- This topic has 59 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by JoB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm #852960
skeeterParticipantI don’t think housing is a basic human right. Not in the same context of a right to an education (K-12) or a right to safety (call 911 if someone threatens my life, etc.) If our society does decide housing is a basic human right I think we’ll have to fundamentally change our perception of housing. The government would be responsible for providing free housing at a level of comfort and space that society demands. And anyone who finds that housing unacceptable will have the option of paying for alternate arrangements (much like sending a child to a private school.) It’s an interesting thought but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
August 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm #853004
JKBParticipant(Bump) Election’s tomorrow, go make your decisions!
(Rant) Man, so many of these candidates are imbeciles.
August 2, 2016 at 8:04 am #853033
SunuvaParticipantI voted no. I know that this levy will pass based on all the endorsements it’s gotten so my vote is really just a small protest. The Seattle Times endorsement starts off by talking about all the ways this levy is messed up and how levy-happy Mayor Murray is, but then turns around and says to vote for it. Sigh. The Stranger doesn’t barely mention the problems with the levy and enthusiastically endorses it. I voted no because I want to challenge this city to solve this problem in a way that doesn’t further burden Seattle homeowners (and indirectly, renters) with higher property taxes. It makes no sense to me to try to make housing more affordable by taxing homeowners more. I want to challenge this city to be transparent and accountable for the money they have to spend. I want the city to stand up to developers and make them contribute more to solving housing affordability. This city has already missed out on a huge housing boom that could have supplied more affordable housing and money for affordable housing through fees, but instead they just built a bunch of high-priced luxury condos and high-priced micro housing. I want a more progressive tax system including a state income tax in a state where our biggest cities have a wealth of high income earners. Yes, housing affordability is a major issue here and homelessness is in crisis mode. However, I think this levy is too expensive, taxes homeowners who are already over-taxed, and doesn’t show a clear plan for how the money will solve the actual problems and show accountability for the results. If the city, county, and/or state can come up with a better plan then I will reconsider.
August 2, 2016 at 1:42 pm #853072
skeeterParticipantHas there ever been a Seattle levy that did not pass? I’m not talking about state or county measures. I mean strictly limited to Seattle.
August 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm #853096
CMParticipantTo JanS: All I can say is that my parents did it when I was younger, they will have to do it again after 43 years in their home, and I’ve done it twice. I’m extremely fortunate to be able to live here since ’93, but the reality is that I will have to leave eventually. So what? I’m truly sorry that you sound like you are closer to having to leave than I am, but it’s an eventuality for everyone until the market corrects. There’s plenty of places with lower housing costs, but unfortunately, they aren’t right here in our West Seattle neighborhood. (Although there are big differences depending on where you choose to live in WS)
August 2, 2016 at 11:20 pm #853161
JKBParticipantEarly returns say this is passing. So as a homeowner, here’s my money. I worked to earn it, you’re taking it by force, one hopes it doesn’t go to waste.
August 3, 2016 at 5:58 am #853171
JoBParticipantone hopes it doesn’t go to waste..
yes.. one doesAugust 27, 2016 at 8:17 am #855798
MeyerParticipantI’m mostly worried this levy will increase rents for some of the lower priced rental units that don’t qualify as ‘affordable housing’ via the uptick in property tax. I know rents are set by the market, but often times property tax increases have a more direct and immediate effect on the cheaper units since the profit margin is smaller on those vs the luxury units.
So although this levy will help some of those in need, it will hurt many others who are scraping by from a property tax and eventual rent increase. That is, unless your unit or your current financial situation fits the criteria of those who will receive help from this levy.
Lastly, I hate to throw money at a problem, especially the symptoms of the problems, without actually solving the root cause.
August 27, 2016 at 10:13 am #855809
JoBParticipantit’s difficult to know how to address the root cause. I heard yesterday that Washington.. not just Seattle.. has a higher mean housing price than it did at the top of the housing boom… which means that affordable housing is moving further out of reach for everyone.. not just in the Seattle urban core.
We are either going to have to subsidize affordable housing or impose rent controls…
I am not sure this levy will accomplish either goal.. which is why i think we should keep pressure on city hall to spend these dollars wisely.
August 27, 2016 at 8:49 pm #855852
JKBParticipantSome thoughts about the idea that current valuations are so high… okay, it’s been about 8 years since the crash in which we all lost about 30%. Recovering 30% over that time isn’t surprising. Plus the crash was a temporary dislocation anyway. Lots of extra housing on the market and many fewer buyers, both due to all the foreclosures. Supply and demand, of course the prices went down. Now the supply is normal and some of the buyers have made it back into the game.
You can’t just equate higher prices to lack of affordability, because price is only relative to income. All those $15/hour people just got a 30% pay raise, right? I realize they’re not the homebuying market, but rents roughly track with purchase price. So to evaluate affordability, you’d really want to see how incomes and prices have each changed, and identify segments of the populace that are better or worse off, and that’s a complicated thing requiring a lot more data than the newspapers give us.
Finally, I added up what I spent to buy my house and to pay property taxes on it these last 20 years. I think I could get just about exactly 2x that total if I sold today. That illustrates the value in avoiding a forced sale (I went through the crash too, have been unemployed, had medical issues, etc.) that locks in losses. But as an average return over a long time, it’s not spectacular. It’s a place to live.
Please please do not anybody say the words “rent control” without reviewing how they’ve worked in other cities. Chicago, Boston, New York…
August 27, 2016 at 10:37 pm #855862
captainDaveParticipantLandlords should issue a monthly statement to renters that shows how much of their rent payment goes to property tax.
August 27, 2016 at 11:07 pm #855863
JKBParticipantNow captainDave, are you proposing a regulatory requirement?
