Town Hall Meeting
May 12th, 2026 Seattle Social Housing Town Hall report.
A May 12 town hall regarding the Seattle Social Housing Developer revealed a shift from campaign slogans to complex charter amendments covering, finance, governance, and long-term lease structures. The proposed model features a mix of income levels and delayed resident governance, with the Seattle City Council facing a final up-or-down vote on the package.
Less About Slogans, More About Rules
The Seattle Social Housing Developer charter amendment town hall on May 6 revealed something very different from the simple campaign slogans many Seattle voters originally heard during the Initiative 135 push for social housing.
The virtual town hall was hosted by House Our Neighbors organizer Jeff Paul and featured interim SSHD CEO Tiffani McCoy speaking on behalf of the Seattle Social Housing Developer. The meeting focused heavily on charter amendments involving financing, legal authority, governance, commercial partnerships and lease structures.
The SSHD board has already approved the proposed charter amendments, which now move to the Seattle City Council for a final up-or-down vote. Council cannot amend the package and may only approve or reject it as submitted. Then it goes to voters.
Throughout the original campaign, voters repeatedly heard phrases like “publicly owned forever,” “resident governance,” “housing removed from speculation,” and “housing as a public good.”
The recent town hall felt much different.
One of the biggest topics involved resident governance itself. McCoy described delaying or restructuring portions of the resident governance system while SSHD continues building its administrative framework.
Another major issue involved eligibility and income enforcement.
During the discussion, McCoy described lease-style ownership models involving possible 20, 30, 40, 50, and even 99-year lease structures, including multi-generational transfers within families.
The conversation also revealed the other side of that structure.
McCoy explained that residents whose income changes outside the allowed range would need to sell their lease back to SSHD.
McCoy also discussed the possible future creation of hardship protections, but no finalized safety net system was presented for residents facing sudden job loss or financial hardship.
The proposed income distribution model discussed during the meeting included:
- 10% of units for households at 0–30% of Area Median Income
- 30% at 30–50% AMI
- 30% at 50–80% AMI
- 30% at 80–120% AMI
The model depends on maintaining a specific mix of income levels within the buildings, with middle-income residents helping financially support lower-income units.
The meeting also included discussions about commercial space inside SSHD developments. Under the proposed structure, SSHD leadership would determine which groups or organizations are allowed to occupy commercial spaces connected to publicly backed housing developments.
McCoy also openly discussed wanting to move quickly while strong political support currently exists within Seattle leadership.
It was one of the most revealing moments of the meeting.
SSHD leadership clearly believes they are building something important for Seattle — something many people believe cannot realistically be done at all.
The further the project moves from campaign slogans into real governance and enforcement, the more complicated the system begins to look.
Campaign slogans are simple.
Running a powerful public housing institution clearly is not.