New York — 

The eight-story, 150-unit Elara at the Market looks like just another sleek apartment building in Seattle’s trendy Belltown neighborhood.

Blocks from Pike Place Market, the Elara opened six years ago with a lush private courtyard, a gym and wine storage lockers. The building is full of Amazon workers who pay more than $2,000 a month for a one-bedroom to live near the company’s headquarters.

But this upscale building with a rooftop deck overlooking the Puget Sound recently transformed into something more likely to conjure images of high-rise public housing in the US or Soviet-style concrete housing blocks: government-owned housing for low-and middle-income renters.

Seattle believes the affordable housing model has left a void for middle-class households that earn too much to qualify for housing lotteries, but too little to pay for a market-rate apartment. The city’s solution is to create a social-housing model inspired by Vienna, where roughly half of residents across a wide range of incomes live in government-subsidized homes.

It’s not the traditional public housing the federal government built for low-income households during the 20th century. It’s also not affordable housing, privately-owned developments built with government subsidies and tax credits in exchange for below-market rents.

The Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), the city’s newly established public development authority, purchased the Elara for $61 million this month from a private owner.

While many cities and states are trying to climb out of the housing crisis by cutting regulations and relaxing zoning laws to entice private developers, a growing movement on the left wants the public sector to build social housing. The acquisition is the first step in Seattle’s effort to buy more than 1,000 apartments and build 600 new units of social housing for mixed-income households over the next five years.

Roughly 15 of the Elara’s units are vacant. The social developer held a lottery to fill them for people making up to 50% of area median income — $65,000 for a two-person household. It also froze rents on existing market-rate tenants for two years. Nobody’s being evicted, but as apartments turn over, they will be filled with lower and middle-income renters.

Bilal Durrani, who works as a manager at Amazon and has lived in a 600-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment at the Elara for a year, was surprised when he received a letter in the mail from his new landlord.

He wondered if public ownership would affect his rent or change who lives in the building.

He’s glad the building’s new owner froze his rent and eliminated storage fees. He’s happy to be a guinea pig in Seattle’s experiment — at least for now — and hopeful that social housing may help people struggling to afford the city.

“People always get freaked out when the government steps in, but I’m glad the city is doing something,” he said.

‘Wasted three years and $60 million’

Social housing has won strong political support on the left in Seattle in response to soaring housing costs. The average home value doubled from 2012 to 2022 to $945,000, while rents grew 75% to roughly $1,800 a month.

Voters in 2023 approved a ballot measure establishing a public developer to construct social housing for people earning up to 120% of area median income — roughly $138,000 for a single person.

Last year, voters approved a dedicated “social housing tax” to finance the effort, levied on businesses like Amazon and Microsoft who pay employees more than $1 million in salary annually. Revenue from the tax will fund the social developer’s acquisitions and development, and rents for higher-income tenants will subsidize lower-income neighbors.

But many development experts and business advocates in Seattle have criticized the social developer’s strategy. They say it’s ineffective, led by activists without experience developing housing, and siphons off resources that could go to building housing for people with lower incomes.

The tax generated $115 million this year, and critics believe that funding should go to building new homes or preserving existing affordable apartments for lower-income renters. Dozens of nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing providers in Seattle are reporting losses and have sold off their properties, risking that they become market-rate apartments.

“I think the Seattle Social Housing Developer should develop social housing,” said Jamie Madden, an affordable housing development consultant in Seattle and the author of “Bittersweet Lane: Creating Home(s) in the American Affordable Housing Crisis.” “They have wasted three years and $60 million and delivered rent control for residents who are not low income and 15 new apartments.”

Seattle’s model represents a sharp break from how the federal government has funded affordable housing in America since the 1980s: the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), which awards tax credits to private companies that construct housing for lower-income residents.

Social housing advocates believe this model is broken. LIHTC funding is limited every year, and projects financed with the credits have strict income eligibility limits. Tenants with incomes above 80% of area median income typically don’t qualify. Credits also typically expire after 15 or 30 years, at which point the building’s owner can start charging market rents.

Montgomery County, Maryland, an affluent suburb of Washington DC, pioneered the social housing model Seattle and other US cities are trying to replicate.

Montgomery County has used a $100 million fund to finance construction of new mixed-income, mixed-use developments. These projects do not require LIHTC credits or other affordable housing subsidies. The first building, the Laureate, opened in 2023 with a courtyard pool, theater and a gym.

“We were very inspired by them,” said Tiffani McCoy, the interim director of the Seattle Social Housing Developer.

But Seattle’s social housing push has had growing pains since it was formed in 2023. The social developer’s board has turned over and it fired its first CEO in January, installing McCoy.

The social developer wanted to acquire a high-end building in a hot neighborhood to dispel the idea that people who make less money “should only have access too lower-quality housing,” McCoy said. It was also less risky than buying a struggling property behind on millions of dollars of repairs.

But ultimately, McCoy said it’s about thinking about housing as a public good like libraries and roads.

