|
But there’s so much more to the Seattle Housing Levy story. The seven community
leaders I’ve interviewed for My View will tell this story. To a one, I don’t
think they could imagine what Seattle would look like—more importantly, would
be
like—today without this great resource. The Levy is an integral part of what
continues to make Seattle a great city, in no small part because it looks after
the interests of all its citizens. Here’s what this issue encompasses:
-
A brief history and perspective from former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer.
-
Nonprofit housing developers Paul Lambros, Sarah Lewontin, and Tony To
describe what past Levies are accomplishing across the affordable housing
spectrum from housing the homeless to affordable rentals to providing
downpayment assistance to low-income homebuyers.
-
Community development banker Don Brewer talks about the Levy’s effectiveness
at investing in communities alongside for-profit banks—and serving as a catalyst
for private investment.
-
Adrienne Quinn, director of the Seattle Office of Housing (OH), and Seattle
City Councilmember Richard McIver look back at some of the recent Levy’s
achievements, and look ahead to the renewal process in the coming months.
*For the sake of simplification, I’ll refer to all four previous voter-approved
affordable housing measures as “the Seattle Housing Levy” or “the Levy.”
A stimulus and a safety net
Charles Royer is quick to point to Seattle’s voter-supported Levies as both
“stimulus and safety net.” Not only have they been focused on the most
vulnerable people; the Seattle community has historically been able to leverage
Levy expenditures “to create jobs and create economic activity.”
“We’ve had political leaders for a long time who have been willing to put
themselves on the line for tax increases that make sense—that improve the
quality of life for everyone. There are so many good things to say about this
Levy.”
CHARLES ROYER served as
mayor of Seattle from 1978 to 1990, and is co-chair of the Steering Committee
for the 2009 Seattle Housing Levy. He is president of the Institute for
Community Change, a private nonprofit in Seattle, and a partner in the Royer
Group, a local consulting firm.
When Charley served as Seattle’s mayor from 1978 to 1990, his administration
provided the political leadership for the first two housing levies to be placed
on the ballot. More recently, in 2002, Charley, along with former Seattle Mayor
Norm Rice, served as Co-Chair of the Levy’s Steering Committee. This year,
Charley and Norm are again the Co-Chairs for the 2009 Housing Levy Steering
Committee. So Charley has been very engaged with this taxpayer-funded process
over the years, excepting the years between 1990 and 1994 when he was directing
the John F. Kennedy School of Politics at Harvard.
According to Charley, the initial housing bond issue for seniors was a clear
choice: “We needed cash, and we needed capital. We knew we could get it out of
the property tax. And we thought the notion that the people who had helped build
this city should be able to live in the city would resonate with voters. They
should not have to move away because they couldn’t keep up with the rising rents
and low vacancy rates due to the real estate boom taking place at that time. It
was a bad situation for a significant number of people.”
The voters did respond, and the City was able to ultimately build about 1,300
units of senior housing, exceeding the original goal of 1,000 homes, from the
$48.17 million raised. “It was delightful to watch these senior citizens walk
into their new homes—we dedicated one after the other in Seattle
neighborhoods—you could just see the worries slip off their faces,” Charley
remembers.
Bread and roses
By 1986, other housing challenges were coming to the fore. Growing numbers of
immigrants new to Seattle, with large families, were struggling to secure
housing. The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA), for example, did not then have a
significant inventory to serve large families. At the same time, downtown
housing was being lost to new development. “We were losing downtown units,” says
Charley. “Except for single men, very few people lived downtown. There was very
little housing stock, and most of that was rundown, with some being closed
down.”
That year, Charley and other city officials pulled together what has since
become a template for each subsequent Levy: Funding targeted to specific
affordable housing gaps. The 1986 Levy, which also raised close to $50 million,
designated investments to Seattle’s most critical needs, including rental
housing for large families, small families, and special needs populations, and
rehabilitating and preserving about 500 rental units in the downtown area.
In addition, unlike the first bond issue, $5 million in operating and
maintenance (O&M) funds was set aside to maintain and preserve these new and
refurbished homes. O&M for many of these buildings is problematic, particularly
those that house people with no income or those at the low end of the area
median income (AMI) who can afford very little rent. In fact, last month the
Seattle OH was recognized with a grant—a major endorsement of the City’s
accomplishments—from the MacArthur Foundation to help the City to develop
strategies that will help it sustain the housing that’s been created well into
the future. I’ll talk about this in more depth later on.
