Jonathan Swift Offers A Modest Proposal for Seattle’s Homeless Encampments
I really appreciate the steady and balanced coverage of Seattle’s ongoing discussion and debate over homeless encampments by Erica Barnett of C is for Crank (see her latest post, “Council Skeptical of Plan That Could Require Moving the Homeless Out of Town“), Josh Feit of Publicola, and Heidi Groover of The Stranger. This is a tough issue, but anyone paying attention would have to agree that short of transferring residents of encampments to someplace else either to another town, an island, or some other plane of reality, the problem of homelessness isn’t going away. That’s why I’ve said we’ve got to work with the people who are camping and support a transition.
But that idea, of sweeping the camps away and moving the homeless someplace else, made me think of the one guy who has not weighed in is my hero, Anglican scholar and cleric Jonathan Swift. Swift is the author of at least one piece of satire you might remember, Gulliver’s Travel’s. Brobdignians and Liliputions and all that stuff makes for a great cartoon, but the satire is inaccessible: Seattle audiences don’t care about Whig and Tory unless is reality tee vee.
But Swift came through. I found this in my inbox this morning:
A Modest Proposal
For Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick
I know, I know. He needs to make some edits. He’s so obsessed with Ireland and all that. But with a few changes and edits here and there, boom!, we’ve got the satire we need.
A Modest Proposal
For Preventing the Homeless now encamped on Publick land in Seattle, from Being a Burden on Neighbors
or the Mayor, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick
No question, using the people in the homeless encampments for food is the best idea I’ve heard in a long time. Swift even nails the Tim Burgess angle, the Councilmember who is glad to tell you who you can rent your private property to, for long and how much, tell you how much you should pay people per hour and how many hours they can work, and how many sinks you should have but who just can’t abide the thought of the public use of public property to address a crisis:
I Profess in the sincerity of my Heart that I have not the least personal Interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary Work having no other Motive than the publick Good of my Country, by advancing our Trade, providing for Infants, relieving the Poor, and giving some Pleasure to the Rich. I have no Children, by which I can propose to get a single Penny; the youngest being nine Years old, and my Wife past Child-bearing.
You can read Swift’s whole post below or at this link. I sent him my obvious edits, especially about his spelling which is just ridickulous. Maybe we’ll post that later.
——————-
[1] It is a melancholly Object to those, who walk through this great Town, 1 or travel in the Country, when they see the Streets, the Roads, and Cabbin-Doors, crowded with Beggars of the female Sex, followed by three, four, or six Children, all in Rags, and importuning every Passenger for an Alms. These Mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelyhood, are forced to employ all their time in Stroling, to beg Sustenance for their helpless Infants, who, as they grow up either turn Thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native Country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, 2 or sell themselves to the Barbadoes. 3
[2] I think it is agreed by all Parties, that this prodigious number of Children, in the Arms, or on the Backs, or at the heels of their Mothers, and frequently of their Fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the Kingdom, a very great additional grievance; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these Children sound and useful Members of the common-wealth would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his Statue set up for a preserver of the Nation.
[3] But my Intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the Children of professed beggars, it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of Infants at a certain Age, who are born of Parents in effect as little able to support them, as those who demand our Charity in the Streets.
[4] As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many Years, upon this important Subject, and maturely weighed the several Schemes of other Projectors, 4 I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation. It is true a Child, just dropt from it’s Dam, 5 may be supported by her Milk, for a Solar year with little other Nourishment, at most not above the Value of two Shillings, which the Mother may certainly get, or the Value in Scraps, by her lawful Occupation of begging, and it is exactly at one year Old that I propose to provide for them, in such a manner, as, instead of being a Charge upon their Parents, or the Parish, 6 or wanting 7 Food and Raiment for the rest of their Lives, they shall, on the Contrary, contribute to the Feeding and partly to the Cloathing of many Thousands.
