Westneat and I Agree: Don’t Expect the Election Will Change Anything

I know, I’ve heard it again and again. We need to support “pro-growth” and “pro-housing” candidates. I’ve said before, over and over, about elections in Seattle won’t change things. In some ways, the upcoming election might make things even worse. The fact is, that unless and until, we change the narrative in Seattle about housing — that more of it makes it more expensive and that price is set by greed, not supply and demand — we will never get any candidates that will make a difference in how housing policy is made. Danny Westneat isn’t a columnist that I always agree with in terms of view point on the city or in his analysis. But I think he’s right about what happened last week: not much. In his latest column he says this,

That’s the general take-away from early primary election returns Tuesday for the Seattle City Council. The hype fizzled. It wasn’t a backlash — at least not as sweeping as the critics and the  hundreds of thousands of dollars of attack mailers  had banked on.

The biggest overall winner is … the status quo?

What’s also sort of amusing is all the money former Councilmember Tim Burgess and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce dredged out of the business community only to have two winners, an incumbent, Councilmember Debora Juarez, and someone who is an avowed NIMBY, Alex Pedersen. Really? The Chamber once again shows its great skill at wasting lots and lots of money.

The way it looks today is that proponents of really bad policies will have a majority on the City Council. Regardless of how smart and well spoken you might think they are, Councilmembers Lorena Gonzalez and Teresa Mosqueda don’t believe or like business or development or land lord interests. Gonzalez wants higher office (Attorney General) and Mosequeda is simply an elected labor organizer. Juarez, if she’s returned, seems like she could stand up against the rest of the Council — she opposed the “head tax” — but she always votes for their schemes anyway (like the tax on jobs). So that’s three votes. Add to that mix Councilmember Herbold who wants impact fees and an income tax. That’s four votes. And if Councilmember Sawant returns, not an unlikely scenario, there’s five.

But what if she doesn’t and your Sawant obsession isn’t cured? Tammy Morales will give a solid vote for more taxes, more fees, and fewer incentives for housing development and management.

And what about Dan Strauss as a replacement for lefty Robin Hood Mike O’Brien? Here’s what the Stranger said about Strauss who has the most votes coming out of the primary:

A bright, affable young guy who everyone seems to know. Sort of like a younger Mike O’Brien without the baggage that apparently comes with being Mike O’Brien. (We’ll miss you, buddy.)

Yeah. Just what we need on the City Council, another bright, affable young guy who makes destructive and horrible housing policy. Perfect. There’s another vote.

And what about Alex Pedersen? His answers to questions sound really good, but during the run up to the passage of Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Pedersen sided with his angry neighbors against MHA, but not because it makes new housing infeasible, raises prices, and is illegal but because the fees aren’t high enough. But nobody bothered in the questionnaire I read to ask this specific question, only broad general questions. The fact is that Pedersen is very likely to carry the water of angry neighbors on new for-profit housing, making it harder and more expensive to build and to also support non-profits endless appetite for cash.

So without considering what happens in the more moderate District 7 or District 6 (Dan Strauss and Heidi Wills (former police office Jim Pugel and Andrew Lewis) Gonzalez, Mosqueda, Juarez, Herbold, Sawant, Morales, Pedersen, are looking like they will be on the Council. Add The Stranger supported Strauss and you’ve got 8 people who in one way or another have demonstrated that they won’t reduce regulation on housing and are likely to support more.

My message to you if you’re reading this is don’t give any more money if you have to the Chamber or Burgess’ PAC. You’re just throwing it away at best and at worst, you’re possibly going to be supporting someone that is going to cast votes against your rational self interest in your business providing people with housing. Give the money to us instead. Please. If you want to know what we’ll do with it, please read my posts about changing the narrative. That’s what you should be investing in today. Otherwise, you’re going be looking at the same or worse behavior from City Hall.

Photo from the Seattle Times

 

Summer Reruns: Nothing But Flowers, What if We Had a Thoughtful Media?