One last aside about the 1986 Levy; its success with voters depended on an
unlikely partnership: Art museum patrons and affordable housing advocates. After
the first bond issue, Charley had promised the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) that the
next “turn” to go before voters would be to fund the museum’s downtown home.
“But we had this emergent housing problem.... I told the art museum they would
have to wait,” Charley says. That did not go down well, so Charley and House
Speaker Frank Chopp (then head of the Fremont Public Association) and others
went to work on a solution. “We all hatched the idea of putting the Housing Levy
and SAM funding on the ballot together: We called it Bread and Roses.” Patrons
of the art museum financed the campaign; low-income housing advocates were the
foot soldiers. The vote passed with a small majority. Charley is convinced that
neither would have passed if standing alone.
“We’ve had political leaders for a long time who have been willing to put
themselves on the line for tax increases that make sense—that improve the
quality of life for everyone. There are so many good things to say about this
Levy. But we’re going to have to do a better job of bringing the whole community
together behind this. We have to go out and make a case that is relevant to the
times and circumstances.” In their role as Steering Committee Co-Chairs, Charley
and Norm Rice will be working hard over the coming months to bring that message
to Seattle.
Homes for the homeless
Reaching the goals of King County’s 10-Year Plan to end homelessness has been a
high priority of the 2002 Seattle Housing Levy. In fact, of the 1,814 rental
units funded by the Levy between 2003 and 2006, 1,134 units have been set aside
for homeless families and individuals. Seattle’s Plymouth Housing Group (PHG)
has played a huge role in this effort, building new and renovating five
homeless-designated apartment buildings in the past five years alone with the
help of the 2002 Levy—and they’ll break ground on a sixth project, an 84-unit
development in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood, next month.
“The Levy has been vital to our efforts,” says Paul Lambros. Paul is the
executive director of PHG, whose mission is to move people out of homelessness
into supportive housing that will help them stabilize their lives. Paul and PHG
have been very effective in utilizing Levy funding as seed capital, and then
successfully leveraging that funding to raise the bulk of the capital required
from a host of other sources, including private philanthropy, the United Way,
the Washington State Housing Trust Fund (HTF), the Commission’s tax credit
program, Section 8 housing dollars for ongoing rental subsidies—the list goes on
and on.
The first money in
Every Levy dollar spent leverages about three dollars from other sources for
PHG’s ending-homelessness goals. “Generally,” Paul explains, “the Levy is the
first money in on a project in Seattle. PHG builds larger buildings to be more
cost effective, so we can have 24-hour staffing on site. We need to bring in
private dollars to make these bigger projects work. Because of our mission to
serve the homeless, and because of the leverage the Levy provides, it has
brought forth many foundations, corporations, and individuals who want to
support and be involved in a winning project.”
PAUL LAMBROS
Executive Director, Plymouth Housing Group
On PHG’s website is an impressive list of local and national corporate and
foundation donors. Paul estimates that approximately 25% of the funding for the
last few PHG projects has come from private philanthropy. “When we can show all
the public dollars that have been committed, particularly the Levy as a local
source, that has helped to bring them to the table.
“And because of the great work of the Levy,” Paul continues, “the SHA stepped up
to provide Project-based Section 8 for our last few projects. These operating
dollars are vital for our work. What’s really helped us, as far as leverage as
well, is that United Way of King County has really stepped up their commitment
in support of housing for the homeless, as part of the 10-year planning
process.”
PHG’s strong focus is on serving chronically homeless single adults. “These are
folks who are long-time homeless, living on the streets,” says Paul. “This
includes people with mental illness, veterans, seniors—a lot of them enter the
system through agencies that serve their disability. But frequently, PHG is the
first contact for many of these people.”
PHG has been a national leader in its Housing First program. The Begin at Home
Project was created to address the comprehensive needs of medically compromised
individuals who have struggled with long-term or repeated homelessness. Seattle
Levy funding has been integral in helping support the creation of these Housing
First rental units; a study of the first-year outcomes for 20 residents in the
program demonstrated a 75% reduction in medical costs ($1.2 million), along with
reduced drug use and improved health for participants.
