKER_02]: since the new contract went into effect with the pay increases.

[00:28:02] [SPEAKER_02]: And if $50,000 bonus is pretty damn hefty.

[00:28:07] [SPEAKER_02]: So I don't know if it has some impact

[00:28:09] [SPEAKER_02]: and the money's there and the SPD budget

[00:28:11] [SPEAKER_02]: to try this out.

[00:28:12] [SPEAKER_02]: And if that will increase the pace of recruitment

[00:28:15] [SPEAKER_02]: and adding cops, I'm all for it.

[00:28:17] [SPEAKER_01]: Hasn't so far we don't have evidence that it works.

[00:28:19] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, the city has increased bonuses

[00:28:21] [SPEAKER_01]: and has been paying bonuses for a very long time.

[00:28:25] [SPEAKER_01]: And the thing that seems to have made a difference

[00:28:27] [SPEAKER_01]: is what do you actually take home in pay?

[00:28:31] [SPEAKER_03]: Over $100,000 a year, we're gonna be seeing reporters.

[00:28:35] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, they did.

[00:28:36] [SPEAKER_03]: Podcasts starting to...

[00:28:39] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I mean, I was gonna call,

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_02]: I was gonna call Ian Eisenberg

[00:28:43] [SPEAKER_02]: and see if there's a budget or a job for you.

[00:28:45] [SPEAKER_03]: But I think, yeah, I don't, I'm not sure.

[00:28:49] [SPEAKER_03]: I think criminals or folks that I am there

[00:28:53] [SPEAKER_03]: to protect and serve would just look at me

[00:28:54] [SPEAKER_03]: and laugh.

[00:28:55] [SPEAKER_03]: That's the problem, it's sad.

[00:28:56] [SPEAKER_02]: You don't seem like the guy you wanna buy weed from.

[00:28:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Like you're not the,

[00:29:00] [SPEAKER_03]: now that would be of more likely scenario.

[00:29:04] [SPEAKER_02]: So you don't seem to be a cop as a cop.

[00:29:05] [SPEAKER_02]: I see, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:29:06] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm not sure.

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm just thinking of the customer.

[00:29:08] [SPEAKER_02]: You do seem more like a guy

[00:29:09] [SPEAKER_02]: at my read from than I can a cop.

[00:29:13] [SPEAKER_03]: There's a future for it, all right.

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_03]: That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice.

[00:29:19] [SPEAKER_03]: He's Sunday B.C.E.C.E.C.E.

[00:29:20] [SPEAKER_03]: She's Erica C. Barnett.

[00:29:21] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm David Hyde.

[00:29:23] [SPEAKER_03]: Our editor is Quinn Waller or advertiser.

[00:29:26] [SPEAKER_03]: Uncle, I, thanks, Uncle.

[00:29:28] [SPEAKER_03]: Like, if you wanna advertise email us at RealSeattleNice.

[00:29:31] [SPEAKER_03]: At Gmail and if you wanna support us on Patreon

[00:29:34] [SPEAKER_03]: that would be great and also if you wanna support

[00:29:36] [SPEAKER_03]: this cop podcast but you don't feel like

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_03]: supporting us financially, please give us a five-star review

[00:29:42] [SPEAKER_03]: or whatever review you think is appropriate.

[00:29:44] [SPEAKER_03]: Four and a half stars, four and three quarter stars.

[00:29:46] [SPEAKER_01]: Six stars, five stars.

[00:29:49] [SPEAKER_01]: You know what, if you're a hater,

[00:29:52] [SPEAKER_01]: you know, go be a hater somewhere.

[00:29:53] [SPEAKER_03]: If you're a hater, I'll get you some deeps email.

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_03]: All right.

[00:29:58] [SPEAKER_03]: Thanks everybody for listening.