[5] There is likewise another great Advantage in my Scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary Abortions, and that horrid practice of Women murdering their Bastard Children, alas! too frequent among us, Sacrificing the poor innocent Babes, I doubt, 8 more to avoid the Expence, than the Shame, which would move Tears and Pity in the most Savage and inhuman breast.
[6] The number of Souls in this Kingdom being usually reckoned one Million and a half, Of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand Couple whose Wives are breeders, from which number I Substract thirty Thousand Couples, who are able to maintain their own Children, although I apprehend 9 there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the Kingdom, but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand Breeders. I again Subtract fifty Thousand for those Women who miscarry, or whose Children dye by accident, or disease within the Year. There only remain an hundred and twenty thousand Children of poor Parents annually born: The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared, and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present Situation of Affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed, for we can neither employ them in Handicraft, or Agriculture; we neither build Houses, (I mean in the Country) nor cultivate Land: 10 they can very seldom pick up a Livelyhood by Stealing until they arrive at six years Old, except where they are of towardly parts, 11 although, I confess they learn the Rudiments much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only as Probationers, as I have been informed by a principal Gentleman in the County of Cavan, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two Instances under the Age of six, even in a part of the Kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that Art.
[7] I am assured by our Merchants, that a Boy or Girl, before twelve years Old, is no saleable Commodity, and even when they come to this Age, they will not yield above three Pounds, or three Pounds and half a Crown at most on the Exchange, which cannot turn to Account either to the Parents or the Kingdom, the Charge of Nutriments and Rags having been at least four times that Value.
[8] I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be lyable to the least Objection.
[9] I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy Child well Nursed is at a year Old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome Food, whether Stewed, Roasted, Baked, or Boyled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a Fricasie, or Ragoust. 12
[10] I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand Children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for Breed, whereof only one fourth part to be Males, which is more than we allow to Sheep, black Cattle, or Swine, and my reason is, that these Children are seldom the Fruits of Marriage, a Circumstance not much regarded by our Savages, therefore, one Male will be sufficient to serve four Females. That the remaining hundred thousand may at a year Old be offered in Sale to the persons of Quality, 13 and Fortune, through the Kingdom, always advising the Mother to let them Suck plentifully in the last Month, so as to render them Plump, and Fat for a good Table. A Child will make two Dishes at an Entertainment for Friends, and when the Family dines alone, the fore or hind Quarter will make a reasonable Dish, and seasoned with a little Pepper or Salt will be very good Boiled on the fourth Day, especially in Winter.
[11] I have reckoned upon a Medium, that a Child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar Year if tollerably nursed encreaseth to 28 Pounds.
[12] I grant this food will be somewhat dear, 14 and therefore very proper for Landlords, 15 who, as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children.
[13] Infant’s flesh will be in Season throughout the Year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave Author 16 an eminent French physitian, that Fish being a prolifick Dyet, there are more Children born in Roman Catholick Countries about nine Months after Lent, than at any other Season, therefore reckoning a Year after Lent, the Markets will be more glutted than usual, because the Number of Popish Infants, is at least three to one in this Kingdom, and therefore it will have one other Collateral advantage by lessening the Number of Papists among us.
[14] I have already computed the Charge of nursing a Beggars Child (in which list I reckon all Cottagers, Labourers, and four fifths of the Farmers) to be about two Shillings per Annum, Rags included; and I believe no Gentleman would repine to give Ten Shillings for the Carcass of a good fat Child, which, as I have said will make four Dishes of excellent Nutritive Meat, when he hath only some particular friend, or his own Family to Dine with him. Thus the Squire will learn to be a good Landlord, and grow popular among his Tenants, the Mother will have Eight Shillings neat profit, and be fit for Work till she produceth another Child.
[15] Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the Times require) may flay the Carcass; the Skin of which, Artificially 17 dressed, will make admirable Gloves for Ladies, and Summer Boots for fine Gentlemen.
[16] As to our City of Dublin, Shambles 18 may be appointed for this purpose, in the most convenient parts of it, and Butchers we may be assured will not be wanting, although I rather recommend buying the Children alive, and dressing them hot from the Knife, as we do roasting Pigs.
