Forecast cloudy for social housing in Seattle

How much faith do Seattle voters have in the city’s new publicly-owned social housing developer?

Two ballot measures that will be on February's special election ballot offer two very different answers, by either ramping up or holding back the organization's momentum.

The first ballot measure is the version social-housing backers want.

It creates a new tax on companies for every employee earning more than $1 million a year. Think of it as a tax on CEOs that would bring in an estimated $50 million a year.

The organization has startup money already, and the social-housing model is one that in theory, pays its own way. But to really ramp up, backers want to give the public development authority this new, dedicated revenue source.

Then there’s the City Council’s alternative ballot measure. Rather than the new tax, it dips into the existing Jump Start tax, and wouldn’t raise nearly as much money, bringing in only $10 million per year.

Councilmember Maritza Rivera sponsored the second measure.

“It won’t give a blank check to yet another new agency that does not have the experience creating housing,” Rivera said during a Council hearing on the issue Thursday.

The alternative measure would also prevent renters with higher-than-average incomes from living in social housing.

"I think there's a little confusion about why social housing has such a wide range of incomes," said community member Ryan Driscoll at a public hearing, while holding up a poster illustrating how the money is supposed to flow.

Social housing works by renting to people with a variety of incomes. Wealthier renters subsidize the poorer ones by paying more, and that extra income supplements or even replaces traditional funding sources for affordable housing, like government grants. This is why many describe social housing as self-sufficient.

RELATED: Social housing in Seattle? Arguments for and against it

With the wealthier renters gone, and residents potentially capped at 80% of the median income in King County, social-housing backers say the Council’s measure would doom social housing to financial failure.

At Thursday's hearing, fans of social housing worked to dispel what they saw as misinformation coming from the Council on topics ranging from the social housing board's development experience, to whether tapping Jump Start revenues would siphon money from traditional affordable housing developers, who appear to be uniformly against the council's alternative ballot measure.

"We're concerned that this alternative undermines our city's commitment to target the deepest levels of need, and will present voters with a false choice... we respectfully ask you to reject the draft alternative," said Sarah Dickmeyer, external affairs manager for Plymouth Housing.

Councilmember Tammy Morales has been alone lately in her defense of the public development authority's readiness to grow.

"Social housing is not a radical idea," she told the council earlier in the week. "It is an internationally proven model and countless jurisdictions are taking it up here in the United States," following Seattle's lead.

But others at Thursday's hearing described the council's alternative approach as one of good fiscal responsibility. One common theme councilmembers raised was that the social housing organization must demonstrate that its model works before receiving larger amounts of money.

Councilmember Maritza Rivera said upon showing proof-of-concept, the city council could increase its funding.

"This alternative provides for accountability and transparency, and holds the social housing [public development authority] to the same standards as our affordable housing community providers," said Lars Erickson on behalf of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce.

RELATED: New social housing plan gets first startup money

Social housing's preferred ballot measure "is the monorail of housing," said the Downtown Seattle Association's Jon Scholes, referring to a series of voter initiatives starting in 1997 that approved money to build a system of monorails across the city.

The monorail authority was able to purchase land across the city, before it went down in flames due to a combination of mismanagement and political opposition. Mockery of Seattle voters' monorail fever made its way onto a Simpson's episode.

Scholes suggested that Council had the opportunity to head off a similar outcome for social housing by offering the less costly alternative.

"While you don't have the opportunity or option to stop it in its tracks, you do have the opportunity to provide the public and voters with a reasonable and responsible alternative," he said. "I urge you to vote for that alternative."

In the end, the arguments to give voters the option to slow social housing's roll won the day. Councilmembers voted 6-1 in favor of sending both measures to the February ballot with only Councilmember Tammy Morales in opposition.