Our current zoning system, which restricts low-income people to a tiny percentage of the city and preserves two-thirds of the city as exclusive enclaves for mostly wealthy homeowners, has its roots in racism and classism.

That may not be the motivation of current Seattle homeowners who want to preserve these enclaves today, and certainly there are no explicit racial rules or covenants anymore, but any honest single-family neighborhood resident should admit that he or she is the beneficiary of a system built on racist, classist housing policies.

Now, the syllogism is clear, at least to me, in these conclusions. The very nature of zoning is intended to segregate uses from each other (as I’ve pointed out before (over and over again). And this segregation of uses leads to segregation of people. When we built the code, the intention was to keep residential use away from other uses, but also some people away from other people. This lives on today when angry neighbors use zoning to fight off efforts to integrate new housing types and new people into their neighborhoods. Efforts to destroy microhousing is the best example of this.

Therefore, efforts to destroy microhousing by angry neighbors are not inherently racist themselves, they are at least, according to people like Durning and Barnett, using a racist tool to accomplish the outcome they seek. And their efforts paid off? Why? Because the Seattle City Council engaged in a process, presided over by Councilmember Mike O’Brien to dismantle and destroy microhousing.

The end of microhousing as we knew it was a story of angry, entitled, mostly white single-family homeowners, using a racist tool to direct the Seattle City Council to pull the plug on a housing product that is housing thousands of people affordably in our city.

Where is the outrage? Shouldn’t there be marches? Shouldn’t there be protests? Shouldn’t, at least, some outraged petitions be circulated and signed demanding reversal of the decision? How about simply not endorsing Mike O’Brien for reelection and withholding contributions.

Nope.

Here’s Seattle Transit Blog’s endorsement of Councilmember O’Brien:

District 6: Mike O’Brien has been an urbanist favorite on transportation and land use for his entire political career. He is a deep thinker on transit issues, a good presence on the Sound Transit board, and willing to stand up to the SOV lobby to allow others to safely share the road. On land use, we are increasingly concerned about his statements about preserving the ‘character’ of single-family neighborhoods and opposing additional density there. Also troublesome are recent gestures toward needlessly restricting the number of units, or paying for affordable housing by adding costs to new housing supply.

“Well Mike (Seattlites have annoying habit of being over familiar with our elected officials, calling them by their first names, something I wish we’d stop. But I digress), you’ve been aiding and abetting angry neighbors as they use an inherently racist system, zoning, to keep new people out of our city. But you’re such a nice guy and so good on other issues. You’re such a deep thinker on all this (although one wonders why someone holding an MBA still doubts supply and demand) that even though what the neighbors are doing and what you’re doing to help them is is, well, immoral, we’re still going to endorse you. You are our friend.”

That’s how it works in Seattle. A mostly white group of “urbanists” (a term I’ve come to despise) drops a bomb on the discourse about housing by introducing race into the discussion, implying (correctly I think) that there is something vile and wrong and even racist about NIMBY efforts to slow growth. Then these same “urbanists” glad hand the politicians that aided and abetted this nastiness, slap them on the back and give them endorsements and money. Councilmember O’Brien doesn’t even have to stop smiling.

Let me make something really clear here. I find that the introduction of race into the discussion of Seattle’s housing future by people I admire and respect appropriate. However, as a person of color myself and as someone who faces on a regular basis the angry mob of entitled single-family neighbors calling for more restrictive housing policies, I don’t think that simply raising the issue, pointing out the facts, and then discussing race is enough.

Racism is not a difference of opinion. It’s one thing to say, “that building makes me look fat!” It is quite another to bow to that red herring and cover story, and make bad and exclusionary housing policy out of them. And it’s even worse if the underlying system to enact and patrol this exclusionary policy is facilitated and guided by a Councilmember who casts himself as a champion of social justice.

I’ve been outraged a long time. Are you? Are you willing to withhold  your vote, money, and endorsement of Councilmember O’Brien and others who pander to angry neighbors? Will you please ask for your endorsement and money back from him until he acts like a champion of social justice not a zookeeper of the wild animals that some single-family neighbors are becoming. We can’t simply keep throwing meat into the cage especially when the meat is much needed housing units.

Let’s then turn outrage into good outcomes: a better, fairer, affordable, and livable city for everyone. It starts with acting like what we say is as serious as it sounds.