The final episode of Summer Reruns with our fantasy theme is from a while back and was written in exasperation as some truly bad writing, editing, and reporting at the Seattle Times. Too often I think “reporters” are just eating a sandwich at their computer when they write their stories. Google searches, conventional wisdom, and pure laziness seem to have taken a hold of most people we generally counted on to dig deep into the narrative. And the hardest working people on the internet are pushing a point, not trying to increase the amount of information in the discourse. There’s nothing wrong with having a point of view, but today journalism isn’t a competition between writers trying to get as close to the truth as they can, but, instead, it’s a battle over clicks and likes. What if that wasn’t the case? 

There are some stories that write or tell themselves. Think of the story of Goldylocks and the three bears, or Little Red Riding Hood. Then there’s the one about how Seattle is suffering under the great strain and burden of new people coming here. Same old story, same protagonists and antagonists, and the same outcome: greedy people from outside trying to take away everything good about our city. Some people agree with me that this is a myth that must be destroyed if we are to make progress on building more housing. Hearing the story over and over again gets old, and the Seattle Times keeps playing the same old serial again with, As Seattle Grapples with Growth, a Question: Whose City is it? As the lights go down you know exactly how this story is going to go, right?

It’s all there. Greedy developers. Feckless planners stumped at how to control runaway growth. Baffled and frightened people of color (POCs we’ve been called lately). And of course, the wistful strains of “things used to be different.” There’s an Onion parody that editors at the Times should read about vanishing Burger Kings. I think they’d be so embarrassed they’d want to hide.

CLEVELAND—Every day, 38-year-old Susan Tarsley takes a brisk walk through her tree-lined neighborhood. At each turn, she is reminded of the changes brought on by the march of progress: a TV antenna dismantled to make way for underground cable, passersby chatting on cell phones, a rusty tricycle abandoned for a Razor scooter.

But at the silent corner of Lark Street and Superior Avenue, Tarsley stops to mourn the passing of an especially treasured landmark. Her local Burger King is fading into memory. It’s a sadly familiar picture in many communities: Fast-food hubs that once bustled with activity, when young and old alike gathered in plastic molded seats around gleaming yellow linoleum tables, are now boarded-up ghost restaurants. Their long-extinguished drive-through menus silently beckon to cars that will never come.

What makes The Onion article funny is, as Homer Simpson would say, “It’s true!” Everyone’s read the same story over and over again. It’s why the parody works. It’s also funny because, like all good parody, there is a sense of something going too far or to excess. The Seattle Times story is almost a parody of itself. The photographer even creates “ghost” images of places being “lost to change.”

Planners at the City and builders would be shocked to find out that

Until now, in some cases development has been done in a seemingly slapdash manner, resulting in unintended negative consequences, such as traffic congestion and strains on parking. There’s also the issue of older, smaller, more affordable apartment buildings being demolished to make way for all those new, tall, generally more expensive ones.

Yep, all this growth has been happening willy nilly. It’s a free for all. Sure, small-lot development in single-family neighborhoods has been limited, microhousing has been effectively shut down, and low-rise zones effectively down zoned. And more and more requirements are being added and existing ones reinterpreted to protect single-family home owners. Yes. Slapdash. The myth becomes reality in land use and housing policy.

And,

Even with ostensibly good intentions, though, there’s always a project, proposal or policy that causes major blowback.

Case in point: Last summer, Times columnist Danny Westneat reported that the mayor’s housing affordability advisory committee, mainly made up of developers, legal experts and community-organization leaders, was considering recommending heavy restrictions on single-family zoning to accommodate more duplexes, triplexes and other multifamily construction, to help temper rising housing costs. Among other things, the news stirred up old suspicions in Seattle about the influence of property developers, who have an obvious financial interest in any growth plans, over public policy. The idea was soon tabled.

Yes. “Heavy restrictions on single-family zoning to accommodate more duplexes, triplexes and other multifamily construction.”

Huh? Heavy restrictions? Does anyone edit this stuff? The heavy restrictions is what’s making housing more expensive and boosting the wealth of largely white, entitled, and aging single-family home owners. Meanwhile everyone else gets locked out of owning a home or living in a single-family neighborhood, a zone that dominates Seattle’s land use.

I wish these writers and editors would try, for once, something new. Talk to the many, many people who are struggling to make ends meet but are happy here because they are better off than they were before. How about a story that highlights their hopes and plans here in our city. How about hearing about how this city welcomed them and invited them in and is encouraging them to keep at it and helping them achieve their hopes and dreams. Doing otherwise contributes to the idea that somehow building housing is a bad thing that needs to be punished, a view that only makes life worse for newcomers and natives alike.

Here. I’ll start writing it for you.

Julie Wilson left her home in Pensacola, Florida and moved to Seattle with her girlfriend just a year ago.

“That place wasn’t for us,” says Wilson. “I gets old getting stared at all the time just walking into a restaurant.”

Wilson is white and her girlfriend is black.

“We came here on a vacation and it felt like home, almost right away,” says Wilson. “Before I knew it I had a lead on a job and a couple offers of places to stay while we figured things out.”

Wilson and her girlfriend stayed. Both found jobs at local restaurants. Wilson is an aspiring chef and has enrolled in a program at South Seattle College to hone her skills. Meanwhile her girlfriend is completing some prerequisites to start an engineering degree.

“It’s not easy,” notes Wilson. “Seattle is expensive! But we’re making it work and I feel hopeful because the people here are awesome, loving and welcoming. Everywhere I go I get encouragement and support.”

After a long day at school at work the couple will often hang out at a local bar with friends and plot opening a new restaurant.

“With so many people moving here from around the country, there’s lots of opportunity,” she says noting the growth of Seattle’s tech boom. “Those guys at Amazon are making decent money. And they have to eat.”

Okay. Now go finishing writing that story. Of course you could ask the hypothetical couple the question, “How is your struggle with the housing crisis going,” or “How hard is it to live in Seattle now that it is so expensive?” There is no doubt living in Seattle, or anywhere, can be a struggle and a challenge. For some, poverty is an ever present limit on everything thing life and a looming threat. For others, struggle is part of success and meeting it can be an opportunity for community and collaboration. It all depends on the questions you ask and how you tell the story. Local writers need to work harder not to find examples of happy people, but on framing their stories in a way that reflects possibility not an assumption of misery.