Ballots have arrived, and if you’re like most people around Seattle, it’s still sitting on your kitchen table. Meghan Stobbe is one of those Seattleites, but her mind is already made up for proposition 1.
Stobbe is a Capitol Hill resident living in one of over 10,000 apartments funded by the affordable housing levy; a funding source up for renewal in November. Stobbe moved to Seattle 3 years ago with her then 1-year-old son to live in a large house rooming with some friends. But when the landlord forced them out of the home, Stobbe was left without a place to live, and a child to raise on a minimal income. After a difficult few weeks with essentially no home, a friend referred her to an affordable housing program through Capitol Hill Housing that helps disadvantaged families find a place to live.
“It’s a critical service” said Stobbe, who now lives in the Villa Apartments, an apartment building acquired through the levy’s Rental Production and Preservation program. “I wouldn’t be able to work at the job that I do, or be as good of a parent as I am without it.”
Stobbe, who works for the non-profit Parent Trust for Washington Children, says she is still in transition from a time where everything was bought on credit. “Whenever you can’t make ends meet, it’s extremely stressful.”
Stobbe is among thousands of citizens who have benefited from housing levies and bonds over the last 28 years. While she shares a room with her son, who is now 4, she is grateful to have a nice place to live. “The manager is extremely supportive, and really cares about the tenants.”
According to the Office of Housing( http://www.seattle.gov/housing/levy/levy_renewal.htm), the proposed housing levy will cost $145 Million over 7 years, with a median cost to homeowners at $65/year. This levy will assist 3,420 households, and produce or preserve 1,850 homes for people like Meghan who need that little extra boost.
While there is no formal group against the levy, a recent Seattle Times endorsement drew some negative reactions on the basis of overspending, and the cost of the levy itself. User “Pro Living Wage” said he/she has always voted yes on levies in the past, but is changing his/her vote this year. “It is too much, I can’t afford it and I do not agree with giving $ to a family of four making over 60K.”
“Kirk Robbins” from The Stranger’s ‘Electionland’ Prop 1 thread is against the measure, citing a misnomer in the levy’s language. “It’s not a “renewal” — it’s a 68% increase, from $86 million to $145 million. And it triples the amount for “administration”, from $4 million plus to $13 million plus! If we vote NO, maybe the City Council will take the hint and actually “Renew” it!”
While Mr. Robbins may not want to pay an additional 2 bucks a month to provide homes for people in need, I think it’s a small price to pay. In this economy, I like knowing that there is a safety net in case something happens to me or someone I know. More and more friends are getting laid-off and they need to have some last resort if they are at the end of their rope.
Dear Zan-O,
Paranoia will destroy ya
XXOO
There are lots of fantastic public servants in City departments and servants in non-profit, all dedicated to the public and personal benefits associated with stably housing our most vulnerable populations, who would lose their jobs if McGinn takes months and months to craft a new proposal that would be dependent on the same data and housing community members and advocates in the housing field that created this fact based and well founded proposal. I would hate to see that happen as well as the huge loss to the community seeking affordable housing.
I like living in a city that finds a way to support the people who need it the most. The Housing Levy provides a safety net for people who are on the edge. It keeps people in their homes.
Seattle is a beautiful city and finding ways to keep seniors on fixed incomes and families living on low wage jobs will keep it vibrant and growing. A YES Vote on Prop 1 will give us the tools to just this.
Please remember to vote and VOTE YES on Prop 1 to provide a safety net to ensure that we can keep people in homes that they can afford and out of homelessness.
I am pleased to spend $65 per year over the next 7 years, knowing that this small donation/tax will multiply greater than many other causes to which I have donated this same amount in the past. Many of those other causes, though noble and housing related, are band-aids for problems in our community consistently perpetuated by homelessness and lack of affordable housing in Seattle. I am ready to get at the heart of the matter and put my money behind the Prop. 1 housing levy.
