Seattle Funds Voter-Approved Social Housing
The Seattle City Council has unanimously voted to fund social housing initiatives that were recently approved by voters. The move aims to address the city's housing affordability crisis, although specific project timelines and funding allocations have not yet been detailed.
- The voter-approved initiative, known as Initiative 135, establishes a public development authority called the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD) to build and acquire permanently affordable, publicly owned housing. The initiative was approved by Seattle voters on February 14, 2023. - Funding for the SSHD will come from Proposition 1A, a measure that levies a 5% tax on employer compensation for any employee paid over $1 million annually. This is projected to generate over $50 million per year for social housing. - The social housing model aims to serve a mix of income levels, from 0% up to 120% of the area median income. The goal is for higher-income tenants to cross-subsidize the rents of lower-income residents, with all tenants paying no more than 30% of their income on rent. - The SSHD has a goal to build or acquire 2,000 housing units over the next 10 years. Its strategic plan outlines an eventual target of acquiring or building up to 380 units annually. - The public development authority is structured to be governed by a 13-member board, with a majority of members being residents of the social housing projects. - The SSHD is actively seeking to acquire its first property and plans to have it under contract in early 2026. They have issued a request for information (RFI) for existing properties, including shovel-ready projects facing financing gaps. - This social housing initiative differs from traditional affordable housing models, like those run by the Seattle Housing Authority, which primarily serve households with very low incomes (at or below 30% of the area median income). - The creation of the public developer was initially an unfunded mandate, as Washington state law limits ballot initiatives to a single subject, preventing the inclusion of a funding source in the original I-135. Proposition 1A was passed in a subsequent special election to provide the necessary funding.