[17] A very worthy Person, a true Lover of his Country, and whose Virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased, in discoursing on this matter, to offer a refinement upon my Scheme. He said, that many Gentlemen of this Kingdom, having of late destroyed their Deer, he conceived that the want of Venison might be well supplyed by the Bodies of young Lads and Maidens, not exceeding fourteen Years of Age, nor under twelve; so great a Number of both Sexes in every County being now ready to Starve, for want of Work and Service: And these to be disposed of by their Parents if alive, or otherwise by their nearest Relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend, and so deserving a Patriot, I cannot be altogether in his Sentiments, for as to the Males, my American acquaintance assured me from frequent Experience, that their flesh was generally Tough and Lean, like that of our School-boys, by continual exercise, and their Taste disagreeable, and to Fatten them would not answer the Charge. Then as to the Females, it would, I think, with humble Submission, be a loss to the Publick, because they soon would become Breeders themselves: And besides it is not improbable that some scrupulous People might be apt to Censure such a Practice, (although indeed very unjustly) as a little bordering upon Cruelty, which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any Project, how well soever intended.
[18] But in order to justify my friend, he confessed, that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Sallmanaazor, 19 a Native of the Island Formosa, who came from thence to London, above twenty Years ago, and in Conversation told my friend, that in his Country when any young Person happened to be put to Death, the Executioner sold the Carcass to Persons of Quality, as a prime Dainty, and that, in his Time, the Body of a plump Girl of fifteen, who was crucifyed for an attempt to Poison the Emperor, was sold to his Imperial Majesty’s prime Minister of State, and other great Mandarins 20 of the Court, in Joints from the Gibbet, 21 at four hundred Crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young Girls in this Town, who, without one single Groat 22 to their Fortunes, cannot stir abroad without a Chair, 23 and appear at a Play-House, and Assemblies in Foreign fineries, which they never will Pay for; the Kingdom would not be the worse.
[19] Some Persons of a desponding Spirit are in great concern about that vast Number of poor People, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to imploy my thoughts what Course may be taken, to ease the Nation of so grievous an Incumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known, that they are every Day dying, and rotting, by cold, and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the younger Labourers they are now in almost as hopeful a Condition. They cannot get Work, and consequently pine away from want of Nourishment, to a degree, that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common Labour, they have not strength to perform it, and thus the Country and themselves are happily delivered from the Evils to come.
[20] I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the Proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.
[21] For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the Number of Papists, with whom we are Yearly over-run, being the principal Breeders of the Nation, as well as our most dangerous Enemies, and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the Kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their Advantage by the absence of so many good Protestants, 24 who have chosen rather to leave their Country, than stay at home, and pay Tythes against their Conscience, to an idolatrous Episcopal Curate.
[22] Secondly, the poorer Tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by Law may be made lyable to Distress, 25 and help to pay their Landlord’s Rent, their Corn and Cattle being already seazed, and Money a thing unknown.
[23] Thirdly, Whereas the Maintainance of an hundred thousand Children, from two Years old, and upwards, cannot be computed at less than Ten Shillings a piece per Annum, the Nation’s Stock will be thereby encreased fifty thousand pounds per Annum, besides the profit of a new Dish, introduced to the Tables of all Gentlemen of Fortune in the Kingdom, who have any refinement in Taste, and the Money will circulate among our selves, the Goods being entirely of our own Growth and Manufacture.
[24] Fourthly, The constant Breeders, besides the gain of Eight Shillings Sterling per Annum, by the Sale of their Children, will be rid of the Charge of maintaining them after the first Year.
[25] Fifthly, this food would likewise bring great Custom to Taverns, where the Vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts 26 for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their Houses frequented by all the fine Gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good Eating, and a skillful Cook, who understands how to oblige his Guests will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.
