By Carolee Colter and John V. Fox, Seattle Displacement Coalition:
Over the years we’ve heard some neighborhood activists claim that Southeast Seattle has “become the dumping ground” for the city’s social services and low-income housing. They allege this has something to do with the greater incidence of poverty there than elsewhere in the city. Crime, they say, is the inevitable result. Stop giving us more than our share, they say.
We’ve also heard fears that because of these services and housing, Southeast Seattle has become a “magnet” attracting poor people from out of state to congregate in this community seeking all these great programs. Some of this sentiment fueled opposition to Casa Latina’s ill-fated plan to relocate to North Rainier, as well as resistance to the Downtown Emergency Service Center’s successful homeless housing project in Columbia City. And we fear it may fuel opposition to the new housing levy on the fall ballot.
As neighborhood activists ourselves, we certainly understand such concerns. But the facts show that Southeast Seattle has not been a recipient of an “unfair share” of low income housing nor would it be accurate to call such development a social burden.
We requested, and were able to secure, a small sum in the 2007 city budget for a study on the need for low-income housing in Seattle. Among other things, that study looked at the distribution of subsidized units around town. These are so-called “hard units,” actually constructed to serve as low-income housing, as opposed to “soft units” in the form of vouchers that tenants take wherever they can find an affordable rental.
Of the 20,000 subsidized hard units in the city, 50% are located in the “Center City,” i.e. downtown, Capitol Hill and Pike-Pine. Only 16% of the total are located in Southeast Seattle. This is hardly a disproportionate amount. Also note that only about 11% of all housing in Southeast Seattle is subsidized compared to 26% in the Center City.
On the other hand, it would be accurate to say there is an over-concentration of Section 8 vouchered low-income households living in otherwise unsubsidized privately owned rentals in Southeast Seattle. But this problem is unrelated to the production of subsidized housing built in Southeast Seattle, and unrelated to the levy since few levy dollars will go to subsidize tenants’ rents.
The over-concentration of households with Section 8 vouchers in Southeast Seattle is due principally to two related factors. First, eligible households have a very hard time finding a unit north of the Ship Canal because rents there on average are much higher while vacancy rates on the few affordable rentals are lower. Consequently, they take their vouchers to West Seattle and Southeast Seattle in greater numbers.
Secondly, Seattle Housing Authority, the distributor of Section 8 vouchers, sets the payment standard too low. This is the threshold above which tenants with vouchers are forced to pay the difference between 30% of their income and the rent on the unit. The only place with a significant supply of rental units priced at or below the payment standard is Southeast Seattle.
Despite the concentration of vouchered low-income households and the relatively small (and declining) number of subsidized “hard” units in Southeast Seattle, these programs simply allow longtime low-income residents, including families, the elderly and people of color who already live there, to remain in their own neighborhood. Moreover, these programs only replace a portion of the affordable units being lost to demolition, conversion, speculative sale, increased rents–i.e. the forces of gentrification.
This resulting over-concentration of low-income households with vouchers in the Southeast Seattle is not addressed by opposing the housing levy. Instead it will be solved by going directly to SHA and holding them responsible for how they run the Section 8 voucher program, and by demanding that our city government do more to expand opportunities in the north end and to hold SHA accountable.
And we strenuously disagree with those who subscribe to the “magnet” theory–that the disenfranchised are flocking here from other parts of the country to take advantage of our generosity. Every survey (and there have been many over the years) shows that the vast majority of the poor are “us” – people born and raised in our own city/county and secondarily from our own state. Only a fraction come from out-of-state. But even if they did, why stigmatize the victims of recession and a failed economy?
In fact, without the housing levy to generate more homes for the poorest of the poor, there’s likely to be more homelessness right in our neighborhoods, including Southeast Seattle. More folks camping out in greenbelts and sitting on sidewalks in front of neighborhood shops and businesses.
