AdobeStock
Seattle’s February 2025 special election presents a unique opportunity to address both affordable housing and environmental justice in the city. The ballot will include a choice between Proposition 1A (formerly Initiative 137), a proposal led by the nonprofit group House Our Neighbors! (HON), and a competing measure developed by the current Seattle City Council to oppose the social housing initiative. This decision will shape the future of Seattle’s social housing landscape and determine how the city tackles intersecting issues of corporate accountability, community welfare, and sustainable urban development.
I-137 follows up on the success of I-135, passed in 2023, which established the Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD). I-135 gave SSHD the mandate to build mixed-income social housing but did not include a funding source, as Washington law requires separate initiatives for policy and revenue. HON’s new proposal, I-137, seeks to fill that funding gap by imposing a 5% payroll tax on corporations with annual payrolls over $1 million. This tax would generate approximately $50 million annually, enough to construct about 2,000 affordable housing units in the next decade.
The Seattle City Council has introduced an alternative measure that would redirect $10 million each year from the JumpStart payroll tax. This version of the proposal would place stricter limits on tenant incomes, capping eligibility at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), as opposed to HON’s approach, which would allow people earning up to 120% of AMI. The Council’s alternative also introduces additional oversight mechanisms, intended to align SSHD’s activities more closely with traditional nonprofit housing organizations. Each proposal has different implications for Seattle’s housing and environmental landscape.
This election also raises the issue of corporate responsibility. Prop 1A’s payroll tax places the financial burden on corporations with high payrolls, often the city’s largest emitters, pushing for a model where those with the resources to offset climate impacts are required to contribute to solutions. The council’s plan, however, would pull from existing funds in the JumpStart tax, which currently supports a variety of initiatives, including affordable housing and Green New Deal programs. For environmentalists, relying on JumpStart funds could mean fewer resources for other projects vital to building a sustainable Seattle. Prop 1A’s separate tax structure, on the other hand, presents an opportunity to diversify Seattle’s revenue sources, maintaining funding for current projects while supporting new social housing initiatives. Sustainably built, energy-efficient social housing also has direct environmental benefits. With consistent funding, Seattle could construct buildings that meet higher green standards, such as reduced energy consumption and sustainable materials. These buildings could become environmental assets, incorporating community gardens, solar panels, and efficient waste management systems, turning social housing units into eco-friendly spaces that benefit the community.
Seattle’s February election isn’t just about housing—it’s about choosing a path forward that prioritizes community well-being and environmental sustainability. Supporting Prop 1A means supporting a vision that requires corporations to invest in Seattle’s social infrastructure, allowing for a consistent funding stream that doesn’t compromise existing community projects. This approach enables Seattle to expand social housing in a way that reduces environmental impact, creates equitable communities, and builds sustainably for the future.
Meanwhile, the council’s proposal reflects a more conservative approach, funneling existing financial resources into SSHD. While the council’s measure would fund affordable housing, it restricts eligibility to lower income brackets, which may limit the community’s financial diversity and, by extension, the project’s resilience over time. This alternative offers benefits but lacks the more robust and comprehensive funding source that Prop 1A provides.
For Seattle’s environmental advocates, this vote represents a significant opportunity to support a model that considers long-term community and environmental health. By supporting either, Seattle has a chance to reinforce its commitment to sustainable urban growth, ensuring that the city’s housing solutions also contribute to reducing emissions, preserving natural spaces, and maintaining equitable access to housing, but the approaches are different.
For more information on Prop 1A, go to www.letsbuildsocialhousing.org.
For more information on Prop 1B, go to https://www.seattlechamber.com/news/2024/10/30/press-room/chamber-endorses-seattle-proposition-1b/.
Guest Contributor, Ry Armstrong (they/them), is an MLK Labor delegate and National Board Councilor of AFL-CIO's AEA.