The final episode of Summer Reruns with our fantasy theme is from a while back and was written in exasperation as some truly bad writing, editing, and reporting at the Seattle Times. Too often I think “reporters” are just eating a sandwich at their computer when they write their stories. Google searches, conventional wisdom, and pure laziness seem to have taken a hold of most people we generally counted on to dig deep into the narrative. And the hardest working people on the internet are pushing a point, not trying to increase the amount of information in the discourse. There’s nothing wrong with having a point of view, but today journalism isn’t a competition between writers trying to get as close to the truth as they can, but, instead, it’s a battle over clicks and likes. What if that wasn’t the case? 

There are some stories that write or tell themselves. Think of the story of Goldylocks and the three bears, or Little Red Riding Hood. Then there’s the one about how Seattle is suffering under the great strain and burden of new people coming here. Same old story, same protagonists and antagonists, and the same outcome: greedy people from outside trying to take away everything good about our city. Some people agree with me that this is a myth that must be destroyed if we are to make progress on building more housing. Hearing the story over and over again gets old, and the Seattle Times keeps playing the same old serial again with, As Seattle Grapples with Growth, a Question: Whose City is it? As the lights go down you know exactly how this story is going to go, right?

It’s all there. Greedy developers. Feckless planners stumped at how to control runaway growth. Baffled and frightened people of color (POCs we’ve been called lately). And of course, the wistful strains of “things used to be different.” There’s an Onion parody that editors at the Times should read about vanishing Burger Kings. I think they’d be so embarrassed they’d want to hide.

CLEVELAND—Every day, 38-year-old Susan Tarsley takes a brisk walk through her tree-lined neighborhood. At each turn, she is reminded of the changes brought on by the march of progress: a TV antenna dismantled to make way for underground cable, passersby chatting on cell phones, a rusty tricycle abandoned for a Razor scooter.

But at the silent corner of Lark Street and Superior Avenue, Tarsley stops to mourn the passing of an especially treasured landmark. Her local Burger King is fading into memory. It’s a sadly familiar picture in many communities: Fast-food hubs that once bustled with activity, when young and old alike gathered in plastic molded seats around gleaming yellow linoleum tables, are now boarded-up ghost restaurants. Their long-extinguished drive-through menus silently beckon to cars that will never come.

What makes The Onion article funny is, as Homer Simpson would say, “It’s true!” Everyone’s read the same story over and over again. It’s why the parody works. It’s also funny because, like all good parody, there is a sense of something going too far or to excess. The Seattle Times story is almost a parody of itself. The photographer even creates “ghost” images of places being “lost to change.”

Planners at the City and builders would be shocked to find out that

Until now, in some cases development has been done in a seemingly slapdash manner, resulting in unintended negative consequences, such as traffic congestion and strains on parking. There’s also the issue of older, smaller, more affordable apartment buildings being demolished to make way for all those new, tall, generally more expensive ones.

Yep, all this growth has been happening willy nilly. It’s a free for all. Sure, small-lot development in single-family neighborhoods has been limited, microhousing has been effectively shut down, and low-rise zones effectively down zoned. And more and more requirements are being added and existing ones reinterpreted to protect single-family home owners. Yes. Slapdash. The myth becomes reality in land use and housing policy.

And,

Even with ostensibly good intentions, though, there’s always a project, proposal or policy that causes major blowback.

Case in point: Last summer, Times columnist Danny Westneat reported that the mayor’s housing affordability advisory committee, mainly made up of developers, legal experts and community-organization leaders, was considering recommending heavy restrictions on single-family zoning to accommodate more duplexes, triplexes and other multifamily construction, to help temper rising housing costs. Among other things, the news stirred up old suspicions in Seattle about the influence of property developers, who have an obvious financial interest in any growth plans, over public policy. The idea was soon tabled.

Yes. “Heavy restrictions on single-family zoning to accommodate more duplexes, triplexes and other multifamily construction.”

Huh? Heavy restrictions? Does anyone edit this stuff? The heavy restrictions is what’s making housing more expensive and boosting the wealth of largely white, entitled, and aging single-family home owners. Meanwhile everyone else gets locked out of owning a home or living in a single-family neighborhood, a zone that dominates Seattle’s land use.

I wish these writers and editors would try, for once, something new. Talk to the many, many people who are struggling to make ends meet but are happy here because they are better off than they were before. How about a story that highlights their hopes and plans here in our city. How about hearing about how this city welcomed them and invited them in and is encouraging them to keep at it and helping them achieve their hopes and dreams. Doing otherwise contributes to the idea that somehow building housing is a bad thing that needs to be punished, a view that only makes life worse for newcomers and natives alike.