Until we generate the critical mass to give neighborhoods more power over development, and secure city-wide land use and housing laws that more responsibly manage growth to prevent runaway gentrification and displacement, and until we require corporate developers to foot the bill to replace the existing housing they remove rather than taxpayers—until we achieve all that, the housing levy is one of the only tools we’ve got to reduce homelessness and ensure equal opportunity for housing in all neighborhoods.
Who to know, where to eat & what to do in one of America’s most diverse zip codes!
{ 46 comments }
Colter and Fox wrote:
“The over-concentration of households with Section 8 vouchers in Southeast Seattle is due principally to two related factors. First, eligible households have a very hard time finding a unit north of the Ship Canal because rents there on average are much higher while vacancy rates on the few affordable rentals are lower. Consequently, they take their vouchers to West Seattle and Southeast Seattle in greater numbers.
Secondly, Seattle Housing Authority, the distributor of Section 8 vouchers, sets the payment standard too low. This is the threshold above which tenants with vouchers are forced to pay the difference between 30% of their income and the rent on the unit. The only place with a significant supply of rental units priced at or below the payment standard is Southeast Seattle.”
But this seems to contradict their own thesis — “South-End Not City’s “Social-Service Dumping Ground”
Sure seems intentional to me. Someone with some political power up above made the system and thresholds the way they are for a reason. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to predict the results of these types of program standards.
The south end needs a lot more gentrification and a lot less ridiculous comments from the displacement coalition. Please vote no on the housing levy. The south end is saturated because the north end has encouraged gentrification. Lets see how the neighborhood changes with light rail and influx of indiviuals engaged inthe workforce. Please vote no on this levy!
Those statistics may be accurate, but they are misleading. The authors are trying to make a case that is really tough to prove. To offer a better point of reference I’d be curious to see how many “hard” and “soft” units of subsidized housing (and section 8 vouches) are in neighborhoods like Queen Anne, Madison Park, Ballard, Wallingford, Greenlake, etc. You can’t compare SE Seattle to just downtown.
I’d like to see statistics on the saturation rates on north-end communities: Ballard, Queen Anne, Ravenna, etc. Yes, the Valley might have less than the city center, but how does it compare with other large residential districts?
Regarding Section 8 housing, an individual property owner must request eligibility for Section 8. There are perceptions about Section 8 renters that would keep a lot of property owners from requesting this service, not wanting to see decreased property values, etc. (<< perceptions, again.)
Huh? Seriously? I live in the south end specifically because I don’t want to live in Ballard or Fremont. There are areas (Mt. Baker, Columbia City, parts of Hillman City) that are getting closer and closer to this “ideal”.
If you want to live in a Ballard-esque area, move to Ballard. If you want to live somewhere with people of color (who are disproportionately low-income), you have to deal with the consequences of that.
We can’t have it both ways. If we want diversity, we need to offer services to provide for those individuals and families. If we want development, it comes at a high cost.
Not saying I have a solution, but it’s not as cut and dry as outlined in the comment above.
@Laurel
Careful, I think Fox has inherited some money and is now wondering what to do with the rest of his life. Let’s hope he hasn’t chosen to spend it saving the Rainier Valley. Or running for elected office.
Sadly, though I respect John and Carolee, they have accepted the city’s data at face value. Other credible analysts disagree strongly with the city’s data. The city’s data is carefully and deliberately skewed to produce the desired result: Southeast Seattle is NOT a dumping ground. In fact, the data clearly shows we are a dumping ground for all manner of social services. We have a poverty rate that is 3 to 8 times higher than West Seattle. We have the highest crime rate in the city. Businesses have been closing and leaving at a steady pace since 2004. No new market-rate apartments have been built here since 1974. (Why? Because our rents are artificially low due to the over-concentration of low-income residents).
I encourage the Seattle Displacement Coalition to seek an independent analysis of city data and you’ll be amazed by what you will learn.
