Already we’re seeing lots of things being read into this weeks election with Knute Berger suggesting that it means Seattle has moved even further to the left and the Seattle Times suggesting that “Urbanists” (whoever they are) won the election. For people who produce housing in Seattle, the election is a lot like taking a fall skiing: it sure feels good when you stop falling. But not falling anymore, in Seattle’s case toward more and more bad ideas about housing, doesn’t constitute a win. It means maybe we can start undoing some damage and start making good housing policy. It also means that advocates for good housing policy need to work even harder to keep people at City Hall on the right track. So as we say goodbye to the old Council what should we expect from the new one?

Looking just at the City Council election, heres what we’ll have as far as housing and land use policy goes (I’ll define what each Caucus represents later):

Bye Felicia Caucus

Sally Clark
Tom Rasmussen
Nick Licata

Anti-Growth, Slow-Growth, Social Justice Caucus

Kshama Sawant, District 3
Mike O’Brien, District 6
Lorena Gonzalez, At Large

Facebook Friends of Growth

Shannon Braddock, District 1
Rob Johnson, District 4
Debora Juarez, District 5

Old Council Middle of the Road Finger in the Wind Caucus

Bruce Harrel, District 2
Sally Bagshaw, District 7
Tim Burgess, At Large

Bye Felicia Caucus

We are saying so long to three of the worst Councilmembers the city has had when it comes to land use. While Nick Licata was friendly and likable he always took an adversarial position to anything that even remotely seemed to benefit builders or developers. I personally genuinely like Councilmember Licata, but I am pleased he won’t be making policy affecting housing. Councilmember Rasmussen had an odd tendency to want to micromanage aspects of housing like the size of hedges in front of buildings and the color of the siding. And Sally Clark would probably make a decent television judge, listening to both sides then rendering a verdict that tries to make everyone happy. The fact that these three are gone is good news for housing in the city.

Anti-Growth, Slow-Growth, Social Justice Caucus

These Councilmembers, I think, take very seriously the flavor of what they frequently call “social justice” or “social equity.” I don’t think any of them can or will give a consistent or clear definition of what either of those terms means or how they inform policy and implementation of land use regulation. Lorena Gonzalez notably said she wants to use a “social justice lens” when making housing policy. I don’t have a clue what that means. I’m not sure she does either. And Councilmember O’Brien seems to identify with Robin Hood, trying to take money from developers who he thinks are rich and give that money to people who earn 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), all with a dashing smile on his face. His run on as Chair of the PLUS Committee was disastrous. He’ll continue to make trouble, but perhaps can be better contained.

Councilmember Sawant has until now been the only leader on the Council, pushing her idea-challenged colleagues to embrace an array of bad ideas ranging from blowing off the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce’s retreat to seriously considering rent control. As I’ve said before, in a room with zero ideas, a person with one bad idea generally wins. Sawant has been leading the Council because her colleagues simply have no new ideas or grounding in policy. And Sawant has some great ideas like using the City’s credit to build housing on City owned land; but she tends to push the divisive ones that won’t work like rent control. Hopefully the new Council will be able not simply to oppose her, but support her good ideas come up with better ideas of their own.

Facebook Friends of Growth

I call these Councilmembers Facebook friends because they have sounded really good on housing and land use issues in one on one conversations. I’ve also asked them very explicitly to please listen to us and take our math seriously when we tell them that a policy will make housing prices go up. For example, I think these incoming Councilmembers would take seriously that adding design review requirements push up costs instead of dismissing our sample pro forma work out of hand simply because we are builders and developers. But they haven’t passed the test yet. It’s like asking a Facebook friend for a ride to the airport: will they come through? Or will these three be the kinds of Facebook friends you see in the coffee shop but just can’t place because you never really met them in person?

Rob Johnson gets land use and housing policy and how it interacts with transportation policy. I think Johnson will likely be the next Chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee. That’s a big switch from the Current Chair Mike O’Brien who started with bad ideas that his colleagues made worse in the process. At least Rob has good frame of reference acknowledging the role the market plays in housing prices. Braddock and Juarez were both very positive about listening and having through conversations with people who build housing before making decisions. And my sense from all three is that each will make decisions we disagree with, but will make them with a full understanding of the issues, not just a desire to pacify angry neighbors. I am hopeful these three Councilmembers won’t just not disappoint, but will actually lead with some courage and conviction.

Old Council Middle of the Road Finger in the Wind Caucus

Councilmembers Bagshaw, Harrell, and Burgess are what’s left of the pre-district election Council. To be fair, each of them has demonstrated an ability to listen, do the math, and make good decisions and take tough votes. Bagshaw, for a time, was the only member of the Council to push back on linkage taxes and offer other ideas. Personally, I don’t think our community gave her enough ammunition and we wound up with the so called “Grand Bargain.” However, Bagshaw is also pushing a strange, millionaire funded tower spacing scheme downtown that would take new housing options off the table to protect some rich people’s views.

Harrell helped us push back on a bad amendment to the Omnibus legislation and helped with small-lot legislation. But he also voted for the linkage tax and spent too much time fighting Councilmember Sawant’s re-election creating a mini scandal pushing for Pam Banks endorsement from local Democrats. Harrell has listened and we have appreciated it, but often he seems influenced more by politics than good math.

Burgess stood tall against his colleagues several years ago, urging significant upzones in Pioneer Square. He knows how to be a leader politically and practically on the Council. But he seems still bitter about his foiled efforts to crank up incentive zoning fees as part of his failed run for Mayor. He tends to be unreliable on land use and housing issues and has a stubborn streak.

Could Have Been Worse, Could Get Better

I won’t even go into how much worse this new Council could be had Lisa Herbold, Jon Grant, and Bill Bradburd been elected. It could have been much, much worse for housing. But let’s not start declaring and Pax Urbana yet. The best case scenario for housing in the next two years is Councilmember Johnson taking a strong and confident leadership role on housing and land use. Councilmember Braddock and Gonzalez did get lots of support and help from the business community, something that might make them less antagonistic in general and perhaps more willing to take leadership on housing from Johnson. And Debora Juarez is intelligent and experienced. She’s been a judge and understands and takes seriously the broader legal issues of policy.

We are going to put our intentions into a Council that can muster 6 or 7 votes for fixing damaging changes to design review pushed by Councilmember O’Brien in omnibus legislation, bringing back microhousing, and fixing damage done to the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. I think the votes to do these things are there, but it will take work on our part, leadership from Councilmember Johnson, Braddock, and Juarez and a willingness to go along from Bagshaw, Harrell, and Burgess. But that’s 6 votes. That’s possible now. It wasn’t a week ago.