In my last post I pointed out, at length, how the same divide among left-leaning progressives over inclusion and money in the debate over Initiative 732 also divides their approach to housing. I wrote that, in the end, the left is paralyzed by a conflict between doing what science and economics indicates and the subtler need to address and redress inequality in the policy process and economy. Progressives need both of these things, even though the best way to address issues of poverty, for example, is using what we know about economics, not abrogating that knowledge in favor of throwing money at organizations. Is there a way forward?

We can move forward if we can recognize and follow three key principles when considering policy solutions to big problems.

1. Follow the data and science – we know that if we had a surplus of housing that prices would be lower, and even when they are low, some families will struggle to make ends meet. I think the problem progressives have with following the data is that is seems cold and without compassion. But there is quantitative data and qualitative data. Listening to real people’s stories about their challenges in our local economy isn’t necessary to making good policy; but making policy based on anecdotes and conspiracy theories woven by people suffering isn’t compassionate at all, it is, in truth, the best way to make their lives worse.

2. Compromise, but don’t compromise principles – There ought to be engagement with groups and people who are dealing with the problems of housing price in our economy. Progressives tend to be people who consider themselves intelligent and compassionate; when confronted with strong emotion, their tendency is to want to make the emotion go away with facts first, then compromise. We can’t do that anymore. Engaging in real dialogue means have a bedrock position, and fighting for the things that are necessary to move ahead, and willingness to compromise on everything else. The progressive left doesn’t have a good handle on those principles (e.g. price is a measure of supply and demand, period), other than inclusion and diversity. It’s time to chose the data over anecdote, and sound economics over folklore because it is the compassionate choice. 

3. Be skeptical of demands for more funding – The problem with Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) is twofold. First, it won’t solve the problem of rising prices and second, it is mostly an effort to wring cash out of the market’s production of housing for subsidized housing. Simply put, non-profit housing production costs are very high and getting higher just like for-profit costs. But the non-profits don’t look at rising costs and say, “Help us reduce those barriers and costs from parking requirements and design review!” Instead, they ask for more money. When approached by the non-profit housing industry asking for more money, we need to require that they come up with an honest and comprehensive audit of their costs structure and serious proposals to reduce those costs; otherwise no additional money.

4. Organizations aren’t people – Lefties love to say, “Corporations aren’t people!” Well, neither are organizations. Policy makers need to look beyond the people who fill a room today and try to balance those voices and faces with the many, many people who aren’t in the room and don’t have a voice. That is very difficult to do. The easy thing to do is capitulate to the loudest voices and to ignore the fewer voices that may have expertise and important knowledge. People who produce and operate housing are largely ignored in our process. That doesn’t hurt my feelings and our people are too busy working to come to lots of meetings. But it does make for bad policy, because without the input of the farmer, food policy would suffer. Wouldn’t we listen to people who ride buses when making decisions about transit? Housing producers need a bigger voice in the discussion even though making housing is their livelihood; is that reason enough to blind our decisions from their perspective? I don’t think so.

Taken together, this is basically a call for progressives in Seattle to stop trying to solve the problem of inclusion and equity AND housing price issues all at once. The two things are related, but not the same. We simply can’t erase resource and opportunity distribution comprehensively by making policy about climate or housing. We are overburdening discreet housing and climate policy tools with the expectation that they will have perfect and broad beneficial social impacts. This is why it’s so peculiar that we have uncritically assumed normative standards for housing prices and attempt to mandate those standards but not the price anything else, like transportation, health care, and day care.

Putting the burden to somehow achieve social justice with housing policy distorts the policy because it assumes that if everyone in the city paid exactly 30 percent of their income for housing, all our problems would be solved. This is neither possible nor desirable. And taxing and feeing and making housing harder to build in the name of helping the poor is folly. Progressives must look beyond the discomfort of people in the room they are in at the moment, and start thinking about the agony so many face each day struggling in our booming economy, an agony created and enhanced by pandering to self-serving non-profits and angry neighbors bent on an embargo against building any new housing at all.