District 3 voters showed some of the strongest support in the city in the February election that established a new social housing developer at Seattle City Hall. And a few key voting trend borders within the district were breached including the vaunted E Republican line.
The precinct by precinct results from the February special election have been finalized and mapped by analysts. They follow some familiar general patterns of approval for progressive causes and candidates including Seattle’s propensity for voters in its waterfront regions to separate themselves from the core of the city.
Overall, D3 voters supported I-135 to establish a public social housing developer at the second highest rate in Seattle, trailing only the south’s District 2. 65% of District 3 ballots were cast with a “yes” vote vs. 57% across all voters. The initiative won every district in the city with only West Seattle’s District 1 cutting things close at 50.1%.
The D3 area including Capitol Hill, the Central District, and surrounding neighborhoods also placed second in terms of turnout at 36%, trailing only the northwest’s District 6, according to analysis from @andrewmhong. That potent mix of relatively high turnout and high support, by the way, shows why D3 is an absolute must win for any progressive candidate hoping to win a citywide seat in Seattle.
A core of support around 24th Ave E
A look at the maps reveals the I-135 vote also breached some strong political divides in District 3 including the E Republican line that has been a marker in recent city council and mayoral votes as the wealthier, more single family housing-dominated areas of the district’s north have tended to back more conservative and business-focused candidates. That line, basically, held again in 2021’s recall vote defeated by Councilmember Kshama Sawant.
In the I-135 vote to establish a public developer to acquire and take over management of existing properties for affordable housing while also developing new projects, pockets of support formed above E Republican and coalesced around the Montlake neighborhood. Eastlake, set to be fully part of D3 in the most recent redistricting, also showed strong support for I-135. The initiative, however, mostly failed to penetrate the Lake Washington waterfront.
With I-135 victorious, CHS reported here on what is happening next with the process.
Now attention turns to which map will take shape in this year’s city council races as D3 candidates vie for the August primary and the top two go through to November. The E Republican line has been breached on an issue of housing and equity. Which candidate can take advantage of the opportunity?
Final per-precinct data for #YesOnI135 are now available. In the final data, "Yes" on social housing in Seattle pulled away, winning by 14 points.#WAelex #SeaElexhttps://t.co/JXrgCxc6nA pic.twitter.com/jH8MOtEE7q
— Jason Weill (@J2XL) February 28, 2023
Final results for 2023 @houseRneighbors I-135 social housing initiative by precinct & council district.
7/7 districts voted YES in a low-turnout election. Good news for lefties running for city council in ‘23.
D1’s open race appears to be the hottest contest this year. pic.twitter.com/h5MKmdzjwy
— Andrew Hong (he/him) (@andrewmhong) February 28, 2023
Thanks to Jason Weill for creating the King County WA February 2023 Special Election Final Results Tableau visualizations and making them available for all to publish and learn from.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
Fitting name for the street for all those beyond that line. The red on that map makes me feel hopeless for this city sometimes. The techies and boomer coalition against the homeless is real.
Its so disheartening to live in the thick of the city and enjoy doing so because of the sheer amount of social potential, and all these on these neighbors at the richie edges are like ‘we arent part of the city and want to remain a podunk fishing village with downtown amusements’
Do you understand what it meansthe approval of social housing? Do you see any difference from public housing? I don’t. Does Seattle have a budget for that? To tax more private citizens and corporations until they all will be out from the city? Are you planning to provide the housing for every person who will move here as fast as possible when they hear about this opportunity? The city will be flooded with homeless from other states. This program should be on the federal level or state level, in every state, so the program would be available only for residents. Just because someone has a ownership of the property in Seattle, it doesn’t mean the city can burden them constantly with the new taxes. Many owners struggling themselves, but misunderstanding of the situation make people vote for clearly very expensive projects. Definitely wrong, unless it proves otherwise.
I would like to see the “private citizens” and corporations function when they completely price out most of the labor they rely on for daily functions… This is already hitting private industry in lots of areas and we are starting to see basic services lacking because it’s impossible to find people who can work these positions and afford to live in the city…
Unfortunately the social housing group is already considering using the property tax as a funding source. That will price more lower wage workers out of the city. If it’s going to work they have to find other means of funding or it will create the opposite effect of it’s intention.
It’s funny how those that complain about a $10 Big Mac oppose policies that literally will lead to a $10 Big Mac.
FFS – no it isn’t. Please exit your echo chamber.
Very few people are “against the homeless.” It is true that some people are against endless requests for more money to throw at the problem in ill-advised, ineffective ways without any accountability. Assuming that people who don’t share your views are evil and amoral seems like a very sad way to live, plus not likely to lead to solutions. God bless you!
Looking at those NIMBY’s in Magnolia, QA, West Seattle and Madison Valley
Gross.
Excuse me, Madison Valley is all green in that map. It’s Madison Park you have an issue with.
Why is it “NIMBY” or “techie” or “boomer” or “gross” to require half a plan to vote something in? Fiscal responsibility is good for any cause, because it makes it viable long term, both practically and socially. This initiative deceptively stated a cost to the average homeowner to effectively fund the salary of a single city employee to “get the ball rolling” on social housing. I’m sorry, but I do not trust that this won’t become something that we are once again punting to property taxes to solve, falling back on the political narrative that the people voted for it so we must now figure out how to fund it. COMPLETE THE RESEARCH. Explain how it will work. Voters, please expect more from these things before you approve them. Please stop assuming that anything that has made it to the ballot must already be vetted.
And the divisive comments coming from ourneighbors is disheartening. This neighborhood used to be much more friendly and happy, and now there’s hatred, name-calling, and bitterness towards those who don’t share 100% of our views. I invite those who are grossed out by those who have different beliefs from them to aim to build a bridge and practice kindness and acceptance of diverse points of view
Mostly out of town or paid trolls posting. It’s easy to tell when you compare the ratio of troll comments to actual voting statistics.
In a strange way, it’s a testament to CHS’s popularity. The more popular, the more trolls. It’s sadly the situation of the internet today.
The ultra wealthy multi millionaires can build a bridge by paying their fair share to help homeless. Instead they vote against it. So much for the wealthy and “bridge building” 🤷🏽♂️
Meh, the “E Republican line” is so clickbait-y. 90%+ of residence on either side of the line have voted for the Democrat candidate in at least the last five presidential elections. If the road was renamed to “E Relatively More Moderate Democrat St” then Justin might be onto something.
I hope everyone complaining about funding sources supports adding income tax to WA, because I do. They add things to property tax because it’s one of the few ways to generate money, and sales tax is incredibly regressive.
Exactly. Without an income tax we just don’t have much wiggle room to pick and choose our revenue sources. I’d love to be able to vote no on regressive sales tax hikes, but I can’t. (Btw, whatever happened to that big tax reform task force project from a few years back? It seems to have vanished without a trace.)