Come with me down memory lane. In the first quarter of 2014 I started out my full time job as Director of Smart Growth Seattle with what could be called a diplomatic gesture: a tour of small-lot and microhousing with Councilmember Mike O’Brien. After that tour, O’Brien seemed to get that small-lot housing really did fit in with surrounding houses and that, often, existing older houses were preserved along side new housing. And he seemed to get that microhousing was working too.

In spite of rational discussion and looking at what was working, both small-lot infill and microhousing took major hits, with significant losses of housing capacity. In fact, microhousing as we knew it is no longer feasible. Why did this happen? The same reason the Mayor and Council backed off changes suggested by the HALA Committee: angry neighbors.

And what about the Grand Bargain, the deal made between growth supporters and non-profit housing advocates that would grant more density in exchange for mandatory inclusionary zoning? That requires significant upzone to create the inclusion of affordable units. Why won’t the same neighbors and politicians create the same outcome, a front lash followed by a climb down on the essential ingredient of the bargains, upzones.

Remember, Councilmember O’Brien supported bizarre requirements last month to building in the low-rise zones like a 16 foot setback on top floors simply so neighbors would not see that floor from the street. That’s right, loss of housing so that a neighbor walking a dog wouldn’t see that awful top story!

Nobody has explained to me why that dog walking neighbor will not only support an end to the set back requirement but a whole new, additional floor on top. Would that neighbor and the dog change their minds because of the new affordable units that would be mandated? That seems doubtful, even with a grass roots campaign.

So what do we do to stop the slide? I’m afraid we can’t do much about the politics. Practically, I think bringing back neighborhood development managers would be a hugely positive step to help in the longer run. But today, what we’re seeing with the HALA recommendations is a repeat, on a larger scale, of what happened to small-lot development,  microhousing, and capacity in the low-rise zones, a discussion among rational people, followed by a sensible proposal, followed by outrage by angry single-family neighbors, then a reduction in housing capacity.

This year’s election is only making his worse. I’ve been saying for years that we need a strong voice representing the pro-growth perspective at City Hall. I think we’ve got that with Smart Growth Seattle. What we don’t have is leadership from elected leadership. This is our challenge.

Seattlites by nature don’t like conflict. We get very uncomfortable when the volume goes up and people get upset. Neighbors use this well. They get very emotional and Councilmembers respond to that emotion, partially because they don’t want to lose their jobs but also because they want the emotions to stop. All that agitation makes them nervous; responding seems to appease it.

It sounds weird, but we need to do the same thing in the coming weeks and months. Too often people who are pro growth and development are either too busy building or smart enough to want be persuasive, not confrontational. Half our people are either trying to get a permit or financing and the other half are sharpening their citations in Facebook posts. But telling a Councilmember that he or she is wrong? That’s uncomfortable. We’d rather be agreeable.

I’ll quote my hero Emmeline Pankhurst, an early leader in efforts to get women the right to vote:

You have to make more noise than anybody else, you have to make yourself more obtrusive than anybody else, you have to fill all the papers more than anybody else, in fact you have to be there all the time and see that they do not snow you under, if you are really going to get your reform realized.

Are we prepared to tell Councilmembers they’d be wrong to pull back on the Grand Bargain in the face of an angry mob? Are we willing to run our own pro growth candidates and lose again and again until we’ve moved people across the city to rethink their views on growth? I get criticized as much from our own allies (“urbanists” mostly) for being too aggressive in my criticism of Councilmembers for doing we mostly agree are the wrong things when it comes to housing policy. Maybe in watching the slow unraveling of the HALA bargain more people will join me in making more noise and calling what’s going on at City Hall what it is: a profound lack of vision and leadership.

Emmeline Pankhurst Gets Arrested