Paul serves on the Oversight Committee for the current Levy as well as the
Interagency Council with the Committee to End Homelessness in King County. “Our
10-year plan is a working document. We’ve brought on a lot of units of housing
and we’re making great headway with homelessness. Our concern during the current
hard times is: Are more people entering the homeless system? So it’s important
for all of us to keep focused on homeless prevention as well.”
Housing the community’s backbone
After homelessness, the next step up on the economic ladder that the Levy
addresses is rentals: Homes within the reach of low- and moderate-income
individuals and families, as they build financial stability. Founded in 1980 by
the Downtown Seattle Association to provide affordable places to live for
low-wage working people, Housing Resources Group (HRG) has played a key role in
the Levy’s mandate to serve this population. HRG’s mission, says Executive
Director Sarah Lewontin, is “to provide excellent affordable housing for the
residents and communities we serve.”
SARAH LEWONTIN
Executive Director, Housing Resources Group
Most of the people who live in HRG-built rental homes, Sarah says, “are in that
spectrum of affordability that’s critical to preventing homelessness. So many
people talk about ending homelessness, but a lot of people in our community are
living just one or two paychecks away from it. Having an affordable place to
live is one of the prime ways to help prevent them from falling into
homelessness—something that may be temporary but is still devastating. We see a
big part of what we provide as homelessness prevention.”
HRG's Stone Way Apartments houses low-income
individuals and families in the Wallingford neighborhood.
HRG provides apartments for people in a broad range of income levels, from no
income to up to 80% of AMI. But most of HRG’s rentals are designed to be
affordable in the range of 30 to 60% of AMI—people earning minimum wage to about
$20/hour. “The vast majority of our residents are people who work in the
community,” says Sarah. “Their pay doesn’t allow them to afford market-rate
rentals or buy a home in Seattle. They are people who work in the retail,
medical, hospitality, food service, nonprofit, and education fields. These are
jobs that are truly the backbone of our community.”
Leveraging partnerships—and conserving lifecycle costs
Over the life of the Levies, HRG has developed 19 Seattle apartment buildings
that have received Levy funding. 12 of these are currently under HRG’s ownership
or management, or both. The other seven were developed by HRG on behalf of other
nonprofit service providers, including the Downtown Emergency Services Center,
YWCA, Harborview Medical Center, Building Changes, and Seattle Mental Health.
All told, Sarah says, “that’s more than 1,200 apartments in Seattle that
couldn’t have been built without the Levy.”
Like PHG, HRG has very successfully leveraged Levy funding on most of these
projects to raise “at least four or five dollars for every dollar the Levy has
provided.” And, as with PHG, “having the Levy as an expression of public support
for what we provide to the community is critical.” In HRG’s case, that extends
beyond private philanthropy to the banking community. Though it represents a
relatively small part of the overall development costs, HRG also depends on
loans from banks for its projects. “The banks look at these projects, and they
say: ‘Do you have the support of your local community?’ This is a big concern
for them—and we can say yes.”
A big difference between HRG and for-profit developers, Sarah points out, is
that HRG’s projects are build-and-stay developments. “We’re not in the market to
build and hold for five years and then sell at a profit. Because of this, we
want to make sure that these buildings are sustainable. The City has been very
supportive of environmentally sustainable construction with the Levy projects.
One of those myths about green building is that it’s more expensive up front.
There is a small premium in cost when you use materials that are low in toxins
and create a healthy environment. The upside is that it generally costs less to
operate these buildings. With the Levy’s support, what we’re able to consider
are not only upfront costs, but how we can ensure that we keep buildings in
great shape for the next 50 years.”
HRG’s most recently completed development is Kenyon House in southeast Seattle,
which received a LEED platinum rating. Developed in collaboration with Sound
Mental Health and Building Changes, Kenyon House is home to people with chronic
mental illness and other health challenges. “We were able to incorporate a
significant number of sustainable features, including healthy finishing
materials, wonderful landscaping, and energy conservation measures,” Sarah says.
“And we were able to keep our development costs very reasonable. The City of
Seattle’s SeaGreen program was out ahead of the LEED program in looking for ways
to build sustainability into projects that takes into consideration lifecycle
costs as well as first costs.
“The Levy has become more and more important over the years,” Sarah concludes.