[26] Sixthly, This would be a great Inducement to Marriage, which all wise Nations have either encouraged by Rewards, or enforced by Laws and Penalties. It would encrease the care and tenderness of Mothers towards their Children, when they were sure of a Settlement for Life, to the poor Babes, provided in some sort by the Publick to their Annual profit instead of Expence, we should soon see an honest Emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest Child to the Market, Men would become as fond of their Wives, during the Time of their Pregnancy, as they are now of their Mares in Foal, their Cows in Calf, or Sows when they are ready to Farrow, nor offer to Beat or Kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a Miscarriage.
[27] Many other advantages might be enumerated: For Instance, the addition of some thousand Carcases in our exportation of Barreled Beef. The Propagation of Swines Flesh, and Improvement in the Art of making good Bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of Pigs, too frequent at our Tables, which are no way comparable in Taste, or Magnificence to a well grown, fat Yearling Child, which Roasted whole will make a considerable Figure at a Lord Mayor’s Feast, or any other Publick Entertainment. But this, and many others I omit being studious of Brevity.
[28] Supposing that one thousand Families in this City, would be constant Customers for Infants Flesh, besides others who might have it at Merry-meetings, particularly at Weddings andChristenings, I compute that Dublin would take off Annually about twenty thousand Carcases, and the rest of the Kingdom (where probably they will be Sold somewhat Cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.
[29] I can think of no one Objection, that will possibly be raised against this Proposal, unless it should be urged, that the Number of People will be thereby much lessened in the Kingdom. This I freely own, 27 and it was indeed one Principal design in offering it to the World. I desire the Reader will observe, that I Calculate my Remedy for this one individual Kingdom of IRELAND, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: 28 Of taxing our Absentees at five Shillings a pound: 29 Of using neither Cloaths, nor household Furniture, except what is of our own Growth and Manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the Materials and Instruments that promote Foreign Luxury: Of curing the Expenciveness of Pride, Vanity, Idleness, and Gaming in our Women: Of introducing a Vein of Parcimony, Prudence and Temperance: Of learning to Love our Country, wherein we differ even from LAPLANDERS, and the Inhabitants of TOPINAMBOO: 30 Of quitting our Animosities, and Factions, nor Act any longer like the Jews, who were Murdering one another at the very moment their City was taken: 31 Of being a little Cautious not to Sell our Country and Consciences for nothing: Of teaching Landlords to have at least one degree of Mercy towards their Tenants. Lastly of putting a Spirit of Honesty, Industry and Skill into our Shop-keepers, who, if a Resolution could now be taken to Buy only our Native Goods, would immediately unite to Cheat and Exact 32 upon us in the Price, the Measure, and the Goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair Proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.
[30] Therefore I repeat, let no Man talk to me of these and the like Expedients, till he hath at least a Glimpse of Hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into Practice.
[31] But as to my self, having been wearied out for many Years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of Success, I fortunately fell upon this Proposal, which as it is wholly new, so it hath something Solid and Real, of no Expence and little Trouble, full in our own Power, and whereby we can incur no Danger in disobliging England. For this kind of Commodity will not bear Exportation, the Flesh being of too tender a Consistance, to admit a long continuance in Salt, although perhaps I could name a Country, which would be glad to Eat up our whole Nation without it. 33
[32] After all I am not so violently bent upon my own Opinion, as to reject any Offer, proposed by wise Men, which shall be found equally Innocent, Cheap, Easy and Effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in Contradiction to my Scheme, and offering a better, I desire the Author, or Authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, As things now stand, how they will be able to find Food and Raiment for a hundred thousand useless Mouths and Backs. And Secondly, there being a round Million of Creatures in humane Figure, throughout this Kingdom, whose whole Subsistence put into a common Stock, would leave them in Debt two Millions of Pounds Sterling adding those, who are Beggars by Profession, to the Bulk of Farmers, Cottagers and Labourers with their Wives and Children, who are Beggars in Effect; I desire those Politicians, who dislike my Overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an Answer, that they will first ask the Parents of these Mortals, whether they would not at this Day think it a great Happiness to have been sold for Food at a year Old, in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual Scene of Misfortunes, as they have since gone through, by the oppression of Landlords, the Impossibility of paying Rent without Money or Trade, the want of common Sustenance, with neither House nor Cloaths to cover them from Inclemencies of Weather, and the most inevitable Prospect of intailing the like, or greater Miseries upon their Breed for ever.
