The Seattle Times editorial board recommends: Approve Seattle Prop. 1B

When most people think of those in need of public housing dollars in Seattle, they don’t consider tenants with annual incomes of around $120,000.

But that is part of the population intended to be served by the Seattle Social Housing Developer.

In 2023, Seattle voters approved a new public development authority to build or acquire what boosters call social housing — units available to those with a wide range of incomes, including the well off.

Now, voters will decide whether and how to fund it. There are two measures on the February ballot.

Prop. 1A, proposed by social housing advocates who turned in just over 37,000 signatures last year to qualify for the ballot, would raise about $50 million in new payroll expense taxes on employers each year. They hope to build 2,000 units in 10 years.

Created as an alternative by the Seattle City Council, Prop. 1B would provide the Social Housing Developer with $10 million of existing city funds annually for five years. It would also provide greater accountability measures.

Community activist Alice Woldt, retired journalist George Howland and housing advocate Roger Valdez penned an opposition statement in the voters’ pamphlet, urging voters to reject both measures. Public money should instead be directed to those most in need, they contend.

We agree. But considering Seattle voters approved creating the Seattle Social Housing Developer in 2023, the editorial board believes it ought to be given a chance to prove itself.

Voters should approve Prop. 1B, which provides seed money and appropriate oversight.

Prop. 1A poses grave concerns.

As with all efforts to tap public resources, voters have a right to ask basic questions, such as: What’s the detailed spending plan? At press time, the Seattle Social Housing Developer had nothing to offer.

“They are working on it right now. I imagine you’ll see it soon,” said Tiffani McCoy, co-director of House Our Neighbors, in an interview with the editorial board.

Problem is, ballots go out on Jan. 22 for the Feb. 11 election.

Back of the napkin estimates by the social housing campaign claim that over 10 years, 60 units would be produced or acquired for those at the lowest income. To underline: That’s about $500 million in taxpayer money to deliver 60 units of low-income housing.

By the campaign’s own estimates, about four times as much housing is expected to be produced for those making more than the median income of $116,000.

What a terrible use of public dollars.

And then there are concerns about the Seattle Social Housing Developer itself.

A quasi-governmental organization, it has failed basic competency, transparency and accountability standards, frustrating residents wanting to learn more about its operations.

By its charter, the majority of Seattle Social Housing Developer board members must be residents of the social housing projects they oversee. Knowledge about construction, financing or operations is not a requirement.

These many flaws prompted the Seattle City Council to prudently draft Prop. 1B.

“Make no mistake, we need more affordable housing in Seattle,” said Councilmember Maritza Rivera, who sponsored the legislation.

“This alternative measure balances the need for innovation with the need for accountability. It allows the Seattle Social Housing Developer, a new public development authority, to demonstrate proof of concept, rather than the City simply handing over a blank check to yet another new agency with no track record of creating housing.”

Among other accountability measures, Prop. 1B would require the Seattle Social Housing Developer to have a chief executive officer, a chief financial officer and adequate financial controls before receiving public funds. The developer would be subject to Office of Housing policies, unless exempted in the ordinance; and it must provide annual data about how many housing contracts are being awarded and completed.

For supporters of Prop. 1A, Seattle businesses may seem an infinite and harmless source of more taxes. But with light rail between Seattle and the Eastside slated to debut later this year, employers will have another reason to consider moving across Lake Washington. Seattle’s follies become Bellevue’s gains.

Prop. 1B offers the opportunity for the Seattle Social Housing Developer to get off the ground and prove its value, with appropriate guardrails that every other recipient of public funds must abide.

Voters should choose Prop. 1B.