“We don’t want to rely on the private market, which is ultimately there to create a profit off renters,” said McCoy. “We need a model in this country, like other countries across the world, that creates housing as public infrastructure.”

Despite San Diego’s abundant marine life, the region’s commercial fishing industry is in decline. 

In 2020, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography started an apprentice program to help reverse the trend — but the program has had mixed results, reports Deborah Brennan at our partner CalMatters.  

Globalization is partly to blame for the busted economics of San Diego’s fishing industry. Higher wages and stricter regulations in the U.S. mean that fish caught in other countries are often cheaper. A 2016 report found that just 10 percent of seafood consumed in San Diego is caught locally. 

Wages have plummeted for U.S. fishing captains and their crews in the last decade. A deckhand in San Diego can expect to earn between $15,000 and $50,000 per year. 

The apprentice program doesn’t just teach people to fish, but to navigate, repair engines and even business skills. It hasn’t been without success — despite a Covid hiatus. Of 11 graduates, 6 are still fishing. But some of the captains who said the program was necessary have also been reluctant to mentor apprentices. 

Peter Brownell used to be research director for San Diego’s Center for Policy Initiatives. He studied, incidentally, poverty. Wanting to transition away from a desk job, he entered the program and is now scratching out an existence on the water. 

“If you’re entirely reliant on commercial fishing for all your economic needs, that’s a hard puzzle to put all the pieces together to make that work consistently year after year,” he said. 

Read the full story here. 

Council Considers Junk Fee Ordinance

The San Diego City Council heard details of a proposed “junk fee” ordinance that would cap extra fees for renters and require landlords to disclose fees before a lease is signed.

The proposal, introduced by Councilmembers Sean Elo-Rivera and Henry Foster, would cap fees at no more than five percent of the price of rent. It would also prohibit things like charges for basic building operating expenses, such as pest control. 

“What I’ve heard is a general consensus around the transparency components and agreement that people should know what they’re going to be asked to pay,” said Elo-Rivera during a hearing on the fee Tuesday. “They should know that at the beginning of their search and before they sign a lease, not after.” 

The Council only heard details on the new proposal. It did not vote on the ordinance.

AI-Powered Humanoid Robots Take Over the Web

It’s always strange when a story you write starts spreading. This week, I’ve been watching it happen with a story we published about a local charter network that spent $500,000 on two ChatGPT-powered humanoid robots. 

I wasn’t shocked the story struck a nerve. It had a built-in, WTF factor that seemed guaranteed to draw eyeballs. But more importantly, it comes at a moment when people across the world are grappling with what it means to live alongside technology. It’s playing out in skirmishes over edtech, battles over data centers, and now the question of humanoid robots in the classroom.

The story has moved from the new media food chain. First came news aggregators like the New York Post, then aggregation scavengers you’ve never heard of, and now even AI aggregators, which create something akin to news hot dogs — if hot dogs used an excessive amount of subheads and bullet points.

Underneath that hollow feeding frenzy, though, are real, local news organizations. The reporters and editors report on the communities you love, because they love them too. If you haven’t already, you should consider supporting this one.

Rabbitholed

University Heights’ neon street sign — with its iconic trolley car logo — is set to go dark. 

Locals were warned recently that city workers plan to turn off the 30-year-old sign due to wear and tear. Burned-out neon had already left some portions of the sign nonfunctioning.

Members of the University Heights Community Association say the city’s to blame. They allege city officials have drained funds from the neighborhood’s Maintenance Assessment District, which would normally pay for repairs. Now, they’re pressuring the city to pony up for fixes.

But behind the faulty neon is the fascinating, 130-year-plus origin of the sign’s trolley logo. It commemorates a time before the city was carved up by freeways — and instead had a thriving network of streetcars extending from Ocean Beach to La Jolla and Chula Vista. Many of those cars were repaired at a warehouse located at the site of Trolley Barn Park, hence the name – and the sign.

The streetcar network had plenty of ups and downs, like when John Spreckles, the richest man in San Diego at the time and owner of the network, ordered his workers to secretly dig up the tracks under the cover of night due to a dispute with city officials. Here’s an interesting story about how the actual streetcars evolved over the years. 

The system ultimately went defunct in 1949.

What’s your take? Do you wish the city still had an urban streetcar system?

In Other News

• Two San Marcos residents say their homeowners association is violating their rights to fly American flags outside their home. But legal experts say people do have the right to fly their flags even in homes subject to rules by homeowners associations. (inewsource)
• Longer meetings are coming to San Diego City Hall. As part of a new set of policies to boost public participation, city officials will allow group presentations during online meetings. (Union-Tribune)
• Speaking of City Hall, the San Diego City Council will soon create an affordable housing preservation fund backed by $8.5 million. Along with other funding sources, the fund will work to preserve affordable housing. (KPBS)
• The former news director of KPBS, Terrence Shepherd, is suing the outlet, alleging he was wrongfully terminated after recommending a reporter be fired because they’d “staged a protest scene” during a television shot. Exactly what Shepherd’s claim of a “staged protest” entails isn’t entirely clear. A spokesperson for KPBS declined to comment on the situation. (Current)

The Morning Report was written by Jakob McWhinney, Mariana Martínez Barba and Will Huntsberry. It was edited by Will Huntsberry. 

