1. SHARE/WHEEL, the homeless advocacy group, say they’ll resume sleeping outside City Council member Tom Rasmussen’s house soon. SHARE slept outside several council members’ houses late last year to protest the city’s refusal to give them $50,000, with no strings attached, to pay for bus passes to and from the shelters SHARE operates.
The city has offered the money, but says SHARE needs to guarantee it will keep its shelters open through the year in exchange. SHARE doesn’t want to do that, because they say they may run out of money. Thus, the standoff.
SHARE’s protests last year became controversial after PubliCola reported that several SHARE clients said the group told them they would be evicted from their tents or shelter beds if they refused to attend the protests, for which they could have been arrested.
2. The city council unanimously passed a resolution yesterday describing the qualities they want in a new director for the city’s office of housing, whose previous director, Adrienne Quinn, left earlier this year. Housing advocates worry that Mayor Mike McGinn plans to fold the functions of the housing office into other city departments.
The housing office, the resolution says, has “a unique focus on housing finance and housing policy and is a national leader in leveraging local dollars to yield housing for seniors, disabled people, the very poor, working poor, and people transitioning out of chronic homelessness.”
3. We have reported several times now that the state House is proposing to end a tax exemption for big banks. Currently, banks don’t pay tax on the interest they earn on first time mortgage loans.
The House wants to end the exemption–worth about $67 million to the state—for any interest over $100,000. The Senate doesn’t support the idea.
Neither do the banks. Yesterday, as the special session to reach a budget compromise began, the Washington Bankers Association sent a letter to lawmakers telling their side of the story.
In recent days there have been a number of assertions on blogs and among some special interest groups that the banking industry is escaping taxation in the current revenue proposals being considered by the Legislature. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The letter points out that banks will get hit by the lift on exemptions for business services and also pay about $63 million in the tax on out-of-state companies that do business in Washington state (part of this year’s batch of new revenue streams being proposed by the state).
As for the the House proposal to lift the exemption on interest income, the WBA letter says:
TweetThe WBA is opposing a repeal of the first mortgage deduction that exists in current law. Financial Institutions began paying the B&O in 1970. The Legislature made a policy decision at that time to encourage homeownership in Washington State, and thus made the decision to exclude first mortgage interest from taxation. First mortgage interest has NEVER been taxed in our State. The House has included in its tax package a proposal to tax first mortgage interest in excess of $100 million. This threshold is proposed in the hopes that most community banks would be exempt from this tax. The reality is that there are two significant community banks that would still be subject to this tax.
There is also an assertion that large national banks and the two mid-sized community banks should indeed pay this tax. It is important that lawmakers recognize these banks provide a significant majority of all mortgages in Washington State. Please also understand that these banks are in a better position to provide loans to first-time homebuyers and prospective homebuyers who have more challenging financial affairs. Creating a new tax on first mortgages will mean that these loans will become more expensive. At this time in our economy we should be encouraging home lending, not making it more expensive.
The City Council appears to be staking out Departments of the City that they want off-limits to coming cuts forced by the ballooning budget deficit. They have previously criticized the Mayor for not taking a more orderly approach to the budget cuts, but now it is they who are proceeding carelessly. The Housing Office must be preserved, more cops are required to police civility…where to these folks think the money is going to come from? Easy, we can close libraries and parks, raise water rates and electric rates, a police levy, there is no problem is there Richard, Tim, Jean?
I guess “Seattle's New Elixir” doesn't think it is worthy to mention that we have an election today.
Share has completely lost any credibility that they ever had in my mind. Bunch of extortionists.
First of all, if you have > $100 million in this area of revenue, you're not a “community bank” by any reasonable definition of the term.
Second, I'm surprised the banks didn't argue that even discussing a tax on mortgage interest has raised concerns in the bond markets, therefore raising the banks' cost of borrowing and thus increasing rates on struggling first-time homebuyers.
We've posted about the election for the King Conservation District several times now, including in yesterday's PubliCalendar
http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/15/i-can-hardl...
and in Thursday's Fizz
http://www.publicola.net/2010/03/11/the-most-im...
Again, for you Rob: There’s a “special” election tomorrow, for the King Conservation District board, and you can only vote at one of these six King County libraries: http://www.kingcd.org/new_ele_2010.htm
The Sierra Club wants you to vote for Max Prinsen, an environmentalist with a group called Save Habitat And Diversity of Wetland, and they’ll reward you with an invitation to their party for Prinsen, across the street from the Central Library downtown. Tuesday, from 5 to 8 pm, at Sazerac (1101 4th Avenue).
The Office of Housing actually has a dedicated funding source, the recently passed Housing Levy. I think it is interesting that McGinn wants to tinker with one of the most successful departments at the City – so much so that the Levy passed with 65% percent support. What other Levy has passed with this level of support?
I think Mary Embleton is the better and more qualified (and less ideological) choice. http://www.kingcd.org/elect/new_ele_2010-candid...
I think they testified in person in the House Finance Committee to those points about a week ego.
The Office of Housing receives NO General Fund. All their revenues must be spent for housing or their other major program, low income residential weatherization. There would be no point in cutting their budget. Therefore there are NO savings to be realized for the General fund from reorganizing or meging this department.
Thanks to Publicola, I and a few of my colleagues voted today. Where and when should I look for the results?
And now, by referencing this bogus argument for a third time, I have unduly leveraged the impact, thereby making even more homes unaffordable to more Washingtonians despite the best efforts of banks of all sizes.
The Seattle City Budget indicates that general funds are used for the department. The amount has declined in recent years. I suspect that the levy is being used to pay what had been paid by general funds in the past. Whether the vote permitted the use of the funds for that purpose is not clear.
Out of an almost $45million budget, Office of Housing receives a little less than $700k in general fund support.