Here. I’ll start writing it for you.

Julie Wilson left her home in Pensacola, Florida and moved to Seattle with her girlfriend just a year ago.

“That place wasn’t for us,” says Wilson. “I gets old getting stared at all the time just walking into a restaurant.”

Wilson is white and her girlfriend is black.

“We came here on a vacation and it felt like home, almost right away,” says Wilson. “Before I knew it I had a lead on a job and a couple offers of places to stay while we figured things out.”

Wilson and her girlfriend stayed. Both found jobs at local restaurants. Wilson is an aspiring chef and has enrolled in a program at South Seattle College to hone her skills. Meanwhile her girlfriend is completing some prerequisites to start an engineering degree.

“It’s not easy,” notes Wilson. “Seattle is expensive! But we’re making it work and I feel hopeful because the people here are awesome, loving and welcoming. Everywhere I go I get encouragement and support.”

After a long day at school at work the couple will often hang out at a local bar with friends and plot opening a new restaurant.

“With so many people moving here from around the country, there’s lots of opportunity,” she says noting the growth of Seattle’s tech boom. “Those guys at Amazon are making decent money. And they have to eat.”

Okay. Now go finishing writing that story. Of course you could ask the hypothetical couple the question, “How is your struggle with the housing crisis going,” or “How hard is it to live in Seattle now that it is so expensive?” There is no doubt living in Seattle, or anywhere, can be a struggle and a challenge. For some, poverty is an ever present limit on everything thing life and a looming threat. For others, struggle is part of success and meeting it can be an opportunity for community and collaboration. It all depends on the questions you ask and how you tell the story. Local writers need to work harder not to find examples of happy people, but on framing their stories in a way that reflects possibility not an assumption of misery.

Summer Reruns: Nothing But Flowers, The Ideal Candidate

Another fantasy for Nothing But Flowers week. This one is from April 2017. 

We have no great candidates running for office in Seattle today. But I have this fantasy of a candidacy for the rest of us; a candidacy for hard working people that are open minded, want fairness and justice, but are tired of traffic, feeling unsafe, and wishing we could solve the problem of rising prices. This is the announcement speech my ideal candidate would give. It is substantially inspired by various speeches by Robert Kennedy, and you’ll hear his voice throughout. I’ve also seeded some Hayek and Burke in there as well. Of course it’s aspirational. That’s what these things are supposed to be. And compare it to Nikkita Oliver’s announcement as well. 

I am today announcing my candidacy to be Mayor of Seattle.

I do not run for Mayor merely to oppose any person or policy, but to propose a new path for our city. I run because I am convinced that this city is today on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all that I can to restore hope and a direction to the work of our City government and because I love this place that has been so good to me.

I run to seek new policies – policies to end the scourge of homelessness and addiction in our city, to close the gaps that now exist between black and white, between rich and poor, between young and old, and between those that worry about the impacts of growth and those that are welcoming it.

I run for Mayor because I want our city to choose hope instead of despair, reconciliation instead of fear and anxiety, growth instead of building walls, opportunity instead of scarcity, especially now as our city grows.

I run because it is now unmistakably clear that we must change the disastrous, divisive policies being implemented in our city.

We can make our neighborhoods safe while also supporting and loving our neighbors who do not have traditional housing, who are different, and who make more or less money than we do.

We can work together, landlords and tenants, to improve rental housing.

Our police and our communities of color can collaborate to cure not the symptoms of crime and disorder but the root causes of those problems: abuse, addiction, institutional racism, lack of opportunity, and lack of resources in our schools. We don’t need a new precinct building that will cost our community $160 million dollars. Those resources belong in the community, working to solve the root causes of crime.

We can provide a helping hand for the person in our city that chooses recovery over addiction

We can make our roads, buses, bike lanes, and sidewalks open, useful, and safe. And we can make them efficient so that people in our city can spend more time with their families and in their communities rather than losing their lives commuting and creeping along in traffic.

Specifically, I support expanding the supply of new housing to welcome new people moving to our city, something that will benefit them and reduce competition between tenants for scarce housing among people already here.

