I’ll admit that awhile ago, I shifted away from social media and comment sections as my preferred location for engaging on the topic of housing and economics. It wasn’t necessarily a conscious choice, but part of a changed dynamic in the discussion. In Seattle, it’s almost as if people said everything that could be said about 100 times. I found myself having the same arguments over and over. I rationalized arguing in comment threads and on Facebook as a way to sort of train for combat. Comment threads required efficient two or three sentence responses that could sum up complicated issues. Also, I felt as though for every troll engaged, there were 10 people lurking in the audience. Maybe those people could be persuaded. Last week I discovered that all the debate is now on Twitter.

Until last week, I largely have avoided responding to stuff about that I’ve seen on Twitter. Much of it is a lot like the sound of nails on a chalkboard, inaccurate, off base, confused, and misdirected. I’ll skim through the feed and like something here and there or resist the urge to make a snide comment. Other times I will Tweet myself, often a sharp rebuke of a Tweet by the  City Council or Mayor. Otherwise the Seattle For Growth feed is mostly posts from here or from Forbes. But generally I find that Twitter can devolve into an ugliness absent from even the toughest slog through comments 5 or 10 years ago. Threads can quickly turn from substance to attacks on a persons legitimacy and presence in the discourse.

But this post got under my skin, not because I oppose what Senator Palumbo is proposing but because, well, you can see what I said.

 

Increasing allowed density limits in outlying areas of King County isn’t a bad idea. I hope the proposal passes. The problem is that groups like Futurewise are fighting new housing outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA), something that makes sense if they were fighting for lots and lots of housing inside the UGA. This was part of why I made the point about taxing new housing; Futurewise supports Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) called Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA). So we’re taxing housing in looking to impose impact fees in Seattle while also squashing housing outside the UGA. That’s maddening. And that provoked my response.

I was a bit surprised by what followed, which might be worth of a post all its own, but the following morning after all the exchanges Senator Palumbo posted this.

I responded.

I followed up with our still growing list of costs that are making it harder and harder to build housing in Seattle. Finally, I made this point.

So does any of this change anything including any minds? Probably not. Part of my job is to make principled arguments for growth and new housing. As I point out to our supporters, “I do this so you don’t have to!” Most builders and developers are busy working and trying to get their projects built. They don’t have time to engage in the intellectual battles on Twitter or anywhere else.

Is this worth doing? I’m not sure Twitter is worth it, but standing on principle is. Will housing get built even if Seattle and other local governments pass really bad housing policy? Of course. It will just take a lot longer and cost a lot more. What’s driving policy these days isn’t economics but politics. And the politics are driven largely by resentments from single-family homeowners protecting their equity and socialist who think the answer is wringing out the market for more and more money, something sure to boost housing inflation.

How do I know sticking to a message works? The $15 Now! movement succeeded in getting a $15 minimum wage in Seattle because that dollar figure, $15, was repeated over, and over, and over, and over. Where did it come from? It was completely made up. Most data point to a much higher minimum wage, closer to $20, when inflation and other factors are considered. Yet, this flawed idea won the day. Repetition works. What is our message? It’s one based on solid ground and it is, “Allow more housing of all kinds in all neighborhoods for people of all levels of income.” We’re sticking to it.