I’m kicking off a series of posts at Forbes today about the housing discussion. The series is partially to get a lot of thoughts together in one thread. Lately I’ve been saying again and again to anyone that will listen, that we need to tackle some key problems today — like the notion that we’re having an eviction crisis — as well as proposing some positive solutions, and then figuring out how to capture peoples brains back from the fear and suspicion that are driving bad policy. Yesterday, I prefaced this series with a review about a great documentary, Panic: The Untold Story of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Here’s a part of what I wrote about the hour long film and the consequences of the economic meltdown of 2008.

This has meant that the housing discussion has become about how to squeeze money for entitlements for housing, a rejection of industry expertise in favor of academic finger wagging, and a view that holds that somehow economic growth and new jobs cause suffering and homelessness. In Seattle and Chicago, this urge to pander to fear and suspicion has led to actual socialists being elected. Nationally, we see the same trend. It is as if the cold war never happened. How do we turn this around?

Sadly, many people around here and across the country will say, “Turn it around? This is exactly where we want to go!” I was amused and frustrated when I saw lots of “Urbanists” posting a New York Times article saying what I’ve been saying for years, wealthy, white liberals are making housing impossible for everyone else in growing cities. Nothing new here. But social media says a lot about people. People post things on Facebook or Twitter either to shame someone or to pat themselves on the back. “Look how stupid these people are!” or “Look how smart I am.” The problem is that most “Urbanists” support the single worst policy ever devised to address Seattle’s housing “crisis,” Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA).

I’ve got thoughts about why this is the case. Part of it is the natural human desire for a resolution whether watching the last episode of Game of Thrones or finishing the New York Times crossword. The idea that MHA is a compromise that resolves the need for more market rate housing and to shovel cash to non-profits makes people who know nothing about how to build housing feel better even though MHA offers no compromise (only one big developer was at the table) nor will it address the problem of supply, too many barriers to the market. Still, the proposal was shoved through the process and will likely take legal challenges to reverse.

Watch the film. Read the series. We can turn this thing around. It will take time. It will take money. But it is what we have to do.