I support building on the success of people struggling economically in our city who have spontaneously built community in tent encampments. I promise to work to make those encampments safe, orderly, secure, and to reduce the need for them by creating low barrier shelters and permanent housing solutions.

I promise that this city will not tow away one more persons home. Instead, people who are living in a vehicle will get a helping hand from the City they need to find a better, more sustainable housing solution.

I support safe consumption sites and will work to make them happen — in every quarter of our city. There are far too many needles on our sidewalks, alleyways, and parks. Needles are a sentinel of the pain and devastation, destruction, lost human potential to us all, and costs to us all from addiction. We can help people better if we reduce the harm of addiction and offer alternatives.

I support rent-restricted housing through tax exemption programs that have already created thousands of affordably priced apartments. We will expand and deepen those programs. And I support housing subsidies particularly in the form of direct cash payments from the existing levy for households struggling to make ends meet today, this week, and next month. As Mayor, I won’t waste time talking about housing, I will help pay your rent!

People can’t wait for 5 years or more for the Office of Housing and non-profits to build them a unit. We’ll work to change the way we fund and build subsidized housing so that we more efficiently use tax payer dollars and get help to people who need it fast. And there is only one way to reduce housing prices: build more housing. And we will. Lots and lots of housing, of all kinds, for all levels of income, all over this city.

I want this city to be the lighthouse in a storm for that family that has spent it’s last few dollars to move here with us; perhaps they’ll arrive in a car with an almost empty tank of gas, but hearts full of hope. Welcome home!

I want this city to be a sanctuary for the immigrant family, who tossed about by war and grief, settles here with us and will grace our schools with its children and our economy with their work, and our hearts with their friendship. Welcome home!

I want this city to be the incubator for newly born ideas of the successful entrepreneur, whose brilliance has made her enough money to retire; yet she still wants to create and contribute new ideas, new energy, and new jobs and opportunity for others. Creative minds help create wealth and more opportunity. Welcome home!

Today there is a prisoner in one of our jails in this state who has no place to go, no address to release to. That woman or man must wait longer in jail, hoping for something to change on the outside, for some one to come through with a place to live. We want you and your potential here, with us. We have a place for you. Welcome home!

And to those who have lived here all their lives, who have homes in our single-family neighborhoods, who worked hard, for years, to cobble together a down payment to buy that home in Wallingford, or Fremont, or in Hillman City and seen that investment grow – I will be your Mayor too. You’ve built this city with your hopes, dreams, love, and hard work. You deserve to pass the benefits of your hard work on to your children. We need you. This is your home!

The great cities of history, the ones we remember, that didn’t disappear into the dust, Alexandria, Rome, Athens, and London and many others, all have been global cities, vibrant, diverse, and welcoming cities. Seattle’s greatness depends on having no walls, but open borders and an open economy. All are welcome in our home, and all are welcome at our table!

This isn’t a dream; this is our comprehensive plan.

The Mayor’s policy of Mandatory Inclusionary will kill this hope. By fueling housing costs and punishing those who build housing and commercial space in our city, his policy will make sure that prices and resentments will rise, fueling more discontent and demands for more pain to be inflicted on those who build and do business in our city. The time for setting people who make their living from starting and running businesses and workers against one another is done. I will stop this abhorrent practice and rhetoric in its tracks. We will bring people together, not drive them apart.

Together we can do these important things. There are no villains and there are no victims, only a city that we call home and neighbors we must choose to love and understand, however difficult that may be. Too many people are struggling, suffering, and dying in a city with such prosperity. If we choose a path of divisiveness, division, of party and of ideology, we have chosen to pick winners and losers rather than opportunity, optimism, and hope.

I will not engage in a fight with our President. I will not indulge sanctimonious untruths about ourselves and how fair we are in Seattle. We have needles on our streets, it takes too long to get to work and back home again, and we have tent encampments scattered in our public spaces. I won’t shake my fist at a far off enemy while failing to fulfill our obligations here at home. Opposing the President is not local government’s fight, but solving the problems of homeless, public safety, transportation, and creating opportunity truly is the work of local government.

Our government can do best against any tyranny and hate whether it is down the street, at our nation’s capitol, or someplace else in the world by being an open, loving, and welcoming city. If you want to change the world, come and change it here. As Mayor I will support you making the change you dream about. We will pat your back not our own. We will celebrate you not ourselves. We will be proud of your real wins and the change you make in the world, not of our own empty words.

