Post navigation

Prev: (03/21/17) | Next: (03/22/17)

Inside I-126, Seattle’s $275M homelessness levy: shelter, health, housing

Homeless people in Seattle may be getting more assistance in the form of programs funded by a $275 million property tax levy proposed by Mayor Ed Murray — if voters agree. The money is substantial, and the proposed spending in some ways aligns with what the homeless themselves say they could use the most.

Signature gathering is underway to put I-126 on the August ballot. “The Seattle skyline visible from this location is a symbol the city’s economic strength and growth, but from the exact same vantage point you can see the people and community that that same progress has left behind and made more vulnerable,” Downtown Emergency Service Center director Daniel Malone who co-chaired the advisory committee that developed the measure said about the start of the effort. “We all know that the problem of homelessness has been growing rapidly. We need to step and do more to help the people suffering on our streets, and this carefully considered measure will do that.”

The measure would last five years and nearly double what the city currently spends on aid to homeless people. The levy will cost about 27 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value for homeowners. For the city’s median homeowner — Zillow puts that at a $513,200 home — that would mean $138.51 per year.

A preliminary plan says the levy would spend $55 million on improving access to shelter, services and housing; $25 million to increase access to mental and behavioral health services; $10 million for the housing innovation fund, and $185 million to help move people into housing, including subsidies. Subsidies were the top request from homeless people in a recent survey undertaken by the city.

The survey, called the 2016 Homeless Needs Assessment, was released in early March. It looked at not only what homeless people want, but also gave a demographic picture of who they are, though there are some caveats.

The survey interviewed 1,050 people, in a randomized fashion. However, since there aren’t very accurate numbers on the overall makeup of the homeless population, it’s difficult to know if one group may have been oversampled. For example it is possible, while unlikely, that surveyors spoke to a disproportionate number of white people, or men, or people over age 60 in a way that might skew the numbers. In spite of that, the results are likely to be fairly accurate.

What homeless people say would be the best way to help them find permanent housing is rental assistance, followed closely by more affordable housing. The next cluster of needs is employment assistance, transportation assistance and moving assistance.

Although there are usually multiple reasons a person becomes homeless, housing affordability is one of the larger contributors, 11% said rent increases were what caused them to lose their home, 3% said the person they were staying with could no longer afford to allow them to stay, another 3% were evicted and another 3% had their home foreclosed.

Beyond that, 25% said they became homeless after losing a job, 13% as a result of drug and alcohol abuse and 9% as the result of a divorce or breakup.

Health care is another need for Seattle’s homeless people. Of those surveyed, 30% said they’d gone without needed healthcare, and nearly half had missed needed dental care. A number reported chronic conditions, 14% said they had diabetes, 7% reported having cancer. Mental health in particular was needed, 42% said they’d experienced depression, 22% said it had been sever enough to make it difficult for them to find housing or work. Numerous other psychiatric and emotional disorders were reported.

As has been widely reported, most of Seattle’s homeless residents are home-grown. Nearly half (48.9%) report that the last place they had a permanent home was in Seattle. Another 21.2% were in King County. Only 12.8% reported they were from out-of-state, and an additional 2.1 from outside of the U.S.

There were a number of other interesting results in the survey, some of which may conflict with people’s typical assumptions about homeless people.

  • 45% reported not using any drugs (including alcohol)
  • 39% have been in Seattle for 10 years or more
  • 26% identified as LGBTQ
  • 12% have a college degree
  • 13% are employed full time, 13% are employed part time
  • 14% are veterans
  • 23% had a history of foster care
  • 44% live in multi-person households
  • 11% of females reported they were pregnant at the time of the survey
  • 50% have been homeless for a year or more
  • 78% receive some form of government assistance
  • 9% were on probation, 4% on parole, 1% on both
  • 42% had experienced domestic violence or abuse, 5% said it was the cause of their homelessness.

Read the full report here (PDF).

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nope
Nope
6 years ago

Which puts another $10 / month onto every rental in Seattle as well.

Perhaps we need a workers council group to pressure Amz et al to hire and train the disadvantaged. Let’s start by forcing a first inline hiring policy, limit of 20 minutes interview, no phone screens, no whiteboard coding interviews.

Sloopy
Sloopy
6 years ago
Reply to  Nope

Great idea! It makes me so upset when businesses discriminate against people who don’t have qualifications.

NoMoreLevy
NoMoreLevy
6 years ago

Let’s throw more money at the problem that’s definitely been working so far.

Sean
Sean
6 years ago

The pseudo socialism paid for on the backs of home owners needs to be slowed down. You can’t have an effective city government that is too far either left or right. Time to clean house at City hall Seattle.

Green Goblin
Green Goblin
6 years ago
Reply to  Sean

Really on the backs of all of us, renters included. Property taxes get passed right on down as part of rent (unless you have a really amazing, magnanimous landlord that absorbs this cost).

For all of the city’s talk about protecting marginalized and disadvantaged communities, I don’t get how the city keeps pushing these property tax increases on all of us. People on fixed incomes, immigrants, refugees, persons of color, students, renters, etc. living in Seattle all have to pay these taxes, too.