“To have the citizens of this city say, ‘we believe strongly in making sure that
this community is affordable for a variety of different folks, and yes: I’ll pay
for it’—having that consistent support is an amazing benefit that we have, and
one we can’t afford to lose.”
Homeownership matters
Including homeownership as part of the Levy’s mandate helps to ensure that the
entire continuum of affordable housing is addressed. Simply stated, supporting
responsible homeownership, particularly in communities where private investment
is lacking, revitalizes and stabilizes neighborhoods. The last two Seattle
Housing Levies have included downpayment assistance for low- to moderate-income
homebuyers. This Homebuyer Assistance Program is a second mortgage at 3%
interest.
TONY TO
Executive Director, HomeSight
“Back in 1995, redlining was still a major problem,” says Tony To. Tony is the
executive director of HomeSight, which participates in the program. “People have
forgotten that it wasn’t very long ago that you couldn’t get a mortgage in
certain neighborhoods. Seattle’s Central District was one of those
neighborhoods. When we first started building houses in the Central District in
1994, you couldn’t get an appraisal high enough to cover the costs of building a
house there.”
The 19-unit Cokoffi, located near Seattle
University, was developed by HomeSight for low- to moderate-income homeowners.
The Levy's Homebuyer Assistance program enabled close to half of the buyers of
these townhomes to access downpayment assistance. Photo: Gregg Krogstad
HomeSight wears three hats: it helps educate homebuyers; provides buyer purchase
assistance, loan underwriting and origination; and, is also in the business of
affordable new home construction. For the Levy, HomeSight is one of the agencies
that help guide homeowners through the Homebuyer Assistance program. “The Levy
helps us put about 25 to 30 families into homes every year with purchase
assistance,” says Tony. Other nonprofits, including Habitat for Humanity,
Homestead Community Land Trust, and Parkview Services, also participate in this
program, which has helped to create more than 400 homeownership opportunities
since 1995.
The Levy’s requirements are designed to create a stable lending environment for
buyers and neighborhoods. Participants must be first-time homebuyers, all below
80% of AMI, with 50% of that number required to earn below 60% of AMI, Tony
explains. These are 30- or 40-year conventional fixed-rate loans—not exotic
mortgages. “We help people get into sound products,” he says. A key requirement
is that all qualifying homebuyers must participate in a homebuyer education and
financial planning program.
Zero foreclosures
The Homebuyer Assistance program has a perfect record since the 2002 Levy: No
foreclosures for program participants. That’s a stunning statistic in the
housing market we’re in; Tony attributes it to a well-designed program that
ensures that people are educated about what they’re getting into, get a stable
product—and are carefully vetted to ensure this is something they can afford.
And despite our nation’s current mortgage crisis, people are still coming
through the program and getting into homes of their own.
Tony points out that, although home prices have stabilized in Seattle, the
challenge now is that most mortgages require 20% down. “You have a situation
that’s very favorable for a number of buyers, but the requirements and
underwriting standards are a lot higher. The Levy money helps households that
would not necessarily be able to meet those downpayment requirements on their
own to get access to homeownership. That continues to be critical in Seattle for
lower-income households.”
Since 2003, 75% of participating loans must be used for home purchases within
specified Housing Investment Areas—areas of the city that have been economically
distressed and/or have low rates of homeownership—and where targeted housing
strategies can do the most good. One example of this is the vast swath of land
in southeast Seattle where the soon-to-launch Seattle Light Rail is causing
property values to escalate near transit stations, edging out lower-income
buyers and renters.
Despite all its benefits, the downpayment program has its detractors—although
they are in the minority. “The reality is that we are in very difficult economic
times right now,” Tony says. “In our Steering Committee meetings [for the 2009
Levy] we’re trying to slice up the Levy. Some people are saying we should focus
on the people who won’t get housing any other way. That’s one perspective and I
understand where it’s coming from.”
Homebuyer Assistance makes up a relatively small part of the 2002 Levy, Tony
points out, about 10%. And it’s a revolving loan fund, so that over time, as the
loans are repaid, more and more people will be helped to buy their first home.
“I think it’s important that we are trying to help everyone, rather than saying
that some group is more deserving than another. There is no question that the
priority should be the people in desperate straits.”
