On ballots that went out last week, voters have two choices to make to determine the future of Seattle’s newest plan for housing.
The first is whether the developer should be funded at all. The next choice — regardless of the previous answer — is how.
Option 1A is with a new employer tax on all salaries over $1 million a year. Backers hope the 5% tax would raise as much as $50 million a year to be spent on buying and, eventually, developing housing that would be cost-controlled and owned by taxpayers.
Option 1B is to fund the developer with $10 million a year in existing city funding — specifically the city’s JumpStart tax on large corporations in Seattle.
You keep asserting rent control will being rent down that has never been the case. Rent control only makes rent more expensive. That’s why you see such consensus.
Rent control actually always brings down rent prices in the affected units, this is widely agreed on.
It makes non affected units marginally more expensive, and the other widely agreed on malefects are that people in rent controlled units don’t leave as often, and that landlords skimp on maintenance, evict people more frivolously/baselessly, and disincentivizes new construction.
So throw on better tenants rights / eviction protection, crack down on maitenance skimping landlords by making a city hotline / web portal for residents to make complaints to directly, have an actually funded and staffed enforcement agency for that (take away some police funding and move it to that)… and then have a reasonable way to avoid incentivize and fund the new housing construction that the free market won’t want to do.
A reasonable implementation of rent control, as I literally just described, is what Seattle has been doing for 30 years, giving certain new or remodelled buildings the option to either pay a tax that goes toward city built/funded social, low income housing, or forgoe the tax but endure a rent control scheme for some of its units.
This approach just needs to be expanded, augmented, increased in scope, increased in magnitude of the low income housing tax and the required number of rent controlled units, and make those rent controlled units even less costly to renters.
Did you read anything I wrote in my last reply to you?
I did and I don’t believe you are correct as average rent in Seattle hasn’t declined as a result of these policies.
Oh cool, thats wonderful, the only thing impacting the housing market that’s changed in 30 years is the MHA MFTE program, the entire rest of the economy just stayed perfectly static.
Population hasn’t grown, wealth disparity hasn’t grown, construction costs are the same, the unemployment rate never changed, zoning laws are the same, the tech sector is still as small.as it was in 96, no neighborhoods have gentrified, covid never happened, nope, everything affecting housing is all down to a single experimental variable and everything else is a control variable.
Did not realize I was actually talking to a clown.
Honk honk!
In a clown because I don’t believe ypu have proven that rent control has worked? If it had rent should have stabilized lower income housing which it did not. There should be more available affordable housing and there isn’t.
You haven’t proved anything. You have made ton of unsupported claims entirely constructed on “trust me bro”. Do you have any idea how any of this works?