Related Posts

OPINION: Alaska’s LNG future requires creative thinking

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Many Alaskans have grown increasingly skeptical that the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline is not moving forward because of its escalating cost. Early estimates placed the project near $44 billion; more recent figures — though unofficial — suggest costs approaching $60 billion or more. When projects reach this scale, uncertainty alone can stall even the most ambitious development plans.

That uncertainty is reflected in the caution shown by Alaskan major energy companies such as Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and BP. Their hesitation is not surprising: projects of this magnitude carry significant capital exposure, and investors require a clear path to profitability before committing. In practical terms, that means LNG prices would need to be high enough to recover costs and provide returns, even in a global market where competing supply — including underdeveloped reserves in Russia and elsewhere — continues to exist.

This cost pressure is also evident in current negotiations with prospective project partners. Currently, one example is Glenfarne, which has reportedly emphasized that state corporate taxes would need to be waived as part of any development agreement. While tax incentives are common in large infrastructure deals, the scale of the requested waiver raises legitimate questions about long-term public benefit and fiscal sustainability.

Alaska has faced similar debates before. During the Trans-Alaska Pipeline negotiations, tax structures were part of the broader discussion, but they were not treated as a condition that undermined the project’s feasibility. More recently, companies such as Hilcorp — now a major operator in Cook Inlet following acquisitions from BP — have benefited from favorable operating conditions, as a sub chapter S Corp, and therefore tax exempt.

Yet declining natural gas production in Cook Inlet has already raised concerns about long-term energy security for the Anchorage region, underscoring the need for new reliable supply sources. The central question is: if a project is only viable with extensive tax waivers and escalating public concessions, does it truly serve Alaska’s long-term economic interests? The state relies heavily on a limited set of revenue streams to fund education, transportation, and public services, including the Alaska Highway System. At the same time, Permanent Fund Dividend levels have become increasingly constrained. Against that backdrop, LNG development is often presented as one of the few significant new revenue opportunities on the horizon.

However, waiving broad categories of taxation for a single project could set a dangerous precedent with long-term consequences. Alaska must balance the need to attract investment with the responsibility to maintain a stable and equitable revenue base.

Infrastructure costs are only part of the challenge. Alaska’s unique land ownership structure — where the federal government controls roughly two-thirds of land within the state — adds complexity to large-scale development. This makes innovative approaches to transportation and energy export even more important.

It has been suggested that the proposed LNG line from the North Slope to Kenai be built in two phases. The first would be to build the line to initially serve the Fairbanks and Anchorage metro areas. Later, the final section, including the export dock, would be constructed on the Kenai. The drawback with this approach is the first section would not distribute enough LNG to cover operating costs or debt reduction.

An interesting group that continues to research the Arctic proposal of LNG by ice-breaking tanker to Asia is Oilak, associated with Lloyd Energy Company, with estimates of nearly 40% cost savings in transportation by the Arctic tanker route suggested.

Ice-breaking LNG tanker technology is already in use in Arctic regions, including Russia. Similar approaches could allow North Slope gas to reach Asian markets more directly. This would involve specialized loading facilities and seasonal shipping strategies designed around Arctic conditions.

During the 1967-68 period I worked in state government and during that time, we maintained a State office in Tokyo, Japan. The purpose was to promote Alaska resource potential to the Asian countries. This resulted in stimulating Alaska’s timber and fisheries industry, resulting in pulp mills in Sitka and sawmills in Ketchikan, Wrangell, Haines and Metlakatla, as well as several fish processing plants throughout Alaska.

I believe there is an opportunity to consider international equity partnerships in any LNG proposal. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan, as well as other major LNG importers, could potentially participate as investors in infrastructure development in exchange for long term supply agreements. Similar models have been used in Alaska’s resource history, including earlier investment in timber, pulp and sawmills and fisheries operations across Alaska. Our state’s presence in Tokyo, as I’ve indicated, helped facilitate trade relations and market development.

These kinds of partnerships are not without complexity, but they reflect a broader truth: large-scale resource development increasingly requires creative financing structures and shared risk models.

Ultimately, the most expensive component of any LNG strategy is not just production, it is transportation to market. Whether through pipelines, rail systems, or Arctic shipping corridors, the chosen infrastructure path will determine the project’s viability more than resource availability itself.

Alaska should be cautious about allowing enthusiasm for a single project structure to override broader fiscal considerations. The goal should not be development at any cost, but development that strengthens the state’s long-term economic foundation. I believe if consideration of the potential of the Alaska Arctic tanker route were given genuine support by our governor and the legislature, the Arctic route would advance far beyond the current debate over foreign tax forgiveness. The state would generate greater revenue from the cost savings on transportation alone. Let’s take a look at how they are doing it from the Russian Arctic.

Frank Murkowski is a former U.S. senator and Alaska governor.