If you want to “contribute” to the bankers bill, why don’t you “contribute”? Why are you voting to force those of us who DON’T want to give $720 a year to Wells Fargo Bank and Chase-Manhattan Bank to have to do so?
Amusing how many bankers are logging on here to weigh-in. But I appreciate their position – their multi-million dollars bonuses are at stake if this fails, after all.
It’s just getting funnier and funnier, gang! :) :) :)
Vote Against Killing Homeless People, Vote Against Subsidizing Bankers Bonuses, Vote Against Bush/Cheney Style Government – Vote NO on Prop 1 … the Compassionate and Progressive Vote
Just a quick clarification, for anyone who’s wondering: Yes, there are some large banks and bankers on the list of supporters of Proposition 1. There are plenty of small banks and bankers on the list, too, as well as many leaders of homeless advocacy folks that Zan-O isn’t listing. See for yourself here: http://www.seattle.gov/housing/levy/TACmembers.pdf
Yes, banks will make a small, market-determined profit on the loans that are needed to build these homes, as happens with any home, business or government structure that gets built anywhere. Pointing out the fact that some big banks will be handling some of the loans is perfectly fine. Going beyond that to declare that this will “kill homeless people”, maligning the measure as a giveaway to big banks and implying some kind of Bush/Cheney connection is beyond cynical, it’s an odious lie.
@Zan-O
I must to point out where you are incorrect (since you keep asking for substantive arguments in response to your claims).
Some affordable multi-family buildings have loans on them, just like individual single-family homes do, it is called a mortgage. These loans are made by banks. Mystery solved; conspiracy revealed. These loans are regular mortgage loans not sub-prime in any way. Sometimes even, nonprofits are able to access tax-exempt rates, meaning banks actually make less interest on loans to Levy-funded buildings. This is not a half-truth and I would be happy to show you the numbers and discuss the finances of one of these buildings any time you want. Just google my name and you can find me here on Cap Hill.
I want to reiterate – the Levy amount is not driven by “banker profits”. It is based on the last Levy production amount, adjusted for inflation and the change in construction cost since 2002. This Levy, if passed, will produce 2000 permanently affordable apartments for Seattle residents.
Levy-funded buildings cost money to build and the Seattle Housing Levy is but one source of funding to build them. The Levy is but one tool we use to solve the issue of homelessness and to house seniors, the disabled and low-income families. Please vote YES on Prop 1, as it is an essential tool that we have as a City to keeping our neighborhoods diverse and accessible to everyone.
It gets funnier and funnier, gang! :)
It started with them decrying everything I said as faux.
Then they gave a little, “okay you’re right on point 1, but wrong on points, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.”
Now I’m right on 1 and 2, but wrong on 3-6. LMAO!
Each message I post their retort concedes a little more to my position as they get caught and exposed in their own web of lies.
I suppose – if I had the time – within another half-a-dozen posts I’d finally have them admitting that this is the Seattle Banker’s Bailout Bill (which it is) and is a wolf in sheep’s clothing designed to line the fat cat pockets of the uber-rich, to play on the compassion of Seattleites by tricking them into voting for a banker bailout.
They think you’re fools. They think you are idiots and morons and they can pull this over on you. If you vote yes, you prove them right. If you vote yes they’ll be laughing at you between sips of champagne and tasty morsels of caviar high up in the Columbia Club; you’ve just written their multi-million dollar bonuses for the year. Bonuses that will go to pay for future bills like I-1033 and the No on R-71 campaign.
Yes, banks will make a small, market-determined profit on the loans that are needed to build these homes …
I guess working families have a different view of “small, capitalist, market-determined profit” than you, fat cat.
“Wells Fargo reported record profits of $3.2 billion, the company said Wednesday, nearly doubling the amount of money it made just a year ago. Despite facing an ongoing recession and rising loan interest rates, the San Francisco-based bank said its third-quarter results were lifted by strong performances in its mortgage lending business and other divisions, driven by taxpayer-funded home lending programs.”
