Vot­ers in Seat­tle City Coun­cil Dis­trict #3 remain very sup­port­ive of this year’s hous­ing levy, an encour­ag­ing sign for the mea­sure as the final hours of vot­ing in the 2023 local elec­tion cycle get under­way, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s most recent pub­lic opin­ion research sur­vey has found.

64% of 327 like­ly vot­ers sur­veyed by Change Research this week for NPI in Dis­trict #3 in the aggre­gate said they favored 2023 Seat­tle Propo­si­tion 1, while just 26% were opposed. Only 8% were not sure. 1% did not recall how they vot­ed, and 1% said they did not vote on Propo­si­tion 1.

The mea­sure — bet­ter known as the hous­ing levy because “Propo­si­tion 1” has been the moniker of a lot of levies over the years — would both pre­serve and expand a source of fund­ing for afford­able hous­ing pro­grams. Approval would autho­rize a sev­en-year prop­er­ty tax increase for col­lec­tion begin­ning in 2024 at approx­i­mate­ly $0.45/$1,000 in assessed val­ue, up to a max­i­mum $3.60/$1,000.

It would triple the pre­vi­ous levy, which won approval in 2016.

A broad and diverse coali­tion sup­ports pas­sage of the levy, includ­ing the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute. (NPI does­n’t endorse can­di­dates for office, but does take posi­tions on bal­lot mea­sures.) There is no orga­nized oppo­si­tion cam­paign, though activist Roger Valdez authored a state­ment urg­ing a no vote for the voter’s pam­phlet, claim­ing the mon­ey will be spent recklessly.

Yes for Homes says that claim is nonsense.

“This levy works. More than 80% of house­holds who received emer­gency rental help were still in sta­ble hous­ing after six months, and the expir­ing levy exceed­ed goals – con­struct­ing over 2,700 new afford­able homes,” the coali­tion notes.

It explains that renew­al of the levy will sup­port the following:

• Rental Pro­duc­tion and Preser­va­tion: Pro­duce and pre­serve 3,500 new afford­able homes for low-income house­holds and rein­vest in exist­ing afford­able housing.
• Oper­at­ing, Main­te­nance, and Ser­vices: Help 1,150 for­mer­ly home­less res­i­dents and peo­ple with ser­vice needs live in sta­ble, sup­port­ive homes, through oper­a­tions fund­ing for per­ma­nent sup­port­ive housing.
• Care­giv­er Sup­port: Wage sup­port, career train­ing, and pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment for care­givers in sup­port­ive and emer­gency hous­ing, help­ing restore lives and move peo­ple into sta­ble hous­ing and self sufficiency.
• Home­own­er­ship: Cre­ate and main­tain 360 afford­able home­own­er­ship oppor­tu­ni­ties tar­get­ed to mar­gin­al­ized com­mu­ni­ties, through new devel­op­ment, fore­clo­sure pre­ven­tion assis­tance, home pur­chase loan assis­tance, and home repair grants.
• Pre­ven­tion and Hous­ing Sta­bi­liza­tion: Sta­bi­lize 4,500 indi­vid­u­als and fam­i­lies at risk of evic­tion and home­less­ness through rent assis­tance and case management.
• Acqui­si­tion and Preser­va­tion: Short-term loans to pur­chase build­ings and land for afford­able housing.

It’s no secret that Seat­tle is fac­ing a severe hous­ing short­age. Even the Seat­tle Times edi­to­r­i­al board thinks that Propo­si­tion 1 is a good invest­ment and is urg­ing a yes vote. In a lengthy edi­to­r­i­al, the board asked and attempt­ed to answer a mul­ti­tude of ques­tions, like how do levy sup­port­ers jus­ti­fy the costs to tax­pay­ers and how will the levy ful­fill its promise of rais­ing wages of those work­ing in per­ma­nent sup­port­ive hous­ing for ten­ants with com­plex behav­ioral health needs.