@ RVP – I’m going to send you two of many charts that I’ve received through Public Disclosure Requests – it may be beneficial to post them for all to see. As the data shows, SE Seattle has 35% of the tenant based vouchers and only 10% or so of the land mass – - – areas like Laurelhurst, Magnolia, North Seattle, and West Seattle are barely on the radar screen given their land mass and availability to services. Let’s not forget Magnolia filed a lawsuit to prevent the economically challenged from moving into Fort Lawton which is an already developed Public domain……and this was for family housing.
Also, these charts only reflect the SHA tenant based vouchers and does not include project based subsidized housing which further compounds the issues at hand in SE Seattle.
The data speaks for itself……Amber, feel free to post the files if you’re interested.
@Tom A: Please do. Thanks!
BTW, what size t-shirt do you wear? We’ve got one on order for you.
Tom, I hear what you’re saying. But tell me you’re not really wanting Laurelhurst or any other nice, settled neighborhood in Seattle to destroy itself to make us happy. Unless you’re also suggesting that we back-pay on our SE property values & taxes to somehow make us equal.
That would mean I might have to come up with maybe $500,000 (or much more) to even us out. You got that kind of cash, Tom?
And if you did, wouldn’t you likely be living in Laurelhurst already?
It wouldn’t be fair to those who paid the cash to dump social services on them now, or any other time. This is a bad argument, dude.
We knew what we were getting into.
@ Mark’s friend – I have to answer this question……honestly, I’d be happy to pay a little more in taxes if I was robbed, vandalized, and assaulted fewer times in the last several years; Or if I could commute to a Park and Ride that didn’t cost me money so I could take my family downtown; or if I felt safe driving down or walking down the streets in some of our neighborhoods. It seems pretty basic to me that there is that diversification means something different to me than it does to the powers that be……diversification to The Mayor means separate the rich from the poor throughout the city.
I could deal with it if it was just me, but I recently started a family. The threats to my families existence make me sympathetic to the genetleman who could afford to move on and did…..he’d been burgled 5 times in 3 years……not the way I want to live Mark.
SSSL
@ SSSL – Ditto that.
@ Amber – you have 3 very interesting files in your email…..post them as you please.
@ Mark’s Friend – property taxes are in arrears – two years I believe. If putting social services into the aforementioned neighborhoods brings down their property values, so be it. No money would have to be given back by the city but going forward they may collect less.
And, wouldn’t it be nice if some of the economically challenged in our neighborhoods were able to realize a return on their investments? They probably already pay higher interest rates and higher insurance rates based on certain socio-economic factors…..for example, my insurance agent said I pay more in auto insurance because of where I live. If I lived on the eastside it would probably be lower.
Speaking of which, check out this article – and you tell me why SPD can’t do the same freaking thing? All of their crime stats are a few clicks away.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bellevueblog/2009648425_searchthenewbellevuecrimedatabase.html
Tom A.
To Mark’s Friend
1) The tax rate is the same across the city, you pay the same per $100K of value anywhere in the city. Yes, valuations are typically lower here and hence lower out of pocket. I haven’t seen to total tax base here by neighborhood, precinct or zipcode so without that data the discussion is one of different opinions.
2) Who is we? as in we knew what we were getting into? I sure as heck didn’t sign up for the deluge of social services down this way and the accompanying issues.
I as sure as heck am going to vote No on additional social services in the city. Until they are spread uniformly across the entire Puget Sound area I will not contribute to creating or intensifying ghettos. It is a disservice to those the services are provided to and does nothing to help lift them out of poverty. If anything this concentration only contributes to the crime problem as this is their best opportunity to make a buck. Take a look at Ron Sims brokered settlement with Westchester County (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/nyregion/11settle.html) .
3) Not sure why all the good things – lower crime, better shopping, etc. – associated with a higher income demographic is so virulently opposed by some in the South End. Don’t complain about lack of opportunity to rise above poverty when all we welcome is more social services. They don’t have a mission -i.e. their own jobs – if they are successful.
