The Summit

The Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD) special board meeting on May 6 offered a look at what happens when a political movement begins functioning as a governing body.

During the meeting, board members discussed charter amendments, committee structure, resident representation, financing tools and future housing projects. The conversation moved back and forth between the group’s original ideals and the practical realities of running a public development authority.

16 charter amendments were introduced to the board. It’s up to the Seattle City Council, then onto voters, to approve amendments to the SSHD charter.

Several proposed amendments focused on keeping public control while giving the organization more flexibility.

One change would allow the SSHD to use buildings as collateral for debt and bond financing. Interim CEO Tiffany McCoy said the goal was to, “accelerate the production of social housing.” The amendment creates an exception to the rule about social housing never being sold or transferred to a private entity or public private partnership — accommodating things like foreclosure if the SSHD ever defaults.

Another amendment changed the definition of “restorative justice”. The new definition articulates the SSHD, “address unmet needs connected to the conflict, harm or issue [within restoring relationships].”

Another proposed change would allow privately owned commercial condo space in some developments while keeping the housing publicly owned.

“We are still always going to own the housing on our own forever,” McCoy said. “It will be permanently affordable.”

McCoy went on to say the commercial condo structure would apply only to commercial space, not social housing units. She also described safeguards, including a right of first refusal, indexed pricing and restrictive covenants.

“We do not want to be baking in market speculation in our commercial space,” she said.

The meeting also included discussion about possible future resident ownership models tied to the proposed charter amendments. During one exchange, board member Becca Book asked whether a lease-based system could still allow residents to build some financial security over time.

McCoy responded that the amendments themselves do not create a final ownership program, but could allow the board to explore future lease-based structures while keeping the buildings under public ownership.

“It is such a new concept for the United States,” McCoy said. “This is more what international models do." As one possible example discussed during the meeting, McCoy described a long-term lease structure, potentially up to 99 years, in which commercial condominium units would remain publicly owned while allowing limited resale value and intergenerational transfer during the lease term.

McCoy also spoke to an amendment seeking “a pause” on launching resident constituency and governance councils until bylaws and rules are in place.”

“We are not trying to push this out for years,” she said. “We just want to have a pause to where we pass bylaws for the constituency.”

She added, “We don’t want to start that process when we, as an agency, are not ready for resident governance.”

Considering the delay in having social housing tenants participate in SSHD elections, the board also discussed an amendment allowing current Renters’ Commission-appointed members to serve out their terms, rather than stepping down upon the first acquisition.

“As a drafter of this initiative, it was never the intent for the Renters’ Commission members to not be able to finish out their term on the board,” McCoy said.

The board ultimately voted to recommend the full package of 16 charter amendments to Seattle City Council.

More Business

Ryan Driscoll said committees will begin providing monthly written updates in board packets, rather than spending as much live meeting time on verbal reports.

“We’ll create space in each one of our regular meetings for questions,” Driscoll said. “So it’ll essentially be like a ten-minute committee question time.”

The Executive Committee charter was also updated to clarify its role. According to the meeting summary, the committee would help coordinate the board and committees, maintain availability for time-sensitive board-only issues and coordinate agenda creation with the board chair, CEO and assigned staff.

At several points, board members paused to clarify what had already been approved and which governance rules were currently in effect.

When asked whether executive committee members needed to be reapproved under the updated charter, one board member responded, “We voted on those at our last sessions.”

During discussion about Real Estate Committee membership structure, Driscoll acknowledged there were “like two or three different versions of it,” adding that the issue would likely be resolved in a future charter or committee assignment vote.

Big, Big, Big News Coming

Board members also noted that the organization may soon face another major milestone. During the meeting, McCoy reminded members that the next regular board meeting could include a vote on the organization’s first potential property acquisition.

“We will also be voting on a first potential acquisition, which is a big, big, big deal for us,” McCoy said.

The meeting reflected an organization still building itself while moving toward real-world operations. The language of activism and public accountability remained central, but now these matters sit beside discussions of debt, oversight, committee authority and institutional structure.

At the close of the meeting, after all of the discussion about governance, procedure and institutional structure, board chair ChrisTiana ObeySumner joked:

“I don’t have a gavel, I just have a little rock.” The meeting was adjourned.

Read More Reports on Seattle Social Housing Meetings
READ MORE SUMMIT