- This topic has 59 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by JoB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 25, 2016 at 6:05 pm #852213
JayDeeParticipantThe Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda or HALA ballot measure. First question: On something so important, why hold it in August? I think I know the answer–make sure it passes and has no opposition. Second: Why do the citizens of Seattle need to pay for this? Despite the record ask for such a measure, why is it beholden to us to make housing affordable? Despite the size of the measure it is only big enough to barely dent the problem.
Too much demand, too few housing options, and software-driven businesses who can afford to pay employees, H-1B and homegrown employees six figure salaries. I’d argue it is a market-driven problem but then I might sound like an old-style republican (You know who you are, and I am likely incognito). But seriously, endless property-tax raising measures and moving stuff out of the general budget to special assessments is driving some of the unaffordability since someone has to pay for it, owner and renter. We need to say no sooner or later. We have met the enemy and he is us. (With apologies to Pogo).
Can someone make a counter-argument as to why WE need to fund this, and why the levy ask more than doubled?
July 26, 2016 at 7:11 am #852267
JoBParticipantI am probably going to shock everyone. I did not vote for this measure.. though my reasons are different than JayDees.
I do believe that it is in our best interests to provide housing.. and i understand why the levy ask doubled…
but what i don’t see is a clear plan to actually provide housing.. and without it this money will simply disappear down some other project hole.
I don’t want anyone else to follow my lead.. i have second guessed myself too many times since sending off my ballot to think i have the definitive answer here…
the one thing i am sure of is that this is a troubling question
July 26, 2016 at 9:44 am #852274
newnativeParticipantI am with JoB, I love spending gov’t revenue on public services but you’re right about the vagueness of this plan. We need more housing to make it affordable. Subsidizing a commodity that we don’t have enough of won’t solve the main problem of the Housing Shortage.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by newnative.
July 26, 2016 at 10:54 am #852287
skeeterParticipantThe city has been voting for a lot of levies lately. Libraries. Schools. Roads. And I get it that we are falling further and further behind funding necessary services. But eventually we’re going to hit some sort of levy fatigue point. If all these levies price out middle income folks then you’ll have two groups of people left in Seattle: (1) the wealthy who can afford the levies and (2) the poor who get subsidized/free housing and don’t have to pay the levies. The middle class – households in the $50K to $125K per year income brackets will not be able to afford housing but will earn too much to get free/subsidized housing.
Every new/expanded levy prices some people out of the city. Am I willing to price people out of this city for libraries? Yes I voted for them. Am I willing to price people out of the city for schools? Yes, I voted for them. Am I willing to price people out of the city for roads/transportation? Yes, I voted for them. Am I willing to price people out of the city for affordable housing? I’m not sure. I am still undecided.
July 26, 2016 at 12:51 pm #852295
wsn00bParticipantAs long as you decouple housing from home ownership, supporting affordable housing makes sense. Owning a home has been brainwashed into the general population. Owning a home is a luxury and not a right. Owning a home is not a sound financial investment in general. I think you can’t truly afford to own, properly maintain and pay taxes on a home in Seattle unless your household income exceeds 200K. Affordable housing on the other hand is a right and should be supported.
July 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm #852313
PangolinPieParticipantI agree that owning a home is not a right, but I own a home in W. Seattle all by myself, and my income doesn’t even exceed 100k. It certainly is doable; it’s important to get a good down payment together, though, to keep the mortgage cost low.
I disagree that owning a home is not a good investment. Yes, 2008 was hard on homeowners, but overall, home prices keep going up, and you have a real, concrete thing for your money. Like my dad says, they aren’t making more land.
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/price-and-rents_2014-05.png
July 26, 2016 at 7:07 pm #852334
dcnParticipantI vote yes on most levies, but am voting no on this one. My main complaint is with the doubling of the size of the levy. Since house values are going up so steeply and rapidly, there would be more money going into the levy even if it was renewed at its current level, since it’s based on a per $1k of house value. To double the size of the levy on top of that is asking too much, in my opinion. I might have supported a smaller increase in the size of the levy.
I also have issues with the vagueness of the plans for the money. And yes, I worry that I too will be priced out of Seattle someday. It is unlikely that my household’s income will ever exceed 100K/year. I laughed at wsn00b’s statement that you need at least a household income of $200K to own a home in Seattle. That basically means that only the top 5% of wage earners should own homes here. That would be sad. It took me a long time to be able to afford a house in Seattle, and I am so happy to finally be a homeowner.
July 27, 2016 at 4:55 pm #852447
JKBParticipantWS covers a lot of ground. Let’s say for discussion that buying in requires 400K-800K depending on location. Million-dollar view is not a basic human right.
And let’s say you come up with 20% down but can only land a 5% rate on the mortgage. Payments would be $1300-2700/month.
The banks have always said your payment shouldn’t be more than 36% (IIRC) of your income. So that says incomes in the 50-100K range can still buy here.
I’ve glossed over a lot, but it should be pretty clear 200k is simply not required. Good thing, since I don’t make that.