Tony echoes every other interviewee when he speaks to the Levy’s stimulus
factor. “Housing production creates and preserves jobs in many sectors,” he
says. “And the Levy has made a strong contribution to the stability of our
neighborhoods. Whether it’s rentals or homeownership, providing these stable
housing opportunities for our residents just can’t be overemphasized.”
For-profit lending: “As we strengthen our communities, the Levy strengthens us”
Don Brewer has been involved in the affordable housing and community development
arena for about 15 years, formerly with Key Bank, then with national oversight
of community development banking for Washington Mutual. Currently he is Western
Region Manager, Community Development Banking at Chase Bank. I’ve worked with
Don on a number of advisory committees for the City—for the Seattle Housing Levy
as well as for all kinds of affordable housing and community development
lending, where he has provided knowledgeable input from his private-sector
lender perspective.
I knew Don’s perspective would be useful for this newsletter, because he knows
how private and public investment can best be utilized in partnership to achieve
the kinds of strong, economically vibrant communities that everyone wants. In
his roles with Key, WaMu, and Chase, he’s had the opportunity to see what works
well in cities and municipalities across the country.
“Banks participate in these Levy projects because they are sound investments
in the communities where we do business. The developments that are financed
through the Levy program are ones that would not happen with only private sector
resources—essentially, it’s something the private sector can’t do on its own. It
takes this partnership model to make it happen.”
DON BREWER
Western Region Manager, Community Development Banking, Chase Bank
Seattle was “in early”—a pioneer in its Levy process for affordable housing,
says Don. “Seattle voters have been very supportive in renewing the Levies as
they moved forward, on more of a consistent basis than other cities and states.”
But what Don believes truly sets Seattle apart is how the City has utilized the
Levy in achieving a host of other objectives important to voters. “We’ve focused
on a variety of different issues to make sure that the City’s programs leverage
each other. That’s a real strength, and something we’ve done better in Seattle
than other cities.”
Don points to Seattle’s sustainable building and energy conservation initiative,
SeaGreen, and on the Levy’s focus on stabilizing neighborhoods, minimizing
families’ transportation in terms of time, costs, and congestion, and minimizing
environmental impact. “I think the City took on a leadership role with these
initiatives. It sounds sexy, in the sense that we’re doing things that people
want to see, but it’s also a way of producing housing that, on a long-term
basis, produces more homes at a lower cost. Added to the fact that the Levy
provides affordable family housing close to downtown where residents work, it
also stabilizes communities and reduces transportation costs.”
Funds are also allocated, he adds, with the goal of creating more balance in
terms of residents’ incomes—reducing segregated low-income population “clusters”
in neighborhoods. As Don can attest, the process that has gone into these
allocations and initiatives is thoughtful, inclusive—and often grueling. And
it’s produced remarkable results.
The private sector can’t do it alone
The role of community lending for banks like Don’s is in providing loans to help
finance affordable rental developments like those built by Housing Resources
Group. The majority of residents are low-income working people who need—and
pay—lower rents. But their rental income kicks in enough to pay back those
loans. For the banks, these Levy-sponsored projects are solid investments.
Nonprofit developers like HRG are well established and are practiced at managing
these properties. Though private investment usually accounts for a small slice
of the entire development pie, it’s also, like every other piece, critical to
the big picture.
“Clearly,” Don says, “one of the things I can say is that banks participate in
these Levy projects because they are sound investments in the communities where
we do business. The developments that are financed through the Levy program are
ones that would not happen with only private sector resources—essentially, it’s
something the private sector can’t do on its own. It takes this partnership
model to make it happen. I think most folks in the private sector would agree
with that: They can’t produce housing that would rent at these levels on their
own nickel. It just wouldn’t give them enough return. But leverage is huge in
this model. Very high leverage comes with this because you’re taking advantage
of all the various resources, both public and private. There’s a very high
efficiency with the dollars going out.”
Ultimately, says Don, for banks, investing in the Levy’s initiatives benefits
all participants: “As we strengthen our communities, it strengthens us.”
Seattle sees the results
Seattle OH Director Adrienne Quinn believes one key reason why Seattle voters
have renewed the Housing Levy three times since 1981 is “because they see the
results.” These results go well beyond the personal stories of the thousands of
people whose lives are touched directly by gaining stable housing. The Levies
impact all of Seattle, contributing to the economy and the environment,
transforming neighborhoods, preserving historic downtown buildings for low-wage
residents, and enhancing the city’s quality of life.