In June, a poll con­duct­ed by Suf­folk Uni­ver­si­ty for The Seat­tle Times found 57.4% sup­port city­wide for the 2023 Seat­tle hous­ing levy, with 30.4% oppo­si­tion and 12% unde­cid­ed. Impor­tant­ly, that poll had a break­out for Dis­trict #3:

Res­i­dents in Seat­tle City Coun­cil Dis­trict 3, cov­er­ing Capi­tol Hill and the Cen­tral Dis­trict, were most like­ly to back the levy, with 67% of those polled in sup­port and 28% opposed. Sup­port was weak­est in Dis­trict 7, cov­er­ing down­town, where 50% of peo­ple sup­port­ed the levy and 36% opposed it.

Our find­ing, com­ing twen­ty weeks lat­er, is very sim­i­lar to Suf­folk’s, indi­cat­ing that pub­lic opin­ion is most­ly unchanged and also sug­gest­ing that both polls have prop­er­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive sam­ples. In our already-vot­ed sub­sam­ple, the per­cent­age of vot­ers who vot­ed yes to pass the levy was 66% — a fig­ure almost iden­ti­cal to Suf­folk’s 67% num­ber for Dis­trict #3. Mean­while, 31% vot­ed no to reject the levy, which is also in line with the 28% oppo­si­tion that Suf­folk found back in June.

Here’s the exact ques­tions we asked and the respons­es we received:

Already voted

QUESTION: How did you vote on Seat­tle Propo­si­tion 1, the hous­ing levy?

The offi­cial bal­lot title is as fol­lows: The May­or and Seat­tle City Coun­cil passed Ordi­nance 126837, con­cern­ing renew­al of the Seat­tle Hous­ing Levy. If approved, this propo­si­tion would replace the expir­ing Seat­tle Hous­ing Levy and fund hous­ing and hous­ing ser­vices for low-income house­holds, includ­ing seniors, fam­i­lies, peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties, and peo­ple expe­ri­enc­ing home­less­ness. It autho­rizes a sev­en-year prop­er­ty tax increase for col­lec­tion begin­ning in 2024 at approx­i­mate­ly $0.45/$1,000 in assessed val­ue, up to a max­i­mum $3.60/$1,000. The 2024 reg­u­lar levy amount would be used to com­pute lim­i­ta­tions for 2025–2030 levies. Seniors, vet­er­ans with dis­abil­i­ties, and oth­ers qual­i­fied under RCW 84.36.381 are exempt. Should this propo­si­tion be approved?

ANSWERS:

• Vot­ed yes to pass the levy: 66%
• Vot­ed no to reject the levy: 31%
• Did not vote on this: 2%
• Do not recall: 2%

Haven’t yet voted

QUESTION: How are you vot­ing on Seat­tle Propo­si­tion 1, the hous­ing levy?

The offi­cial bal­lot title is as fol­lows: The May­or and Seat­tle City Coun­cil passed Ordi­nance 126837, con­cern­ing renew­al of the Seat­tle Hous­ing Levy. If approved, this propo­si­tion would replace the expir­ing Seat­tle Hous­ing Levy and fund hous­ing and hous­ing ser­vices for low-income house­holds, includ­ing seniors, fam­i­lies, peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties, and peo­ple expe­ri­enc­ing home­less­ness. It autho­rizes a sev­en-year prop­er­ty tax increase for col­lec­tion begin­ning in 2024 at approx­i­mate­ly $0.45/$1,000 in assessed val­ue, up to a max­i­mum $3.60/$1,000. The 2024 reg­u­lar levy amount would be used to com­pute lim­i­ta­tions for 2025–2030 levies. Seniors, vet­er­ans with dis­abil­i­ties, and oth­ers qual­i­fied under RCW 84.36.381 are exempt. Should this propo­si­tion be approved?

ANSWERS:

• Yes: 62%
  • Def­i­nite­ly will vote yes: 42%
  • Prob­a­bly will vote yes: 20%
• No: 21%
  • Prob­a­bly will vote no: 7%
  • Def­i­nite­ly will vote no: 14%
• Not sure: 17%

Aggregate responses

COMBINED ANSWERS (AGGREGATE), ALL QUESTIONS:

• Yes: 64%
• No: 26%
• Not sure: 8%
• Did not vote on this: 1%
• Do not recall: 1%