4) Laurelhurst is fighting the expansion of a Children’s Hospital. Draw your own conclusions as to the what type of neighbors these folks are. I’d take the Children’s Hospital in a heartbeat down here. It’s a shame the city didn’t work on concentrating places like that around the Light Rail. Mt. Baker station qualifies as an Urban Hub!
I don’t believe in demonizing Laurelhurst’s inhabitants any more than I can abide by ignoring SE Seattle’s. I also don’t believe in a city quarantine of low income and special needs inhabitants.
Lowering crime rates in the rest of the city by containing it to one part is not a success.
Nor have we raised our standard of living in this city by keeping the poor out of affluent folks’ line of sight. Hear no Poor, See no Poor=Is no Poor don’t fly with me.
@MF-
Classism and Racism are closely related. Are you suggesting a new Segregation Policy? Let’s put all the poor people together, erode by neglect the schools, crime rates and conditions (after all, they don’t pay as much taxes!) and then tell people if they don’t like it to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and set their sights on Laurelhurst?
Combine this line of thinking with yours (and others’) recent dismissal of John Fox can’t sincerely care about the poor because he isn’t…I may not agree with everything ‘ol John may have to say, but I also know that if poor people only want help from other poor people, well, that ain’t gonna work…
This “let’s divvie up the city into the poor parts and rich parts, and forget about each other” mentality is gonna get us all into deep doo doo.
I’m not saying Yes! to putting all the social services here. Maybe we have enough. What I am against is this idea that messing up a perfectly good neighboor elsewhere is going to make us somehow better off. It’s seems a bit childish and misguided to me.
As if I drove a clunker & the guy across has a nice car; and I thought the solution to this inequality was for them to have a clunker too.
Shouldn’t we concentrate on making this place better, instead of making other places worse? But true, it does make better blog material to stir up discontent.
hm. Interesting chain……….
@ Mark’s Friend, why is it that you think putting subsidized housing in neighborhoods other than SE would mess them up? Could it be that you’ve read studies that there are higher crime rates in lower income neighborhoods?
It sounds like most of you are on the same page – slow down the social service programs in SE Seattle.
@ editor – did you post the files?
Ralph
The bottom line is this. We all pay the same taxes in Seattle yet we get different outcomes in SE Seattle. We have experienced an increase in crime, gang violence, cuts in bus services, businesses are leaving SE Seattle, and increase in low income housing yet the other neighborhoods are not being marginalized. Please vote out the current political structure to see changes happen where we live.
Here’s another bottom line I just thought of:
All the people on this blog that I have any knowledge about who are anti-rail, anti-mayor, anti-social services…live in Mt Baker!
Now if there should be a culture war, shouldn’t it be between the Rainier Beach/Othello/Hillman City crowd against the Bakers?
There’s a much bigger difference between those camps than between the Rainier Valley in general and Laurelhurst, or West Seattle, or Magnolia.
Where are all the social services on those grand bluffs overlooking the lake? Or next to that great little Italian restaurant on the hill?
And tell me, should it make me feel better if I could succeed in getting some there?
Well, I reside in Columbia City so the earlier post does not apply to me.
TGIF MF! BYOIPA, YAY!
Yo, I reside in the Beach. And I stick to my assertion that this shouldn’t become a class (or “culture”, if that euphemism feels more pc to you)-war.
This ain’t about “let’s put a level III sex offender halfway house next door to the Bush school!, YEAH!!!” Its about resisting the temptation to put all types of special needs groups all together in one part of town in a nice, neat, little padded cell together. That would just be too cute. Like B. Bush showing up at the stadium after Katrina to declare,”Well now this is an IMPROVEMENT for THESE people!”.
ahem, excuse me as I suffer from occasional undiagnosed Tourette’s but WTFFFFFFFFF? Yeah that was just like summer camp, y’all.
No one’s trying to declare war on more affluent neighborhoods, and if they are, they are sorely misdirected. I don’t think the average person (let’s exclude the vocal CRAZY minority of every ‘hood, for the sake of this discussion, okay?) in any affluent neighborhood lacks the social responsibility gene to the degree that they’re willing to deny a thoughtfully, responsibly placed special needs group placement in their area.