Brendan
Brendan
6 years ago
Reply to  Sean

Seattle has 15 democrats for every republican. We aren’t going to “clean house” and install conservatives.

Almost certainly if the mayor or city council members lose the election it will be to someone MORE liberal.

How many elections in a row can conservatives be shocked that they lost? It boggles the mind.

Sloopy
Sloopy
6 years ago

I’m just glad we are making big decisions based on data that is “likely accurate”

From the article:
“For example it is possible, while unlikely, that surveyors spoke to a disproportionate number of white people, or men, or people over age 60 in a way that might skew the numbers. In spite of that, the results are likely to be fairly accurate.” How is it one can make the assertion it is likely to be accurate? Because you hope it is accurate? This doesn’t inspire confidence.

I would like to help the homeless. However, I am concerned we will spend $275 million on studies and non-profits and still have tents all over the city.

Realistically, these folks need free housing. The chances of them finding work that pays well enough for them to live in Seattle is almost none. Many people not struggling with homelessness, addiction, mental health, etc can’t afford this city. It seems improbable we are going to install homeless people into jobs that pay well enough for them to be self-sufficient. It is too expensive here.

Maybe after Seattle solves the national homeless problem, we can start working on creating single payer health care for the nation. Kshama get to work!

even liberals have a breaking point
even liberals have a breaking point
6 years ago
Reply to  Sloopy

I’m sorry.. but as liberal as I am I’m done with paying more and more and more and more… Realistically those people who are not struggling with mental health and addiction problems that simply cannot afford this area need to move to an area that they can afford… I have *plenty* of co-workers who live north or south of the city because that’s where they could afford what they wanted…. Do they have a commute to get to work – sure they do, do they not live in the middle of it all, yeah, but you do what you need to and you don’t necessarily always get what you want. Geesh – maybe I should go start camping out in Medina because I cannot afford a waterfront mansion…

Brendan
Brendan
6 years ago

I’d rather see 90% of the money dedicated to building affordable housing. That’s the only long term solution.

Subsidies aren’t a long term solution. Over time as rents increase, we need larger and larger levies to provide subsidies for the same number of people. Also, subsidized people are competing with lower income unsubsidized people for the same small set of low end apartments.

On the other hand, affordable housing we build can house people permanently and adds to the city’s housing stock.

Local social worker
Local social worker
6 years ago
Reply to  Brendan

Agreed. I would add support staff to that. While Rapid Rehousing (time limited funding to be used in the open market) does work for some, it’s not a fix-all. It’s based on the notion that if you give some one a short-term financial boost then before long they’ll be able to pay their own rent. One unintended consequence: if the person then can’t cover rent, and gets evicted with landlord debt, it becomes exponentially more difficult to get into housing. Looping back to what Brendan said and adding on, we need more publicly (city or county) owned housing with limited barriers for getting in.

JayH
JayH
6 years ago

Even more property taxes just raises housing costs more, thus making the problem worse. I am also concerned that the more services Seattle provides the more people we attract. If we build it, will they come? From all over? Homelessness needs a combined regional effort. It states above that 15.4% of people came here for homeless services. Assuming that number is accurate then that is almost 1 in 7.

ltfd
ltfd
6 years ago

Boston spent $20 million last year, and they only have 139 ‘unsheltered’ persons. We don’t need an ADDITIONAL $275 million (on top of the already committed funding). If Boston did it, we can too- for much less than Mayor Murray is asking for your hard earned income.

How'boutNO
How'boutNO
6 years ago

At the end of this article you say “As has been widely reported” that most homeless in King Co. are from King Co., but where as this been reported? As someone who frequents this blog, and follows this issue, it never gets reported where these vagrants come from…

How'boutNO
How'boutNO
6 years ago

Also, if it’s possible that the statistics skewed old and white, why should we trust that any of it isn’t skewed in the exact same direction. If more old, white homeless were interviewed then it’s understandable how almost 50% of them said they were from here. There’s an abundance of older, whiter people.

mjl23
mjl23
6 years ago

So how much are spending now – are we going from 55 to 100. Either number is way more than the experts hired by the city say we need!

Henry Lester
Henry Lester
6 years ago

My answer in one word.NO

Annie Pearson
Annie Pearson
6 years ago

Saw the petition today. It’s vaguely worded. When I asked the guy at the table to tell me more, he pitched that it would build housing and get kids off drugs, which is why all those kids are on the street now.
Which isn’t true.
Won’t sign when the story is so weakly told, and weakly supported with facts.
… And not because it’ll increase my taxes. I’m already giving more than that each year to shelter and food programs in Seattle.

John
John
6 years ago

I know there are no easy answers to this problem but MORE taxes is not the answer.

If they make it more expensive to live here more people will be homeless no?

Most people in Seattle rent, and don’t seem to get that THEY pay for property tax, not just homeowners. I think an ad campaign aimed at educating renters that their high rent will only get worse is a good way to try and defeat this stupid idea

Although I hope this doesn’t pass I haven’t seen a property tax that super liberal Seattle has voted down yet. Maybe we are at a tipping point finally?

RWK
RWK
6 years ago
Reply to  John

I sure hope so, and I think it very well might be the case.