July 27, 2016 at 5:27 pm #852448
JayDeeParticipantI appreciate the discussion. I usually get hammered for not being generous enough of my money for this good cause or that one.This is the more dubious of the recent ones that reach beyond what the City’s core responsibilities are. Like the Families and Education levy followed by another one last year with essentially the same target and 2X the ask. It passed. Now if my boss would double my paycheck, I might not complain…
July 27, 2016 at 6:35 pm #852453
JoBParticipantI will always pony up for education. though i would like to see levies not tied to building..
and i am admitted sucker for homeless people.. there but for the grace of god….
but. i want to see us use the money we have already allocated for actual services and housing…
and put a good plan in place first.i fear this levy would disappear into developer’s pocketbooks with little benefit to the homeless
July 30, 2016 at 5:22 pm #852790
CMParticipantI’m curious. wsn00b says, “Affordable housing on the other hand is a right and should be supported.”
Where does it actually say that affordable housing is a right? I don’t recall that from the US Constitution. Where does this idea come from? I’m not trying to be snarky, I just don’t understand that mindset.
To me, housing is a market based commodity. No more, no less. It’s like anything else, and it appears to me that that is exactly what we’re seeing happen here. When the people that don’t make enough to afford housing eventually leave, their jobs go with them, and the people that can afford housing will no longer be able to have the services that lower income jobs provide, so eventually, they’ll leave too, and then housing prices will self correct. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t fair, but that’s how a free market works.
Just my $.02
July 30, 2016 at 9:00 pm #852804
JoBParticipantCM
where do you suggest the people who can’t afford housing go?
just wonderingJuly 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm #852805
JKBParticipantMost people can afford housing somewhere. For those who can’t, shouldn’t this be recast as a welfare conversation?
Some places, very few can afford. There’s no right to be provided a place in a location of your choice.
One nice thing about WS is that in any particular area, the prices vary by maybe 3x.
July 31, 2016 at 7:19 am #852813
JoBParticipantJKB
i don’t know where you got the idea that most people can afford housing somewhere..
national statistics don’t back that up..and i am still very unclear where you think that somewhere is…
July 31, 2016 at 2:44 pm #852844
JKBParticipantBecause most people do manage to live somewhere.
Back to CM’s question: an assertion that affordable housing is a right does want some explaining.
July 31, 2016 at 5:29 pm #852852
rwParticipantAdequate housing should be a basic human right, above even the constitution. Having said that, I, too, am concerned by the lack of detail in this measure. Just throwing money at a problem without a good, quantifiable and measurable plan adds to our property tax burden without sufficient benefits.
Great property tax explanation on the Times opinion page today, by the way. My wife and I had a great discussion after studying the chart.July 31, 2016 at 7:07 pm #852866
JKBParticipantSigh. Sometimes I hear things I don’t agree with, or which puzzle me. Other times I’m dumbfounded.
rw, suggesting that material privilege could trump the Constitution is absurd. Perhaps you’d go reread the Bill Of Rights.
July 31, 2016 at 7:42 pm #852873
JanSParticipantJKB…it has nothing to do with “material privilege”…it’s about a roof over everyone’s head. It doesn’t have to be fancy…but we , as a people, as a nation, need to care more for our fellow man…I’e. feed the poor, house the poor, , no one should be homeless, especially children.And it has nothing to do with the constitution. Remember “a more perfect union”? We are far from that…we need to work on it a bit harder.
July 31, 2016 at 7:46 pm #852875
JanSParticipantso…JKB…because , if I get another rent increase, I will become homeless because I can’t afford the rent in West Seattle anymore, you are suggesting that I pick my arse up and move to wherever it is that I can afford, wherever that may be? Is that what you’re saying? After 41 years of calling this my home, you are saying…so long?don’t let the door hit ya? You are saying, boohoo, I feel for ya, but TFB?
what a jokester you are !!!
July 31, 2016 at 7:48 pm #852876July 31, 2016 at 9:13 pm #852879
JKBParticipantJan, what makes you think that a rant like that belongs in public conversation?
July 31, 2016 at 10:26 pm #852883
rwParticipantjkb,
there are constitutional rights that apply to citizens and other residents of this country, and human rights that ought to apply to every human being. I think adequate housing is a human right. I don’t even understand what you mean by material privilege. Please explain. Also, please explain how you view human rights.July 31, 2016 at 10:43 pm #852888
JKBParticipantrw: ‘material privilege’ seems to have been a confusing term. I meant that the supposed right referred to a material thing, not a personal liberty or restriction on government. Housing is purchaseable with money. And to give someone housing they cannot afford requires taking money from someone to cover the difference.
Does that help clarify the discussion?
July 31, 2016 at 10:53 pm #852889
JKBParticipantother assorted notes… Sometimes housing is not simply purchaseable with money, such as with segregation or redlining. Bad, bad – but a different topic.
And rw’s comments touch on definition of a ‘right’. Where does a right come from? Law perhaps, from the Constitution all the way down to local rules. Or from a moral code, but then it’s harder to identify the source of the right.
In the case of housing, where providing to some probably requires taking from others, I think there’s a burden of proof to meet before that ‘right’ can be justified.
August 1, 2016 at 12:46 pm #852958
skeeterParticipantJanS makes a good point about affordability for those in the golden years. Although I very much enjoy living in West Seattle I am aware that I will not be able to live here forever. As living and housing costs increase I can stay afloat now because I’m working full time with a good salary. When I’m no longer working or I’m no longer able to earn what I currently earn, I’ll have to find a less expensive place to live. My only long-term hope is my daughter strikes it rich one day and takes care of her poor old dad! But realistically I will probably have little choice but to move to a less expensive area when West Seattle becomes unaffordable for me. And that will be difficult.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.