[33] I Profess in the sincerity of my Heart that I have not the least personal Interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary Work having no other Motive than the publick Good of my Country, by advancing our Trade, providing for Infants, relieving the Poor, and giving some Pleasure to the Rich. I have no Children, by which I can propose to get a single Penny; the youngest being nine Years old, and my Wife past Child-bearing.
Notes
2. The Pretender was the descendant of King James II of the House of Stuart, expelled from Britain in 1689. James and his descendants were Catholic, so they took refuge in Catholic countries.
3. Many poor Irish were forced to seek a living in the New World.
4. Projector, “One who forms schemes or designs” (Johnson).
5. Dam, “The mother: used of beasts, or other animals not human,” or “A human mother: in contempt or detestation” (Johnson).
6. Parishes were responsible for the support of those unable to work.
8. Doubt, “suspect” or “imagine.”
10. Britain imposed strict regulations on Irish agriculture.
11. Towardly parts, “ready abilities.”
12. Fricasee, “A dish made by cutting chickens or other small things in pieces, and dressing them with strong sauce” (Johnson); ragout, “Meat stewed and highly seasoned” (Johnson).
13. Quality, “Rank; superiority of birth or station” (Johnson).
15. British landlords took much of the blame for Ireland’s condition, and generally with good reason.
17. Artificially, “skillfully.”
19. George Psalmanazar, an impostor who claimed to be from Formosa (modern Taiwan). His Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa (1704) described their religious practices: every year 18,000 young boys were sacrificed to the gods, and the parishioners ate their raw hearts.
20. Mandarin, “A Chinese nobleman or magistrate” (Johnson).
21. Gibbet, “A gallows; the post on which malefactors are hanged, or on which their carcases are exposed” (Johnson).
22. A groat is worth four pence; proverbially, any small amount.
23. Chair, “A vehicle born by men; a sedan” (Johnson).
24. Dissenters or Nonconformists, whose principles Swift rejected.
25. Distress, “arrest for debt.”
26. Receipts, “[From recipe.] Prescription of ingredients for any composition” (Johnson).
28. These “expedients” are serious proposals, several of which Swift advocated in his other publications.
29. Five shillings a pound is a twenty-five percent tax.
30. Topinamboo, a district in Brazil.
31. Titus sacked the Second Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
33. Swift is making a coy reference to England.
Rent Control: Large Corporate Land Lords Win
I’ve already covered the folly of rent control and really all price controls in other posts. When government tries to control prices because of inflation, prices simply go up and supply disappears. Without any motivation to produce more housing it becomes even more scarce. Furthermore, housing becomes more difficult to maintain and operate because mosts costs are not fixed, and go up even when rents are controlled or go down. There’s a great post on the real time disaster of rent control in the Bay Area by John McNellis at The Registry. He covers all the problems being created in that market succinctly. One of the reasons given for more regulation and rent control is the power of big, corporate land lords and foreign investors. But McNellis points out the long term implication of the anti-growth and anti-capitalist proposals:
The ordinance discourages landlords from doing anything beyond critical repairs—your tenants demand services and improvements, while telling you how deep to shove your rent request. And, finally, perhaps worst, because of the many abuses it engenders, the ordinance drives well-intentioned amateurs out of the business, leaving the city’s housing stock in the hands of case-hardened professionals, landlords who will bring a handgun to a knife fight and who are grimly prepared to go mano-a-mano with tenant lawyers, real and otherwise.