Maybe its just me, but honestly most of the affluent people I know actually have a heart and do care about human beings. There’s a few wing nuts in every batch, we gotta grab back the conch.
Um, but not me. I don’t like public speaking.
“Well, I reside in Columbia City so the earlier post does not apply to me.”
The fact that you own property in Columbia City doesn’t take away from the fact that you sleep in Mt. Baker. But that’s neither here nor there.
@Ahow
“Yo, I reside in the Beach”
No you don’t, sister. You reside on the outskirts of Seattle, along the lake. Nobody in the Beach would mistake that for the Beach.
As I have nowhere else to place this, I have to tell a story:
I’ve been riding the train home, and when they get to Othello the voice says: “Now entering Othello station. Doors to my right”
But as I got closer to home, and was distracted (so I may not have heard it right), the voice said:
“Now entering Rainier Beach station. Word to your mother”
I could be wrong.
@MF
Friday night, and here we are…
Anyway “the outskirts of Seattle, along the lake” is not a popularized ‘hood descriptor I’m familiar with. And you’re the first to identify it as Mt. Baker as far as I’m concerned.
And are you claimin’ the outskirts of Seward Park by Pritchard as some kind of Ratzby’s armpit of the “Beach”?
“I’ve been riding the train home, and when they get to Othello the voice says: “Now entering Othello station. Doors to my right”
But as I got closer to home, and was distracted (so I may not have heard it right), the voice said:
“Now entering Rainier Beach station. Word to your mother”
I could be wrong.”
That is the funniest thing I have heard today!
For you I think they’re sayin’ “Now entering Rainier Beach station. Lay off the herb, would ya brother?”
23 was for 20
“And are you claimin’ the outskirts of Seward Park by Pritchard as some kind of Ratzby’s armpit of the “Beach”?”
I though you lived closer to Renton.
If you truly live near Pritchard Beach, we ought to hang.
I love to go down to the water, then run as fast as I can into to restored wetlands & pop out on the other end. Never been capped yet!
No, I meant you live near PB.
@ MF – I don’t believe you ever answered the question –
why is it that you think putting subsidized housing in neighborhoods other than SE would mess them up? Could it be that you’ve read studies that there are higher crime rates in lower income neighborhoods?
Oh, I don’t live in Mt. Baker and I do NOT support the Mayor.
Oh, Ralph/Anonymous/Pat/Q
I thought I did answer it, altough maybe not directly enough.
Neither you nor I want social services in our neighborhood. That’s normal. But wanting it in other neighborhoods instead smacks of tiny penises. Is that you? Is that me? NO!
What we want is for every neighborhood to thrive; for every neighborhood not to have crime; low taxes for everyone.
We’re like brothers & stuff.
And I’ll bet there’s a Mt. Baker connection somewhere.
You’re too negative to live anywhere else. Maybe Mallahan lives next door? Likely.
Mark’s Friend
- What’s negative about equality? That’s all I’m asking for – spread the services/vouchers/housing equally through the city/Puget Sound based on population. I want to give those with less a fighting chance to earn more versus being perpetual wards of the state. FYI, I’m in the south end of Mt Baker.
“@Ahow
“No, I meant you live near PB.”
Oh. I guess we won’t be hangin’ anytime soon.
I saved some Vashon kim chee just for the occasion. Best I’ve ever had. I’m almost to the bottom of the jar, after you said that shit.
None for you.
But your comments are still the ones I get up in the morning to read, although I don’t read them in the morning. I have coffee and cigarettes, then go to work.
I read your shit in the evening. And I love it.
Please keep it up.
“FYI, I’m in the south end of Mt Baker.”
The south end of Mt. Baker is Mt. Baker.
Just like the North end of Rainier Beach is the “Seward Park neighborhod” And the North end of Seward Park is the “Mt. Baker neighborhood”
I know what time it is.
