Can Seattle's social housing program survive the February ballot?

The Seattle Social Housing Developer board recently held its final meeting of the year.

The voter-approved affordable housing producer, which has yet to build any housing, faces uncertainty with its treasurer leaving and competing ballot measures in February that could dramatically alter its future.

The developer's promise is to build affordable housing through a unique funding model that backers say will produce more housing for less money over the long term. The idea is that by opening its housing to more than the lowest-income households, the developer can bring in more revenue, freeing it from fickle government budget allocations and allowing it to scale up production in ways traditional affordable housing providers can't.

Additionally, the housing would offer stability for its tenants, according to the developer's CEO, Roberto Jimenez.

"It's housing that is publicly owned in perpetuity, so it can't be sold onto the market," he said. "It is permanently affordable, and so the rents are restricted, to some degree, from the outset. And they have limited rent increases. So typically those rent increases are 3 % to 5%, unlike what you might see in the market."

RELATED: Forecast cloudy for social housing in Seattle

So far, a detailed financial model on how it will achieve those goals has not been published by the developer itself, though board member Julie Howe, a housing researcher and educator at the University of Washington's Runstad Department of Real Estate, said more details should be ready soon.

In late January, Seattle voters will receive ballots for a February 13 special election featuring two very different visions for the developer.

One ballot measure would give the organization up to $50 million a year to build and preserve affordable housing. The money would come from a new tax on wealthy companies.

A competing ballot measure, created by the Seattle City Council, would keep the social housing organization smaller at $10 million a year, make it more accountable to the council, and remove one of its core tools: the ability to use rents from higher-income tenants (up to 120% of the area median household income) to subsidize rents for lower income tenants.

It's unclear how much of the organization's original model could survive that dramatic change.

T

here are two major debates going on about Seattle's Social Housing Developer as the vote approaches.

One centers around the idea of social housing itself, as an alternative model that promises to accelerate the production of housing for people with a wider range of incomes.

The second debate surrounds whether the developer is up to that task.

RELATED: Social housing in Seattle? Arguments for and against it

Social housing is an idea that backers say is spreading rapidly, given the catastrophic rise in housing costs nationwide and broad frustration with the failure of traditional affordable housing models to meet demand.

Paul Williams is the director of the nonprofit Center for Public Enterprise. His organization has been helping different cities and states explore potential social housing programs.

There's a good reason cities like Chicago, Boston, Chattanooga and Raleigh are exploring the idea, Williams said, along with a few more jurisdictions in states like New York, Colorado, and Michigan.

"The problem that housing authorities and housing agencies are trying to solve... is the scarcity of conventional affordable housing subsidies," he said. "Every year Congress gives a set amount to build and finance affordable housing. Almost every state in the country uses 100% of the money that they get from the federal government."

Jurisdictions around the country, Williams added, are realizing, "I need additional tools to get even more affordable production than what Congress is going to pay for."

Most of those jurisdictions do not use the term "social housing," which can carry political connotations, to describe their programs. One program in Montgomery County, Maryland — which has social housing supporters on fire — bears the innocuous name "Revolving County Housing Production Fund." That fund contains $50 million, an amount Seattle's program could bring in through taxes in a single year.

At Seattle's social housing developer's final, Dec. 19 board meeting of 2024, board members chatted about the bright future of Atlanta's program, which was recently approved by voters.

“They also have full support of the mayor there,” said Jimenez, the developer's CEO.

“They had $4 million in startup [money]," added board member Julie Howe (Seattle's organization was promised around $1 million in startup funds).

The room filled with laughter, groans, and exclamations of astonishment.

"That's it," joked board chair Thomas Barnard, "I'm moving to Atlanta!"

C

ritics say Seattle’s untested public development authority doesn't have the experience or oversight to be trusted with large sums of money.

Rachel Smith is president and CEO of Seattle's Chamber of Commerce. She pointed out that House Our Neighbors, a political organization that supports social housing, has put out detailed plans showing what a potential development would look like, but there's been no indication from the Seattle Social Housing Developer itself whether these plans align with its vision.

"I also don’t know what’s fundamentally different about that from what regular affordable housing developers could do," she said.

She echoed a point other critics have mentioned: Creating affordable housing for people in the middle class could be achieved by existing institutions, such as Seattle Housing Authority or Community Roots Housing, if those groups expand their scope to serve more than just the city's lowest-income households.

The board of Seattle's Social Housing Developer includes a majority of renters, some with lived experience being unhoused, and several people with professional expertise. One of those professionals is Mike Eliason, an architect focused on achieving greater housing affordability using European models.

When it comes to the developer's finances, the deepest professional expertise comes from board members Julie Howe of the University of Washington's Runstad Department of Real Estate and Chuck DePew, current board treasurer and former head of Seattle's Office of Economic Development. DePew fills a seat on the board appointed by Mayor Bruce Harrell.

However, at December's board meeting, DePew announced he's stepping down, citing a potential job offer that could create a conflict of interest. Until the mayor successfully appoints a replacement, the organization is down by one of its most significant experts.

The board's goal is to eventually be run completely by tenants in the developer's buildings. Board members told KUOW the large and varied pool of residents will provide the professional expertise needed to run the organization responsibly.