I don’t usually do this, but thanks to the “on this day” feature on Facebook, this post from a year ago popped up on my feed. It’s interesting.  Not much has changed in the last year. The City is still plodding along towards imposing Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ), people are still calling that idea “HALA,” and none of the other actual pro-housing recommendations in the full Housing and Affordabilty and Livabilty Agenda have been implemented. But this FAQ is still a good map for the questions we’ll still be facing in 2017. 

When I was a new to the study of philosophy, maybe in high school, the first things we read were the dialogues of Plato. At the time, the format was kind of annoying. Just tell us, Socrates, what it is you’re trying to say! Stop with all the questions! Well, it didn’t take long to get the point. Socrates was, well, being Socratic, using questions to draw the truth out of his pupils and even us reading centuries later. Today we don’t really rely on dialogues but the Frequently Asked Questions or the three letter acronym, FAQ. You’ll find the FAQ on many web pages and even in instruction manuals. It’s a way of helping people navigate something new, and it saves people on the other side of a counter or e-mail having to repeat themselves over and over. Here’s my take on an FAQ for the Grand Bargain, the proposed exchange of value through upzones for the inclusion of rent restricted housing.

——————–

GRAND BARGAIN FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is the Grand Bargain?

The Grand Bargain is a deal struck between some developers, non-profit housing advocates, and the City to upzone parts of the city in exchange for 6000 units of rent restricted housing in new development over 10 years. It’s an amazing coming together of diverse interests to solve our housing crisis! A lot of people signed a letter saying they really like the Bargain.

Is the Bargain the same as the HALA recommendations? 

No. The Bargain is one recommendation in the HALA document

What prompted the Bargain?

Seattle has been having a housing crisis; housing prices have been skyrocketing!

Will the Bargain lower over all housing prices?

No. But it will create 600 housing units affordable for people who earn 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) per year over a 10 year period. It will also generate millions in fees for other rent restricted units.

Who pays for these new units?

All the upzones will generate enough value to offset the costs for private developers to subsidize those units. If that doesn’t work, then builders will have to raise rents in other units they build to cover the costs. If that doesn’t work, then some projects won’t happen, at least until rents go up enough to cover the costs.

So it’s possible that the Bargain will actually raise rents on some units?

Yes. But the city will have 600 new, rent restricted units per year for 10 years for people earning 60 percent of Area Median Income. And this plan has all kinds of people behind it!

When does construction of these units begin?

Hard to say, but based on the City’s stated timeline the first Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Units (MIZUs) should be ready sometime in 2018 after rezones are passed sometime in 2017. This allows for process and legislation and about a year for construction.

Where will these upzones and units be located? Will there be some places upzoned and some not? 

Hard to say. Pretty much wherever building happens in the city, but there isn’t any data, projection, or requirement on where these units will be built. And some City Councilmembers want to renegotiate the Bargain with neighbors, suggesting that the upzones will happen differently all over the city — maybe even upzoning some parcels one way and some other parcels a different way. So where the housing will go is anyone’s guess.

Are there really 6000 people or families earning 60 percent of AMI that need housing? What do they do until 2018? And what do the remaining 5400 do until 2019? And the 4800 until 2020?

Well, no, nobody really knows where the 6000 figure came from. It’s just a guess, really. But if everything goes well, Seattle will have 6000 new rent restricted units sometime around 2028!

What happens if the 6000 people or families that need these units increase their incomes? Or what if the need for units priced at 60 percent of AMI increases?

What’s with all the questions? Look, did I mention this is an unprecedented coming together of diverse interests? Do you want to see the letter? We didn’t really bother to analyze long term needs by income. It’s all a guess. This is complicated stuff. It’s not like people do this for a living you know.

Ummm, I’ve seen letter already. Did all developers sign the Bargain? They like this?

The big ones did, you know Vulcan and other big developers. They build lots of housing.

So the developers that signed the Bargain are building the 6000 units?

Hey. Can I buy you a drink? You look thirsty. Anything you want. It’s on me.

Wait. You’re not answering the question. Are those guys building the units?

No. Look. They’ve got enough to deal with, ok. They’re building those big buildings. Big! So they’ll just pay a fee and that money will buy housing built by non-profit developers. See how that works? That’s why EVERYONE supports this Bargain! It’s amazing. I mean look at all the names on that letter.

So all the builders and developers outside downtown and South Lake Union have to build these units?

Well, yeah.

Is that even feasible?

Look, we’re still trying to figure that out. We really didn’t ask them. But, come on, don’t be a Negative Nancy. We’ll figure this out.

But you said the units get built with additional value or increases in rent, right?

Well, yeah, but remember we get 600 of those units sometime out there, in the future.

You’re saying this Bargain won’t lower overall housing prices even though higher prices were the reason for the Bargain in the first place, that there’s no data to support the need for 6000 units prices at 60 percent AMI, and that you’re not even sure where those units will be built or if they’ll be built? And you’re saying that the people that are supposed to build those units didn’t sign the Bargain, but the ones who did don’t have to build the units? This doesn’t sound like a bargain at all and it won’t solve the housing price problem.

Hey, that last sentence wasn’t a question. That’s not fair. This is an FAQ remember?

Yes, but don’t seem to have very good answers. This seems like a political solution with few if any connection back to the stated problem of housing price. This Bargain doesn’t address housing prices at all, it just mandates the building of some rent restricted units at the expense of other new housing, a recipe for higher prices! Sure lots of people signed a letter but that doesn’t change the fact that this Bargain doesn’t address the problem people say is the crisis.

Ok, now you’re just making speeches. There wasn’t a single question in all that. Not one. We don’t know how to figure out solving the price problem, but we can make developers and builders pay something for units. That’s what we’ve got. That’s all we’ve got. And that letter!

How about allowing more housing of all types, all over the city, and all price levels and helping really poor people who can’t pay their rent with a subsidy?

Ahh. Finally. A question. Hmmm. Well. If we did that developers would just make more money.

Maybe so, but wouldn’t we have more housing to meet the demand over the coming years whether it’s 600 or more or less? Wouldn’t it make sense to let private investors take that risk rather than boosting overall housing prices? 

The politics aren’t there for that. Developers are rich! They need to pay their fair share for all the housing they’re building. You know what that housing does?

Hey, I’m supposed to be asking the questions here.

All the new jobs created by the tech industry creates a demand for housing, and when developers and builders building housing it creates all kinds of impacts. Do you know what the biggest impact of all is? Guess.

Sigh. Ok. What? What’s the biggest impact of new housing?

Demand for more housing! That’s why forcing these developers to build housing in the housing they’re building will offset the demand created for more housing. It’s brilliant. It’s the first time anyone ever did that what I did just there.

Doesn’t the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program do that already? And together with the Housing Levy aren’t we already creating lots of rent restricted housing very efficiently? Couldn’t we boost those programs? 

Sure but those are voluntary programs. See, this Bargain thing is mandatory. People don’t pay their fair share unless you make them do it. So we’re going to make these developers–well, the ones outside of downtown and South Lake Union–build this housing. They just won’t do it otherwise. I mean, except when they do through MFTE.

I guess we just have to accept a political solution that doesn’t solve the stated problem of high prices but actually could make that problem worse because some people signed a letter?

Now that’s a question that’s easy to answer. Yes!