I find it interesting that based on where some lives geogrpahically their opinion can be discredited. I live in North of Renton, South of I-90, West of Mercer Island, and East of West Seattle. Does it make my opinion any less important if I live in Seward Park as compared to the Othello Neighborhood? I hope not, because then I’d fear you’d be judging me by my skin color as well.
Ralph
The TIME?!?!
Cue the horns!
Daaaaaaaaah dah dadaduh dadaduh DA DAHHH
duh dadaduh dadaduh DA DAHHH
IIIIIIIT’s Tequila Time!
So since when did the south end of Rainier Beach become Renton? Last I checked I still have the lower speed limit and if I call Mr. PoPo, SPD shows up.
Why you say I no Citeee-Gurl?
So exactly which shit did I write that made you the kim chee Nazi?
Be careful. I may live a whole mile south of you but if you keep smokin’ that stuff and eatin’ that kim chee I’ll sniff your ass out. And I’ll take that stuff and eat your kim chee. Cuz that’s the kind of bitch I am.
Ralph, you are so full of bullshit it makes me want to hug you.
o no you dih ‘int.
It’s already huggin’ time?
Damn, I need more tequila. Quick.
@ MF – first I have to say that I have to laugh every time I use your initials as it fits with my particular neighborhood. I’m not full of Baloney, I’m serious. I’ve read quite a few of your comments this week and sometimes I think you write just to write. However, I think our opinions are fairly close with some minor philosophical differences.
Ralph
um. back up.
when did a hug, get to messin’ da rug?
I love white males. I married one. A big mutha.
ahem.
Anyway, that wasn’t a come-on, that was the mariachi tequila time hat dance song. Say it aloud (dadaduh) and you’ll know which song I mean.
And I hope those tissues are for the tears the kim chee’s bringin’ to your eyes.
Damn. Editor’s on her game 2night.
@Ralph
“sometimes I think you write just to write.”
That’s exactly what I think too.
I know there is something to fight for out there, but there is no one person I believe that will tell me what that is. Ahow come closest; and then there’s Denise and Amber. And of course Mark, who is Christ himself, incarnate.
And my dog. If I had a dog.
My perspective is the one thing we should all be collectively fighting for is better schools and school systems for the kids growing up in SE Seattle. Their future is our future and their success will be our success.
With that, I have to bid goodnight. It’s time for me to go get my brain sucked out by watching Jerry Springer – makes me feel good about myself……then I follow it up with the Daly show……love the satirical comparisons between Dick Cheney and Darth Vader.
RP
RP-
Word.
Don’t let JS take so much you don’t have enough left to appreciate Bill Maher.
‘Night
“I may live a whole mile south of you but if you keep smokin’ that stuff and eatin’ that kim chee I’ll sniff your ass out.”
Mark’s friend doesn’t smoke that stuff.
“Say it aloud (dadaduh) and you’ll know which song I mean. ”
I can picture the big shoe dancing.
I got sucked into watching “So you think you can dance”
We all have are weeknesses.
But my impression of the school debate was that the SE thought that every other school should suck as much as ours. This would continue my lame argument ad nauseum.
So g’night.
MarkB
Sorry. I said that before I knew about your day job (the Son of God gig). I didn’t mean to imply anything untoward regarding yourself or any of your devout followers. But I’m as good as an ATF hound when it comes to kim chee. All the way to Vashon.
“Sorry. I said that before I knew about your day job (the Son of God gig). ”
Yea, I’m still working on the whole “walk on water” thing.
A few of my “devout followers” do partake, and for some it should be mandated.
Mark is the only one I’ve ever met that can walk on water, then point out where the fish are hiding out. He’s never wrong, and is master of the jig.
I think he was the one Will Smith was thinking of of when he wrote “Gettin’ Jiggy Wid It. I could be wrong, but just ask George and Weezy.
Comments on this entry are closed.