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/news/companies/wells_fargo/?
Wells Fargo was one of 6 predatory lenders that wrote Prop 1 – the Bankers Bailout, Anti-Homeless initiative. Vote against giving multi-million dollars bonuses to people who will use them to fund future bills like the No on 71 campaign.
I’m unemployed, dude, as you’d discover if you followed the link on my profile to my blog. Hardly a “fat cat”.
Most people can distinguish the difference between saying something true in one breath and lying in another.
All I have left to say is that these repeated posts by Zan-O are factually incorrect. I hope voters are smart enough to realize this.
Zan – No one here is backpedaling. We have been pointing out a few problems with your analysis. For that you’ve called us fat cats (I’m pretty sure we’re not), bankers (last time I checked, no), and liars who are foisting a bailout (which we’re not and the Levy isn’t – you’re conflating two completely separate issues). Responding to your misinformation and mistaken argument is not a personal attack. We’re attempting to set the record straight and direct people to places to do the research.
But. let’s talk about selective sourcing: you keep posting the names and titles of six members of the steering committee, as if they were it They’re not and those of them I’ve met are nice people. The steering committee is 60 members large. The committee is comprised of more service providers than employees of banks. You mention that we think that people are stupid and then you immediately attempt to connect the Housing Levy to Bush/Cheney (under the assumption that people in Seattle dislike Bush/Cheney so much that we’ll lump everything together). You’re doing the very thing you’re accusing us of.
It may not have occurred to anyone prior to kstineback that it needed to be pointed out that apartment buildings need loans to be built. That seems obvious. Those loans, grants, personal donations, and other public funds allow many non-profits to complete developments that put people into housing. These projects keep people in housing. They allow people to afford housing an pay for other basics like groceries, gas, and childcare.
Everyone else, please VOTE YES on Prop 1. For more information go to http://www.yesforhomes.com. Check out the history of the levy for projects built, number of people housed, jobs created, and money spent (including additional sources of funding for projects – Levy dollars are leveraged at 3 to 1). Vote YES on Prop 1. Thank you.
Voters are smart enough to see the misinformation, insults, and hyperbole of Zan for what they are – a line of attack with no argument or facts to back them up.
Please VOTE Yes on Prop 1.
If it takes 3,000 words and zero third party sources to make your factually incorrect and unsourced argument it’s telling you’re hiding something. Three thousand words no one will ever read.
This is all I need: the millions in windfall bonuses the bankers who wrote Prop 1 will make will all go to fund initiatives like No no R-71. Vote ‘yes’ on Prop 1 if you are opposed to civil rights and are a homophobic bigot, or, alternatively, are LGBT with a deep-seated hatred of yourself. Vote ‘no’ on Prop 1 if you support equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation.
I provide sourced arguments and it gets the supporters of the Bank Bailout Bill so red-in-the-face angry that all they can do is beat their chests and hurl threats of violence.
Wells Fargo, author of the Seattle Bank Bailout Bill Prop 1, posted the single biggest profit in history today off of more predatory lending, the kind the Pro-Prop 1 crowd just finished saying they would only make a “small profit” from off Prop 1 …
… what was the Prop 1 crowds response?
Standing on the table, shrill screaming of names and personal insults.Is anyone here really dumb enough to vote for a bank bailout measure supported by a GANG for whom that’s the best they can muster?
Jaron987 – also a first-time poster … with GREAT hesitation my partner and I will probably be voting ‘no’ on Prop 1, too. We were both pretty much set for yes but – while I’m not 100% convinced of Zan’s arguments – he raises enough of a question that something about Prop 1 just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Kstinebeck, MichaelKelly, et. al. … you probably should quit now. Zan owns you and when I say “owns” I mean at a level absolutely unheard of – he is, literally, running circles around you. Unless you can find a big gun to come on here to take him on (or down) you should probably just stop posting altogether. Each one of your comments digs your cause into a deeper and deeper hole.