I could see a whole audit in that statement: cost of capital, insurance, taxes, earmarked social programs, cost of police/fire based on the tenant’s records, mandated capital improvements, payments to the homelessness reduction council….
August 28, 2016 at 8:21 am #855888
JoBParticipantJKB.. every system can be abused and i agree that rent control has been abused almost every place it has been instituted.. by both renters and landlords.. but the abuses don’t negate it’s effectiveness in keeping people in housing.
take a look at the stats and show me where a person making minimum wage can afford to rent an apartment.. even at that whopping 30% pay raise you mention.
what is your solution?
August 28, 2016 at 8:24 am #855889
JoBParticipantskeeter..
“I don’t think housing is a basic human right. Not in the same context of a right to an education (K-12) or a right to safety (call 911 if someone threatens my life, etc.) If our society does decide housing is a basic human right I think we’ll have to fundamentally change our perception of housing”you do realize that lack of shelter leads to early death.. don’t you?
isn’t that a safety matter.. for all of us?August 28, 2016 at 11:59 am #855917
JanSParticipantthe solution that I hear most often, for those of low income that need housing is….move…go where it’s cheaper. And that’s sad. Unfortunately, that’s what people are doing. My neighbor is moving to a room shared in a house in Kent next week. She works in the Junction. She can’t afford the rent here (I am holding on for dear life – have lived in this apt for 17 years). She will have an approximately 1.5 hour commute each way during rush hour, instead of a 10 minute commute. Yes, we need answers…this is very sad, indeed.
August 28, 2016 at 7:29 pm #855974
JKBParticipantIf a wizard appeared who could turn my regular commute into 10 minutes, I’d pay that wizard hard cash for the service.
But you might check that story of 1.5hours to Kent. I pulled a jury duty stint at the courthouse down there, and commuted from Admiral in 20-25 minutes. Pleasantly surprised, I was.
August 28, 2016 at 9:25 pm #855989
captainDaveParticipantJKB: I said nothing about regulatory requirements. I just think that if landlords voluntarily let their tenants know how much property taxes were buried in their rent, that maybe renters would be more cautious about approving things that they would otherwise think other people pay for.
August 28, 2016 at 10:37 pm #855994
JanSParticipantJKB…she may be surprised, too. I think the 1.5 hr. is expecting the worst…
August 28, 2016 at 10:45 pm #855996
JanSParticipantCapt. Dave…you’d be surprised….that’s usually the excuse given by landlords…you know, the one where they say they have to raise the rent because the property taxes went up again? Don’t be blaming renters for the problem. We already know.
August 29, 2016 at 9:00 am #856045
captainDaveParticipantJanS: I am not blaming anybody. I just think a lot of people just don’t see the direct impact of escalating taxes until after even more people become impoverished. Maybe it would be different if local government were not so corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable to the people they work for. Affordable housing can be achieved by improving transportation throughput instead of working to constrict traffic. There is an immense amount of low-cost land within easy commuting distance from Seattle if only we had functional roads.
August 29, 2016 at 9:37 am #856049
newnativeParticipantNothing wrong with the roads here and it’s not the rising property taxes that have doubled the rents. It’s the market, plain and simple. I will also refute that rising wages allow for tenants to pay the doubled rents. For one, the $15 wage is a gradual raise. So many people insist that it went up the day it was voted on, not true. I was pushed out of my old and decrepit apartment before the $15/hr was put into effect last year. Even if my landlords had waited, I still wouldn’t be able to afford the new rent.
August 29, 2016 at 10:44 am #856052
skeeterParticipantWhen I think “basic human right” I think of a service that everyone should receive at no cost. For example K-12 education is a basic right. Whether you are rich or poor, any child can attend public school at no cost. Do I feel that way about housing? No I do not. I’m okay with poor people getting free housing paid for by taxes. But middle class folks and rich folks should pay for their own housing, in my opinion.
August 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm #856084
JoBParticipantskeeter.. most middle class and rich folks can afford Seattle’s housing. I know we can.
it’s those without resources who are left on the streets.. and that categorically leads to early death.
I don’t have the statistic at my fingertips right now but a huge percentage of those living on our streets are elderly and disabled.. as in garden variety they have a medical problem that does not include addiction.
As for those subsidized rents.. Seattle had at least 10 times as many applicants for those vouchers as people who qualified.. so everyone went into a lottery…
and a voucher doesn’t guarantee a place to rent. It’s the applicant’s responsibility to find a place to live within a relatively short time period.. or they lose their voucher.yes, at one time we did provide a more viable safety net.. but either the holes in that net are larger or the need has escalated exponentially. I think the answer lies somewhere between the two.
August 29, 2016 at 3:51 pm #856086
newnativeParticipantActually, it seems the safety net has been eaten away. The rent increases are rapid, the supply is smaller and the “Poorhouse” has all but disappeared. The barely livable hotels and flop houses on skid row that kept people off the streets.
August 30, 2016 at 7:57 am #856134
skeeterParticipantSomething else is going on though. I recently spent time in several public parks in both Redmond and Bellevue. I didn’t see a single homeless person. I was also in downtown Redmond and Bellevue and didn’t see a single homeless person. The rents/housing prices in each of these cities has recently increased a great deal, just like Seattle. But I didn’t see tent cities in public parks and under freeways. It’s possible the increased housing prices there did create homeless and the homeless just didn’t stay there – either they chose to leave or were forced to leave. Or maybe Bellevue and Redmond have better housing options for the homeless. I don’t know. But I’m not convinced increased housing prices are the primary cause of homeless. Because housing prices are through the roof on the eastside yet there is almost no homeless population that I could see.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.