“A number of Levy projects have been focused in areas where there had not been
new investment for some time, so there’s that economic development aspect of the
Levy,” she says. “The buildings are extremely well designed and the wages paid
to construction workers are good union-wage jobs. We also require a lot of green
elements to the housing. So the housing is not only good for the environment,
it’s good for the people who live there.”
Adrienne cites some facts and figures. The 2002 Levy has:
-
Created more than 4,000 jobs in the construction and housing industry
-
Contributed $40+ million in municipal revenue
-
Attracted $350 million in non-city dollars to Seattle
“Over the life of all the Levies, we estimate that we have created nearly 10,000
construction jobs,” she says. You’ve heard the leverage story from others in
this newsletter, and Adrienne emphasizes it as well. Overall, the Seattle OH
estimates that for the 2002 Levy: One dollar of the City’s Levy funds brings in
about $3.25 in other public and private capital funding. The largest source of
public funding is the HTF; the largest source of private funding is private
equity attracted through the Commission’s tax credit program.
ADRIENNE QUINN
Director, Seattle Office of Housing
This is a huge turnaround from the first bond issue in 1981. “At that time, the
Levy dollars basically funded entire buildings. So on a per-unit basis we were
spending more in 1981 than we are now because we’ve leveraged so many sources,”
Adrienne explains. Seattle is currently in the last year covered by the 2002
Levy, with two more funding rounds slated for this spring and fall, yet in the
first six years, “we’ve already exceeded all of our goals.”
The Levy’s Neighborhood Housing Opportunity (NOH) program targets designated
areas of the City for community development and revitalization. Coleman School
in the Central District (right) benefited from the NOH with Levy dollars for
rental production on its upper floors; the ground floor is home to the NW
African American Museum. Vacant for many years, Colman School is one of many
Levy “projects that would never have gotten off the ground without the
investment we were able to make and other sources we were able to leverage,”
Adrienne says.
One new line item to the 2002 Levy was the addition of funds for emergency
rental assistance, a program entitled Rental Assistance Homeless Prevention.
$2.8 million was allocated for the seven-year period. This funding is envisioned
as a short-term one-time help to families in crisis to enable them to stay in
their homes while they get back on their feet. Administered through Seattle’s
Human Services Department, it has most often been used as eviction protection;
it has also helped victims of domestic violence, for example, to get a foot into
stable housing.
“To date, we’ve helped over 4,000 people stay in their homes just since 2002,”
says Adrienne. “We track these residents—after six months, we have found the
vast majority of those helped are still stably housed.”
Many of the largest projects financed with Levy dollars in the City’s Housing
Investment Areas in recent years have taken on ambitious community development
goals. These include the Coleman School in the Central District that had been
vacant for decades. Now it houses the NW African American Museum on the ground
floor, and affordable housing on its upper floors. The Cooper School is having a
similar impact in the Delridge neighborhood, combining affordable housing with a
major cultural arts center that includes arts facilities, meeting spaces, and a
refurbished auditorium. In the International District, ID Village Square II is
home to affordable rentals and a community center. All of these developments are
seed investments in their communities that attract private investment.
“These are projects that would never have gotten off the ground without the
investment we were able to make and other sources we were able to leverage,”
Adrienne says.
MacArthur Foundation recognizes Seattle’s commitment
Seattle residents aren’t alone in acknowledging the success of the Levies by
voting their support. Last month, the MacArthur Foundation announced a $1
million award to the Seattle OH and the state Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development (CTED) in recognition of their efforts to preserve
affordable housing. These organizations’ great track records were the impetus
for this grant.
“We’re very excited—and it’s great for CTED too: they’ve worked so hard,”
Adrienne says. The grant is targeted to rental housing preservation. “This will
help us to work on the strategies and the capital needs assessments to work with
our partners statewide.” For Seattle, the task is a tall order: “How do we
sustain the 10,000 units created through the Levy that we have right now—and
statewide, there’s substantially more. Now that we’ve funded this housing for
20-plus years, how can we make sure it stays in good condition and stays
affordable for a very long time?”
Currently, with the Levy’s 50-year affordability requirements, the funds set
aside for O&M “are not enough,” she points out. “What happens in the private
sector is that apartment buildings are generally sold about every seven years.
