So if you thought that since Councilmember Mike O’Brien is not seeking reelection that he was done damaging he city’s housing economy think again. Not content with banning small houses on small lots, now O’Brien is killing single-family housing production of larger houses on single-family lots. From a story in the Seattle Times:

For new houses on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet, there would be a cap of 2,500 square feet, rather than an FAR limit.

Only 9.5% of Seattle’s existing single-family houses would have been blocked had O’Brien’s proposal been in place when they were built.

But 47% of new houses built in the city since 2010 (1,753 of 3,694) would have been blocked, according to data requested by The Seattle Times.

At a time when housing is supposedly having a “crisis” O’Brien is proposing something that will further constrain supply. What big or small house is almost impossible to understand except in context. Am I a supporter of giant houses? Not really. But I am a supporter of allowing supply to meet demand. And when O’Brien along with Tom Rasmussen and Tim Burgess killed small-lot development they eliminated that option as well. No wonder the bigger houses are filling lots that are still buildable. Here’s what our proposal looked like:

Those little houses can’t be built anymore. Now, the bigger one, extruded almost to the lot line, won’t be buildable either.

The reason? In both cases O’Brien was pandering to angry neighbors. One theory in the Seattle Times story is that the ban on larger houses is a bone being throne to the angry neighbors who were trying to kill Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs). Good work!

The mind of O’Brien and his colleagues would be interesting places to visit. So in order to “solve” the housing problem they supported a per square foot tax on new multifamily housing with Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA), a scheme that will discourage its production and drive up its price for consumers. Then they take the taxes and flush them into the grossly inefficient subsidized housing complex. But when they think a building is too small or too big they ban it in the code.

Here’s a clue: why don’t you think up a tax on big houses and then give that money to the non-profits. I’ll be waiting by my phone for the call that you’ve found your senses on this issues and that you’re going to apply the same logic to big houses you hate that you applied to punishing developers with fees when you imposed MHA. If the call comes, I’ll gladly support the “Big House Tax Program.” I won’t hold my breath, but I’m ready to testify in favor.