Finally, as we plan for our future together here in this beautiful place we call home, we must remember our past, even as far back as a time when this place belonged to the Duwamish people and to those generations of settlers that followed.

We are in a great relay race, begun long ago perhaps by people that did not look like us, talk like us, share our values, or even think we’d be here in this rainy, misty place. Our team mates from the past are native peoples, the first settlers, white men looking for gold, hopeful families that crossed the frontier, industrialists, farmers, sketchy politicians and businessmen, people who were systematically discriminated against, Chinese workers who were banned and killed, interred Japanese families, black families segregated in our city, millionaires, billionaires, and more. Each of them ran their race in this place, and now they’ve passed the baton to us. What will we do with it? Shall we keep it? Shall we build a wall around it and hallow it and try to make this moment last forever?

No. We will pass the baton to our children better that it was given to us. We will be spontaneous, and as adventurous as our forebears who took a chance, not letting ourselves ossify into a fossil city. Instead, to our children and to those generations of the future that we can only fleetingly see, like our majestic Olympic mountains off in the sometimes hazy distance, we will confidently say, “Take this place that we’ve made and changed for you. It belongs to you now. Take it and run!” Therefore, I will work each and every day as Mayor remembering that this place doesn’t just belong to us that happen to be here today, but I will uphold our heritage, work to solve today’s problems, and always remember this place belongs to the future too.

Featured Image: Field with Poppies, Vincent van Gogh, 1890

Summer Reruns: Nothing But Flowers, A progressive Thatcher for the Northwest

This weeks theme for The Best of Seattle For Growth is, “Nothing But Flowers Week.” And we’ll start with something that is older than you are, from a Facebook post back in January of 2012. I had become familiar with the Talking Heads song Nothing But Flowers like everyone else; it was a huge hit. I could even sing along although I had never owned the album or the disk. I first really listened to it when I heard a cover by Caetano Veloso. I’ll leave a full exposition of Brazilian music, Joao Gilberto, and Caetano Veloso for another time and place. I’ll also leave for another time and place the profound impact that hearing the familiar in a different way can truly make us truly hear what we’ve heard so many times before. Below is a live version of David Byrne and Veloso singing this classic together. I’ll leave it to you to gather the relevance of the lyrics. Where have I been the last couple weeks? The United Kingdom of course. 

As I said in my last note, I think Margaret Thatcher has a lot to teach politicians about finding their principles and sticking to them. But why don’t we have any politicians like that around here? Where is a 21st century Northwest progressive Margaret Thatcher who isn’t willing to make a U-Turn on reducing carbon emissions, changing the way do land use, and transportation?

Part of it might be the nature and character of our local politicians, but I think it’s more than that. I think it has to do with our system of government. What if Washington State had a governance system that was like the United Kingdom’s: an essentially unicameral legislature with most of the executive authority delegated to a Prime Minister who was able to put together a governing majority in the legislature. I think it could look a little something like this.

A New Constitution

Mary Louise Harper was among the first to be elected to the new Washington State Legislature that would convene in January of 2013. The state’s voters, tired of initiatives, budget crises, a lack of decent revenue sources, and an economic downturn decided to fundamentally revise the State Constitution. The voters replaced the house and senate with a single house with 250 members elected to serve, uninterrupted, for at least 5 years. The only interruption would be caused if the Governor, Dan Evans making a final return in the role, prorogued the legislature for some reason.

In the new system, the Governor served a single 10-year term with only two main roles, the ability to call a legislature into session and dissolve it, and approving or vetoing legislation. All the rest of the functions of government would reside in the house. All the departments and day-to-day operations would be managed by whoever was able to form a working majority in the legislature.

Mary Louise Harper was from a constituency in south Seattle. A life long resident of the city, her great grandfather was part of the African American migration to the city from the South in the early part of the 20th century. Now, she was to be a leader in the new legislature. The majority would be a bit uncertain, since the new legislature was to be non-partisan, no Democrats or Republicans. Although Harper sympathized with the Democrats, she had been unhappy in recent years with their policies.