When I went on The Stranger’s Blabbermouth podcast a while back, I made the point that as more and more measures are implemented to squash housing creativity in the market, control prices, and limit the discretion building operators have, the worse things will get for tenants. Why? Because the costs of operation are going to be too much for smaller, local land lords. Most land lords running existing, older, less expensive housing are either the “amateurs” or part time land lords that McNellis describes or small business owners.
As the weight of regulation and controls gets more onerous, the only builders and operators that will be able to build and operate housing in Seattle are large corporations with the capacity and scale to wait for permits for 36 months and hire lawyers and building management staff that can fight with tenants. What the City Council and Mayor are doing in the name of fighting corporate greed is ensuring that the big corporations they must think build and operate housing but don’t now, will be the only entities left standing.
Poll: What Was Your Last Move Like?
California Study: More Private Development Means Lower Rents
It’s red herring week here at Smart Growth Seattle and today we put the “building new market housing causes displacement” and “inclusionary zoning helps that problem” red herrings in the compost bin. The headline of the blog post summing up a California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) study says it all: Want to Slow Displacement? Then Build More Housing. Now if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know that there is no good quantitative definition of displacement, which is more about how people feel about moving or having to move. The LAO report gives about the best quantitative shot as I’ve seen to figure out what displacement means.
Defining Displacement. Researchers have not developed a single definition of displacement. Different studies use different measures. For our analysis, we use a straightforward yet imperfect definition of displacement which is similar to the definition used by UC Berkeley researchers. Specifically, we define a census tract as having experienced displacement if (1) its overall population increased and its population of low–income households decreased or (2) its overall population decreased and its low–income population declined faster than the overall population.
I won’t spend a lot of time on why this definition fails as well, but clearly we wouldn’t know or be able to account for exactly why the household mix changed. Perhaps the low-income households started to earn more money. Maybe the construction of new housing resulted in the sale of existing low-income buildings causing some low-income households to move; but where did they go? Are they better off now than they were in that census tract? More importantly, how do they feel about the move?
I’m just going to post the second most satisfying paragraph in the report.
More Private Development Associated With Less Displacement. As market–rate housing construction tends to slow the growth in prices and rents, it can make it easier for low–incomehouseholds to afford their existing homes. This can help to lessen the displacement of low–income households. Our analysis of low–income neighborhoods in the Bay Area suggests a link between increased construction of market–rate housing and reduced displacement. (See the technical appendix for more information on how we defined displacement for this analysis.) Between 2000 and 2013, low–income census tracts (tracts with an above–average concentration of low–income households) in the Bay Area that built the most market–rate housing experienced considerably less displacement. As Figure 3 shows, displacement was more than twice as likely in low–income census tracts with little market–rate housing construction (bottom fifth of all tracts) than in low–income census tracts with high construction levels (top fifth of all tracts).
Again, I don’t really think we’ll ever get a measure of displacement, but this definition is as good as it gets and certainly exceeds the feeble efforts we’ve seen locally by the City and others. And the verdict is that the more private development happens the better off lower income people are.
And what’s the most satisfying conclusion of the report?
Results Do Not Appear to Be Driven by Inclusionary Housing Policies. One possible explanation for this finding could be that many Bay Area communities have inclusionary housing policies. In communities with inclusionary housing policies, most new market–rate construction is paired with construction of new affordable housing. It is possible that the new affordable housing units associated with increased market–rate development—and not market–rate development itself—could be mitigating displacement. Our analysis, however, finds that market–rate housing construction appears to be associated with less displacement regardless of a community’s inclusionary housing policies. As with other Bay Area communities, in communities without inclusionary housing policies, displacement was more than twice as likely in low–income census tracts with limited market–rate housing construction than in low–income census tracts with high construction levels.
There you have it. More building actually does benefit lower income households and reduces displacement. And the terrible, punitive, and inflationary policy of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) doesn’t positively impact displacement; just let people build more housing!
Not enough?
