Green social housing wins in Seattle
February 14, 2025
Tax the rich. Build green social housing. It sounds simple, but it’s also easy to see how hard it is to win. Embedded in those two short phrases is a political program that goes directly after the people with the most resources and influence, while seeking to disrupt one of the most powerful industries in society. It sets up an opposition with the wealthy and real estate arm-in-arm, and hopes that people power can prevail.
Los Angeles did it with Measure ULA in 2022. And this week, Seattle has done it too.
On Tuesday, Seattle held a special election to determine the future of social housing in the city. It’s a complicated story, so bear with me as I provide a little history of the campaign because I think it’s really instructive to other cities that might think of following suit.
Two years ago, almost to the day, Seattleites (had to look that one up) passed a ballot measure called Initiative 135, which created a public development authority called Seattle Social Housing (SSH). As a public development authority, SSH is charged with acquiring and building high-quality housing that is publicly owned and permanently affordable, sustainable, and inclusive for all Seattle residents.
Initiative 135 passed with overwhelming support in February 2023, winning by over 14%. This was a resounding victory, and perhaps made even more impressive by the fact that this was a campaign explicitly about social housing. As a fairly new and unknown concept to most people, the campaign required a massive push to educate and explain what social housing is, and why it will be different from the current housing regime.
The one problem: they didn’t have any money. Due to a ‘single subject rule for ballot initiatives,’ one measure couldn’t launch the public development authority and also fund it. They had created the entity, but had no funding to allow it to do its work.
You can see how challenging this would be, and how vulnerable it leaves the campaign for attack. Not only does it require the summoning of mass resources and organizing for two separate campaigns, it also gives ample time to the opposition to consolidate and strategize. And that’s exactly what happened.
Before the second campaign got underway, the organizers had to figure out how they would pay for it. They settled on an excessive compensation payroll tax, a marginal 5% tax on employers who pay individual employees more than $1 million in annual compensation. I think this illustration explains it really well:
Although you wouldn’t think there were that many people making over $1 million in compensation, turns out in a corporate tech town like Seattle there are quite a lot — so much so that this 5% marginal tax is estimated to bring in over $50 million annually.
Corporations worked with their allies in city council to pull every trick they could think of to sabotage the election. The first move was to pressure the city council to delay the measure, forcing it off of the high turnout presidential election in November, and moving it to this small special election in February. A public records request revealed that Seattle’s Chamber of Commerce worked closely with specific council members, even crafting language for an alternative ballot proposition.
Using this strategy to confuse voters (very familiar to us here in California), the Chamber and its city council allies successfully added a competing ballot measure to this week’s election with an alternative way to fund social housing. Instead of taxing the rich and bringing in new revenue, the competing proposition (Proposition 1B) would skim $10 million per year from an existing revenue, and sunset after 5 years.
Proposition 1B was formally put on the ballot by the city council, and got the endorsement of the city’s Mayor in addition to several council members. It also got a late infusion of corporate cash, including a pair of $100,000 donations by both Amazon and Microsoft.
And all for naught. As of Thursday, Proposition 1A (the excessive compensation payroll tax) has a 20 point lead. Victory!! 🎉
There is so much more that we could go into and learn from this campaign, and I hope we get the chance to do that in the coming months. But I want to take note of the way that climate resilience played a special role in the campaign.
From the very beginning, the House Our Neighbors coalition leading the social housing campaign was very front and center that this was about climate action. Their messaging consistently talks about the need to build climate resilient communities, and the carbon emissions that currently come from buildings. Going back to Initiative 135 campaign in 2023, the coalition included a “passive house” standard mandate for new social housing, a commitment to build to one of the highest efficiency energy codes.
To make this feel tangible, innovative, and real, they had architects design projects on publicly-owned vacant land, and used those designs in their promotion. Working pro bono, the architects used this as an opportunity to focus on creativity, quality, and cutting edge ideas.
Other mock-ups show a mix of different types of units, all sharing a central courtyard and green space. The purpose here is to both envision social housing, and generate excitement for a kind of housing that we aren’t building right now at scale.
They also had designs that illustrate the Passive House design standards, calling attention to the resident benefits (greenscaping, insulation) and also talking about the energy savings.
All of this led to a broader coalition of support, with groups like 350 Seattle and Sunrise Seattle organizing in support of the measure. It’s a blueprint of the kind of coalition we are working to build, one that includes everyone who is reading this.
Of course, there is only a very brief respite to celebrate the victory before the next phase of defense begins. Another very familiar tactic in California (see the setbacks referendum and lawsuits to Measure ULA), House Our Neighbors and social housing supporters are already preparing for the legal challenge they know is coming.
But for now: the wind is in their sails, the celebrations are in full tilt, and green social housing has prevailed. 🏡💚
Supporters from House Our Neighbors gather for signature gathering (as a note: the proposition was previously called I-137 before it was moved to the February ballot).
WHAT WE’RE READING
Social Housing Proposition 1A Prevails, Gains 20-Point Lead in Thursday Count
(The Urbanist) — for this newsletter I relied heavily on the reporting from the Urbanist, which followed and supported the social housing campaign extensively. It’s definitely worth reading through their coverage, it’s comprehensive and exceptional.
In Seattle, advocacy groups pitch ‘social housing’ as a climate solution (Grist)
We Need a Plan for Decarbonization That Doesn’t Displace Renters (ShelterForce) — piece by Chelsea Kirk making the case for tenant protections and equitable home decarbonization
California city makes ‘aiding’ or ‘abetting’ a homeless camp illegal (CalMatters)
FAIR Plan to assess insurers $1 billion for L.A. fires; consumers may be on the hook for nearly half. (LA Times)
Feds won’t test soil after L.A. wildfire cleanup, potentially leaving contamination behind (LA Times)
Opinion: L.A.’s huge investment in recovery should benefit many Angelenos, not just a few (LA Times)
Tenants left in limbo after asking landlords and city officials to fix smoke damage (LAist)
Feel free to reply any time! I always enjoy hearing from people and getting any feedback/questions/additional thoughts.
We send these out on a somewhat weekly basis. If you don’t want to get these newsletters, feel free to unsubscribe below. If you know someone that would be interested, send me their email, or you can forward this along to them and they can use this link to subscribe.