The votes in the legislature were close, with about 120 votes leaning toward electing Tom Jones of Wenatchee as the Leader of the House, and about 120 leaning the other way toward Bill Jenkins of Tacoma. Both men had represented their parties, Jones a Republican and Jenkins a Democrat, in the old legislature. Harper didn’t like either of them and, with some support from some undecided colleagues decided to run for the leadership herself.

Things went slow at first, and she came under tremendous pressure from the Democratic leadership to support Jenkins. They even insulted her by offering her a deputy role in a department. She refused and campaigned on for the leadership role. It was a lonely fight at first, but then things broke her way. The Stranger broke a story that Jenkins had been coordinating closely with the Democratic State Party, strictly forbidden by the constitution. Governor Evans broke away from a ribbon cutting at the new Husky Stadium to express his “deep concern about this, if it’s true.” The Governor went on to say that “this would undermine the new Constitution and it’s principles.” Jenkins stepped out of the race the next day.

Suddenly the calls came in supporting Harper. The numbers started looking good, and given some suspicion that Jones had been coordinating too, even some of his supporters started to drift toward Harper. When the numbers finally came in, it was Harper 175 and Bill Williams from Puyallup, an acolyte of Jenkins, with only 75 votes. Shortly after the vote the phone rang; it was Governor Evans congratulating Harper and inviting her to the Governor’s mansion.

Forming a Government

There she was standing next to the legendary Dan Evans about ready to form the next state government of Washington. He advised her in his Grandfatherly way, “If you ever need anything I’m always here.” He leaned forward and smiled, “just pick up the phone.”

Harper set about to organize her government. She selected the heads of departments and organized meetings of existing staff to manage the transition. One thing had always bothered her: the 520 Bridge. It seemed way too expensive to rebuild. A former teacher, she ran on an education platform in her constituency. And in her leadership campaign she promised to fully fund education. All these transportation costs were out of control.

Calling the BS

She had once read some blog posts by a researcher at something called the Sightline Institute, a think-tank in Seattle, about how the state might not need a replacement for 520. She called him up. A nervous Clark Williams Derry answered the phone. “Leader Harper?,” he stammered when he answered. “Mr. Williams, I need your help,” said Leader Harper. “Do we need this bridge replaced?”

Williams Derry did his best to explain it. “Actual traffic volumes have been flat or declining for more than a decade!” said Williams Derry excitedly. “Now, I know that total traffic volumes aren’t the only traffic trends worth paying attention to. The traffic models make projections about peak-hour delays as well, which are probably what commuters care most about. But given that the models have proven so stubbornly and preposterously wrong about traffic volume trends, it’s hard to believe that they have much of value to say about future traffic delays.”

“What are you saying Clark?” asked Leader Harper.

Williams Derry described how on the bridge (and everywhere in the state) wasn’t going up, it was actually going down; people were driving less than the Washington State Department of Transportation said they were.

“As I’ve said before, the 1996 projection was completely forgivable; and you can even excuse the 2002 projections, since memories of rapid traffic growth were still fresh,” Said Williams Derry even more excited now.

“But by 2011, it has become abundantly clear that WSDOT’s traffic projections aren’t passing the laugh test. Besides, claiming that a trend is “more accurate” before it’s been confirmed by actual events is B.S. of a particularly noxious sort,” said Williams Derry. Realizing he said BS to the Leader, he got red then turned pale.

“Clark, come down to Olympia right away,” Said Leader Harper. “I’m going to need your help.”

Harper called in Judy Clibborn who had found herself re-elected. Harper had deferred to her previous role and made her Secretary of Transportation.

Williams Derry was called into the meeting.

“Clark, tell Secretary Clibborn what you told me,” said Leader Harper.

Williams Derry proceeded to use some amazing charts and graphs to make his points.

“Leader Harper, I’m sorry but we need these highways,” Clibborn said condescendingly. “We’ve just got to have them!” She leaned forward conspiratorially and whispered, “the unions and business will never support us if we don’t build this project.”

“Really?” said Harper. “Fortunately we don’t have another election for 5 years,” she said.

A Shift in Priorities

“Stop work on this project,” she said firmly. “We’re putting that money into the schools.” By now Williams Derry, saucer eyed in his chair, was trying to offer caveats. But it was too late, the 520 rebuild was off the table.