Relationship Remains After Accounting for Economic and Demographic Factors. Other factors play a role in determining which neighborhoods experience displacement. A neighborhood’s demographics and housing characteristics probably are important. Nonetheless, we continue to find that increased market–rate housing construction is linked to reduced displacement after using common statistical techniques to account for these factors.
The completely ham handed efforts of Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Lisa Herbold to basically make it harder to build housing in poorer neighborhoods with more people of color is going to make things worse, not better for poor people. Too bad that the Seattle City Council and Mayor and supporters of MIZ are impervious to the facts. California is in the midst of the disaster that we’re imposing on ourselves, reduced supply, higher costs, and higher prices for people who need housing.
I Can’t Imagine . . . The Seattle City Council Making Good Housing Policy
I call it the, “I can’t imagine . . . “ movement, an effort now being taken up by Councilmember Lisa Herbold to preserve what she’s calling “Legacy Businesses,” which have, as is usual with these sorts of things, been defined only vaguely and with anecdotes. According to her website,
Councilmember Herbold has been accumulating public feedback over the last several months, with nearly 500 respondents identifying small businesses they feel are worth preserving.
She goes on to say,
As the Council rep for District 1, I can’t imagine the Alaska Junction without the Husky Deli or South Park without Muy Macho.
I’m sure we can all think of the small locally owned business we just couldn’t imagine living without. Mine is Joe Bar, what I have called my living room and study. I’ve already suffered the loss of Bauhaus and Arabica. Enough is enough, it is time for the City Council to intervene anywhere and everywhere that small, locally owned business are threatened by whatever might cause them to disappear.
How do we define is eligible? Hmmm. Good question. And what’s the application process? And what defines local? What if the owner of my favorite place lives in Kent? What constitutes a chain? Isn’t Starbucks a local business? What’s the plan to compensate a building owner who can’t sell or lease space to someone is able to pay higher rents to off set increasing operating costs, like rising utilities and property taxes? What if our favorite locally owned business is closing down because it was mismanaged or just wasn’t succeeding?
You can see why this is yet another red herring being pushed by people who want our city to remain exactly as it is. There are no good answers for the questions above because this isn’t about preserving anything but stopping new development to accommodate the many jobs and people coming here to take them. Like view protection, or worries about noise, or how people don’t like the way a building makes them feel, this is about slowing and stopping change.
How about this for an idea? How about we preserve the small businesses that build and operate housing in Seattle by letting them, well, build and operate housing. Councilmember Herbold seems to think the Husky Deli is worthy of preservation at the public’s expense but not a building owner who rents out 6 or 10 units of housing, or a small builder who creates a few dozen housing units each year. She’d gladly put those people out of business with rules, regulations, taxes, and fees – because building and operating housing is all about greed and profit. The Husky Deli does what it does because, well, they just care; they’re employees must not be paid with dollars.
As I mentioned yesterday, the “I Can’t Imagine” movement is yet another tragic waste of our time; yes we ought to eliminate some existing small business permanently and forever in order to make way for housing. It’s life in the big city. Do I want that for my own favorite businesses? Of course not; but when I weigh the value and benefits of growth and change, the scale tips in favor of making room for the new even at the expense of things I deeply care about.
There are ways the City could preserve smaller businesses. They could undo the damage done my Councilmember Mike O’Brien when he killed legislation allowing smaller retail spaces in the low-rise zones of the city.
The City could create a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for certain kinds of buildings in the city, allowing the development rights and housing capacity to be put someplace else in the city; blocks like the Melrose Market block could be downzoned to zero and the units possible there could be added to a project somewhere else on Capitol Hill or around light rail. The sail of those rights could benefit community organizations that raised funds to buy the existing building housing a business.
But these solutions would require work, not rhetoric, math not anecdotes, and they would allow the market to innovate and continue to meet housing demand instead of finding a villain to punish in the public square. You know what I can’t imagine? A City Council that actually looks at the reality of huge housing demand and acts urgently to create more housing of all kinds, in all parts of the city for people of all backgrounds and levels of income. I keep trying, but I just can’t.
