32nd Legislative District Democratic Organization
Endorsement Committee Chair, October 14, 2020
Concerns about King County Amendment #2
by Stephanie Harris, Chair, 32nd LD Endorsement Committee
_
At our last LD meeting on Wed. September 9th, Councilmember Rod Dembowski asked if he might be added to the agenda so he could present the proposed Charter Amendments from the King County Council. Every 10 years, the council may put forth amendments to its charter and must get approval by voters.
CM Dembowski was seeking the endorsement of the 32nd LD for the seven amendments. Until his presentation on these amendments, the 32nd LD had not known that they would be on the ballot. After discussion, it was decided that, except for one amendment, the 32nd would endorse six of the seven amendments.
The one amendment that was pulled from the slate for further discussion at the next LD meeting calls for selling public property in King County at below market rates -- to private developers under the guise of building low-income housing. There were questions raised during Q&A about the state constitutionality of giving public lands to private developers. One person asked specifically about article 16, which stipulates:
Article 16, School and Granted lands
Section 1*. DISPOSITION OF. All the public lands granted to the state are held in trust for all the people and none of such lands, nor any estate or interest therein, shall ever be disposed of unless the full market value of the estate or interest disposed of, to be ascertained in such manner as may be provided by law, be paid or safely secured to the state, nor shall any lands which the state hold by grant from the United States.*
In response to the question regarding article 16, CM Dembowski replied, "historically we have not been able to do this, but a bill on that was passed [HB 2382] in the last [state] legislative session. King County could not give it [public property] to a private developer who would not provide affordable housing."
Besides the several questions about state constitutionality, an important detail laid out in the state constitution, is that any amendment or changes to it, must be approved by a majority vote of the people. This is analogous to the requirement that any changes to the King County Charter also go to a vote for approval by the people.
Both the state legislature and the county council are operating without any standards here. It's just like giving $13 billion to Boeing and getting jilted anyway because there was not a binding contract or clawback. King County Amendment #2 overreaches, meaning that there's a large space between saying the legislature can use public property for the public good and a giveaway to private developers.
We need to recognize that if the poor were benefitting from our current policy of funding private development, we would see a reduction in homelessness and people barely keeping a roof over their heads. This is a policy failure. Every year, King County homelessness continues to rise. And, developers only make small number of affordable units available. Many of those are at 80% of median income when the hardest hit people less than 30% of median income. There's plenty of luxury housing, but not enough low-income housing.
Jerry Conk, 32nd PCO, said courts have gone along with decisions to give public land to developers when poor people are benefiting. But, he concluded, as an aside, that taxpayers gave Boeing billions without a return on their agreement not to leave town.
I believe that the state legislature and county council have engaged in overreach, which means_stretching the definition and moving the goal post. To go from 'we can allocate public funds for the public good' to: 'we can give private developers public land and public property for free,' is the definition of overreach. The outcome is that the public loses its land in perpetuity and private development is free to name the terms.
In any contract, reasonable terms are explicitly determined and negotiated in contractual proceedings. The public is the stakeholder here and has been excluded from these legislative and county council discussions. The public has not been properly informed about the provisions of this amendment. Where were the public hearings and the discussions in media for both the legislature's bill and the county council's decision to place Amendment #2 on the ballot?
A responsible negotiation on legislation investigates alternatives instead of settling on just one avenue. In business, this process is called "due diligence". An example of due diligence is to hold public hearings, which would reveal that we can and should keep public property public. Due diligence would also reveal that the constitution empowers the legislature to build public housing and to finance that housing.
Public-private partnerships have not benefited the public for 30 years, throwing more money at it won't change that. Private development is not providing affordable housing commensurate with our public investments. The lack of oversight is staggering, when the majority of development produces market rate housing and is allowed to define 'affordable housing' at 80% of market rate, with maybe a token number of truly low income units involved.
Developers may receive even thirty years of tax exemptions, and the public is in the dark about how long buildings or units will be at less than full market rate. People should know that a lot of the low-income developments from the 1960s and 1970s have aged out and have been upgraded to market rate, so privatization has removed that affordable housing stock. The public is simply not receiving a fair return on its investment.
The public needs to look at what options are available to the state. The constitution gives the legislature the power to simply build public housing. The constitution also provides for financial mechanisms to pay for public housing. We cannot proceed down the road of giving away the public treasure without examining alternatives that would cost less, be transparent, and maintain our public properties as well as build public collateral that can be used in the future.
What is being proposed by King County is to relinquish precious public lands in perpetuity when we know that the value of these public lands will continue to rise. We simply cannot, in good conscience, waste our public wealth and miss the opportunity to increase it in order to better serve the public.
I think this issue may explain why developers and real estate interests are pouring campaign funding into legislative races.
We need to slow this down and take time for ample public consideration. We need time for public hearings, to take public comments and to look at other options. We need to vote "no" and not support Amendment #2 as part of the slate for King County Charter Amendments. We need to have a fully informed public discussion, starting with a vetting in our 32nd LD Endorsement Committee.
We absolutely need to address this housing crisis like any other disaster. If we had 200K people unhoused because of an earthquake, we would mobilize public funds for emergency housing, social housing, medical care, food, etc., without prioritizing a giveaway to private development. Nobody should profit off of a humanitarian disaster.
In my view, we need to look to the state constitution for public housing and public financing. We can provide for the public good without siphoning public funds to for-profit developers.