Proposed linkages taxes on every new square foot of new housing built in the city are premised on the idea that Seattle faces a “workforce housing” shortage; we don’t have enough housing for people who earn 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and above. We’ve been saying that the need isn’t at that level of income, but lower levels, the truly poor. Many on the other side of the housing discussion (those who want to penalize developers for building housing) agree with us. The nexus for housing taxes for workforce housing simply doesn’t exist; we need to prioritize solutions like the levy to expand housing at lower levels of income and the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. We may not agree on the solutions, but even John Fox and I agree that the City is looking at the wrong place to find a problem.

————

February 7, 2015

Dear Mayor Murray,

We have come together to write this letter because although there are a great many things we disagree about, there is one thing that we both have found while researching housing need data: the greatest housing need in Seattle is not at higher levels of income, but at lower levels especially for those earning at or below 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

With respect to the ongoing work of the current Housing Advisory Task Force, and direction of city housing policy in general, we are concerned that far too much emphasis is being placed on providing housing assistance to those with incomes between 60-80 percent of AMI.  Many workers in Seattle don’t even earn that much, yet it’s been characterized as “work force housing.” Using 30 percent of monthly AMI to measure housing need doesn’t account for many people who pay less than that but are still struggling to make ends meet

Everyday in our city, truly poor people have to make difficult choices about where they will spend the night.  Often that means sleeping in cars, outdoors, or staying in dangerous situations of abuse or domestic violence. Additionally, many people find themselves on the verge of homelessness whose incomes don’t keep pace with rising rents and other costs.  These are people whose incomes fall below 30 or even 50 percent of the median.  All the data is clear: this is where by far there is the greatest, most critical, and immediate need.

Every review of data also indicates there is a large surplus of housing at higher levels of income, especially at 60 to 80 percent AMI. To quote from the King County assessment of housing need:

Critical Need is for affordable rental housing for very-low and low-income households. While the amount of rental housing stock affordable to households earning above 60 percent of median income appears adequate

Yet, the City continues to pursue sending more resources to subsidize housing for people earning 60 percent AMI and above while also encouraging participation in the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program. Even when accounting for the “down renting,” people earning higher levels of income but renting units priced for those at lower income levels, there still is a good supply of housing for people earning at or above 60 percent of AMI.

Our organizations do not agree on exactly how to address need below 30 percent AMI, but we do agree that’s where the problem is. If we are going to collaboratively address our differences, find real solutions, please retain the emphasis where it is needed the most: serving those at the bottom of the income scale so they can continue to live in our properous city.

Sincerely,

                                            

John Fox                                                                Roger Valdez
Seattle Displacement Coalition                    Smart Growth Seattle