A firestorm erupted, and during the regular question time in the legislature Harper was hammered from all sides.

“Mr. Speaker,” said the member from Medina and Beaux Arts, “can the leader really be serious?” he shouted. “Where will all those cars go when that bridge sinks?”

It wasn’t looking good. Some members were beginning to question Harper’s leadership, and Publicola was running a blog post from an anonymous member of the legislature suggesting that maybe there should be a vote of no confidence. Fights were breaking out between bicyclists and motorists, unions and social service advocates were throwing punches at town halls, and business were threatening to leave the state.

Then the phone rang. It was the Governor.

“How’s it going, Leader,” said the sonorous voice on the phone.

“Not so great, Governor,” said Harper. “I suppose you’re wanting to dissolve the legislature and call an election to settle this?” she asked.

“Absolutely not,” said Governor Evans. “You’re doing the right thing,” he said. “Let’s see how this plays out; after all you’ve got time on your side.”

Epilogue

Leader Harper stepped onto her private subway car for the trip up to the Governor’s mansion. It was time to face the music. Governor Evans, now in his 90s but still sharp, was dissolving the legislature and calling an election.

It had been five years. In that time the budget was balanced by a new income tax passed by the legislature and a massive reduction in spending on highway costs. And much of this was done while reducing sales tax and eliminating the B and O tax and replacing it with a Value Added Tax. It was not very pretty in those first years, though.

But Harper stood fast, and by late 2015 the economy had turned around. And thanks to more wise investments in transit and denser land use in the cities Washington fell to dead last in Vehicle Miles Traveled while having the fastest growing economy in the whole country. Harper’s popularity was the highest on record and she was likely to lead another majority into power.

As Harper looked out at farmland created through the use of TDR and TIF, which transferred much of the growth Thurston County would have experienced into the City of Olympia, she smiled. She remembered there used to be a Walmart right over there. Now there was nothing but flowers.

Note: Today, I oppose any form of income tax. We shouldn’t tax what we want more of. And I love Walmart.

Summer Reruns: It Isn’t Too Early to Say it: “I told you so!”

I’m taking a break. And so the blog here is in reruns. Back when there was television, Johnny Carson would sometimes turn over his desk to a guest host. Other times they would run reruns as, “The Best of Carson.” So this is The Best of Seattle For Growth.” I decided this week to go with three posts about Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA), perhaps the single worst housing policy ever conceived by human beings, best summed up as, “housing is expensive, let’s tax it, raise its price, and then build a few lower rent units, somewhere, a long time from now.” This post, about the chickens coming home to roost, posted earlier this year. 

Laocoon, follow’d by a num’rous crowd,
Ran from the fort, and cried, from far, aloud:
‘O wretched countrymen! what fury reigns?
What more than madness has possess’d your brains?

Vergil, Aeneid, 2.40, John Dryden Translation

The media in Seattle has been lagging in its curiosity about the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) scheme. It was impossible to get the to cover the problems with the idea. So I wrote an editorial in the Seattle Times. I said first,

The fees negotiated for extra capacity were favorable to projects in downtown and South Lake Union, not projects anywhere else. Second, the MHA fees cancel benefits from extra capacity in other neighborhoods.

We have always said that builders don’t need or want extra height and that paying for it would make projects infeasible or more expensive.

But a story on KUOW finds that what we’ve been saying about the consequences of MHA are now starting. By imposing fees in exchange for a little bit of additional development capacity, the City is first making many projects infeasible and second adding costs to new housing that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rent or sales price. Here’s what the story tells us about the Miller families efforts to develop in the Alaska Junction.

But the problem for small developers like Miller’s family is that the right to build a taller building isn’t necessarily a gift because it’s so much more expensive. “To do that you’d have to change your whole structure,” Miller said.

For example, in Miller’s case, his part of the neighborhood was upzoned from 85 feet to 95 feet. The extra height would make his building a high rise. High rises are built out of concrete or steel, which is much more expensive than wood. “So it’s kind of like sticking a carrot out there that nobody’s going to go for,” he said. “It sounds nice, but it doesn’t work.”

“Sounds nice, but it doesn’t work.”

Exactly.

And there is more.

Neiman said mom and pop developers are showing up less frequently in his office now. Instead, he’s seeing interest from a different kind of developer: institutional investors.