The sample size is small, just 41 people. After doing many surveys over the years I’ve found that it is very difficult to get people to respond. It’s irritating. Until I consider that when I get surveys it often takes me a week to 10 days to respond and because I’ve fielded surveys I am pretty committed to answering them too. That being said, I think these numbers are worth sharing. While this is not a statistically valid survey, it was intended to try out a new survey tool and to give people on our list a chance to respond to these questions. The take away is that of the people that responded there is very little support for the policy of mandating set aside units or paying a fee in lieu of that set aside. There is also support for a legal challenge and for Seattle For Growth maintaining our public criticism of the policy. Interestingly, there is also interest, as I suggested in my post yesterday, in trade offs. There is still a chance the City could make this policy better, an actual exchange of value, if it would stop and listen rather than plowing ahead. Let’s look at the responses and comments.

Less than 10 percent of the respondents support the policy of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) in the form of the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA). Just about half oppose the policy outright, but some seem open to a policy that is based on real value exchange that enhances rather than takes from a projects value. Contract rezones have existed for a long time. If the Council and Mayor truly wanted a value exchange they would have promoted a policy that would incentivize that process by making it much easier to do. If the available increase in density fit the economics of a particular project then it would work for everyone.

This second question was an easy one of course, but while non-profits have a growing awareness of how regulation is hurting them too, there’s a real danger that the Council and Mayor will start handing out exemptions to non-profits from regulations. This would not help, only adding more costs to market-rate housing and putting more price pressures on consumers and increasing demand for subsidies. We’ve been asking anyone who will listen to join in and ask the City to please look at the full set of proposals in the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee report. There was a lot in there about reducing costs and streamlining permitting. But there still seems to be doubt at the City that regulatory overreach is making life more expensive for people in Seattle.

In Portland, the immediate impact of MIZ was to lock up production while lenders, investors, builders, and developers tried to figure out what it was going to do to costs. We’re seeing the same thing here.  Sellers think their land is worth more because of increased density, buyers are worried about the risk and the fees. And nobody knows exactly when MIZ will kick, where, and how much it will really costs. While the proposal is out there, it’s been appealed and is still subject to amendment. Additionally, the City has a habit of making noises about vesting, the point at which a project is subject to existing code and exempt from new rules. There will be a big push to get projects vested under the current, understood system. Then there will likely be a drop in production while many wait things out. This will mean fewer units in the face of rising demand and then even higher prices.

A legal challenge to MIZ is inevitable and the question is “when?” The most successful challenge will be both a facial and as applied challenge; that is a legal challenge based on the law and also someone who has suffered damages. I’ve already heard from builders who are seeing negative impacts in areas exposed to MIZ upzones and others who are worried about what impact it will have if it gets applied to possible, future projects. There will be lots of damage done while the market absorbs the additional costs and uncertainty. The City has shown little regard for the law, but there has been success in taking them on. It just costs time and money and meanwhile real people suffer.

Pressure will grow for me to shut up. As the Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp, told me, “People are really mad at you!.” I said, “Well, a lot of people I work with and for are mad, too!” I’ve already felt the downside of criticizing the powerful non-profit industry. Sadly, the non-profits won’t engage on costs; instead they try to find who support our efforts and put pressure on them, suggesting that bad things will happen. The non-profits are acting like passive-aggressive gangsters, unable to defend their high costs and inefficiency but unwilling to compromise.

Again, a small sampling, but all voices are important, even small and few voices. The bottom line is that we’ll keep working every angle to get to accomplish our mission, more housing of all kinds, in all parts of the city, and for people of all levels of income.