When that happens, there’s usually a big cash infusion and then they raise all
the rents. Because we follow HUD median income requirements, we don’t raise
rents substantially.” SHA’s commitment of 500 Section 8 vouchers for the life of
the 2002 Levy has been an enormous help in terms of operational dollars; now the
MacArthur grant will, hopefully, help Seattle and CTED devise long-term
stewardship solutions. [For more information on the grant, here’s a link:
http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4991519/]
Transitioning to the new Levy
Adrienne and the Seattle OH started the planning process for the 2009 Levy in
the middle of 2008. Until the Seattle City Council adopts the ordinance to put
the Levy on the ballot, Adrienne’s office remains in the planning mode,
assessing the housing market and the City’s housing needs. Among the questions
they’re asking are: How have Seattle’s demographics changed? And what has
shifted on the funding side of the equation, including on the federal level?
Mayor Nickels will most likely submit a proposed Levy next month, after which
the City Council will hold public hearings. Already, as we go “to press” with
this electronic newsletter, the public has been invited to an Open House at
Seattle City Hall on March 10 to celebrate past successes and provide feedback
on some proposed programs for the new Levy. Among the proposals are creating
more incentives for housing to be built in transit-oriented communities, close
to the new Light Rail, for example. Another program on the City’s wish list is
an Acquisition Opportunity Loan Fund, which might include strategic loans for
transit-oriented developments (TOD) and bridge loan financing to help nonprofit
developers acquire properties and hold onto them until permanent funding
resources can be assembled.
But, Adrienne warns, so much remains to be determined. “There’s no question that
these are tough economic times. Our political leaders, as they’re looking ahead
to what to present to the voters, will be making some tough choices.”
The 2009 Seattle Housing Levy: How far can we go?
When it comes to making smart, tough choices for the City of Seattle on
affordable housing and community development, I can think of no one more capable
than City Councilmember Richard McIver. Richard has served on the Council for 12
years, and is the current Chair of the Council’s Housing & Economic Development
Committee. His advocacy for the 2002 Levy was tremendously important to its
passage, and I know we can look forward to the same kind of leadership from him
this year.
RICHARD McIVER
Seattle City Councilmember
I’ve known Richard for years as our paths have crossed again and again in the
myriad roles he’s served in both the public and private sectors in promoting
affordable housing, urban renewal, neighborhood development, and historic
preservation efforts. And Richard has served as a Commissioner on our board
since 2003.
Richard would like to see the next Levy go to work fairly and effectively.
“Historically the City has always tried to create very-low-income and low-income
housing,” Richard says. “The recent economics of the housing crisis have
broadened the City’s scope: I think our job must also be to preserve a
middle-class housing stock available to middle-class people—rental assistance
for working families, families with multiple jobs that are working to keep their
heads above water. We know that homeownership helps stabilize a community, that
we need to move more people out of homelessness through interim into permanent
housing. The problem has always been, we don’t have enough stock in permanent
housing to get people into, to keep them moving up the ladder.”
The impact the Levy has had on revitalizing communities and maintaining economic
diversity “is amazing,” Richard says. “You take a drive through southeast
Seattle, for instance—and look at the investment nonprofits have made in
low-income housing there.” Before real estate prices went through the roof as a
result of the new Light Rail, the City’s strategic focus on southeast Seattle
was geared toward “getting in ahead of for-profit developers to preserve housing
for the people currently living there, as well as increasing the number of
affordable units. I think that’s the only way you can get ahead of the game.”
To achieve the same impact as the past Levy, the price tag for the 2009 Levy
will necessarily be higher; land and construction costs have risen significantly
since 2002. That would mean about a 50% increase over the last Levy. “In any
case, we have to up it,” Richard says. “That will be my recommendation: That we
should achieve as much as we have in the past. The Mayor will refer it down to
Council, and then we’ll try to get fairly wide input from the public. Part of
this process, clearly, is recognizing the fact that people are strapped. The
question is: How far can we go—how far is too far? I keep asking myself that,
but in Seattle, we’ve always overachieved.”
Seattle’s Housing Levy has been an extraordinary investment in the City’s
future. Here’s hoping that its voters vote once again in November to
“overachieve”—to keep this great legacy alive.
|
