You really ought to be sure you check your Facebook messenger inbox. You may find some fascinating things in there. I have found messages from people trying to reach me from years ago; because we we’re friends on Facebook I never saw the message. You’re also sure to find ancient dialogues that will stir your memory and bring it all back again, whatever “it” is. Last week I was culling through my inbox and found this exchange from July of 2011. The exchange is between myself and then City Councilmember Sally Clark. If you bother to read this you can feel the tension. Clark and I had a long history going all the way back to the time when she was a legislative aid for then Councilmember Tina Podlodowski. Then we were both Neighborhood Development Managers, implementing neighborhood plans for then Mayor Schell. Then I hassled her relentless over land use issues when I started writing about land use.

Clark always meant well, but she was, like Tom Rasmussen, very, very conservative. She probably wouldn’t reject that designation. Compared to the crew at City Hall today, Clark seems rational and receptive. She took the time to dangle what I think was a job offer in her office and then argue with me — on a Saturday — on Facebook about land use and housing. Today, City Councilmembers simply don’t have the courage to engage with me at all. I’m sure they’ve been advised, “Just ignore him!” Anyway, this also goes out to all the newbies on the housing scene; I’ve been doing this a lot longer than you. Don’t forget that. Listen to what I say. I know what I’m talking about! The Roosevelt upzone was an ugly battle that ended in, essentially, a truce. It flared up a couple years ago when then Mayor Ed Murray wanted to give away of small win — an upzone to some parcels near light rail — to the Parks Department. Anyway, if you bother to read it might be interesting.

————————–

Sally Clark: Hi, Roger – Before I pose this question to you I’ll admit I’ve totally lost track of where you’re employed at the moment. Are you freelancing or on somewhere right now?  . . . I’m in need of someone who gets the City Council committee system and wants to make a cameo appearance for 2 weeks. You have experience and some affinity (so I’ve heard) with the committee subjects. Despite your inexplicable blindness to market history in Seattle’s economically marginalized communities and the disconnect between rents and costs, would you be at all interested in slumming for two weeks to sit in for David? Think of the discussions! Think of the fodder you’d gather for blogging! Let me know. You’re good, you’re smart, thought I’d give it a shot. Thanks for considering.

Me: Gosh Sally, that is brilliant. Get me inside the tent! Let me think that over. Had you made the offer last month it would have been an enthusiastic “yes,” if nothing else just to see if you were serious. My situation is a bit more complicated today. But it’s an interesting idea . . . I think intervention in the market place is important. You won’t find a bigger cheerleader for government (an[d] upzones) than me. But I would say it’s not blindness on my part.

Instead, I suggest that when you and your colleagues are intervening with the good intention of fixing a market failure, you’re actually creating one. The supply of single family housing is locked in. When development of additional multifamily housing is slowed down or limited you’re creating a windfall for folks that own single family homes. By limiting the options of first time home owners or new renters we’re pushing them out. It’s not because developers are charging gouging rents, it’s because there are more people in the market place than there are units. That’s why I find your comments about private property interests so strange. 

The private property interests that are served by pulling back on the reins of the development of new housing types and multifamily, are single family homeowners. How many “economically marginalized” people show up opposing DADUs, new apartment development in existing L3 zones, or new within-the-existing-envelope developments near their homes? Not very many. But you will find folks who have a private interest in the value of their own investment. That’s legitimate, but nobody calls that interest out, just the supposed greed of developers versus the poor. And in spite of what some people say, new housing isn’t just a bunch of impacts that have to be off set and mitigated. Growth is good for the things we value in neighborhoods.

I’d love to dialogue further, and I can’t even imagine the sit com like possibilities of my being in your office. We could make a million on a cable show about that. But I hope you’ll take my criticism for what it is, an attempt, from someone — not a developer or single family homeowner — to offer an different perspective on winners and losers from the Council’s decisions or inaction on land use. The evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, probably points in different directions, but I think that on balance the idea that creating more housing can lower housing price — though not a new one — is something that ought to be considered seriously.

Sally Clark: Thanks for considering it, Roger. I hadn’t thought about it as an evil scheme to bring you into the tent, but I like that reading. Makes me sound slightly evil. If I remember correctly, you’ve been in the tent before. That’s one reason I find some of your recent comments odd. In neighborhood planning and implementation I think we treated neighborhood people like adults who could have a serious conversation about density, character, market forces, and winners/losers. You also know that I’m a proponent for new multi-family development. Government intervention in the mode of upzones alone, though, is insufficient to produce truly affordable housing, open space and the other requirements for great places. I think you’re right – a cable show. When do we start?

Me: Thanks Sally.

I am glad we’re talking about this. I’d do the two weeks, seriously, if I could. I have, in spite of my efforts to resist it, an actual job. So I think it would preclude me from jumping back in, although it is an interesting enough offer that maybe I could get leave to do it.

I haven’t changed my opinion of neighborhood people (and I actually do live in a neighborhood myself). I think they can have good dialogue about these things. But what I think we did well back then was set limits to that. I don’t think we need to have lots of discussion and debate about whether we increase density at transit stations — the question is how much and what kind.

I agree that up zones alone won’t solve anything. We also agree on multi-family development; we need more. And your job is to listen to everyone whether it’s opponents and supporters of specific approaches to land use in general or projects in particular. Even me

But we need a vision for growth in the city. We’re not doing enough to build on the millions of hours we all spent on the last round of planning. We agreed to put growth where there was existing capacity. Why are we discussing the finer points of balconies, for example, in an area that is already zoned for NC 65? Why are we spending hours in design review on an proposed apartment building in the middle of a sea of L3?

For me, some things have already been decided. Some other things should have been decided a long time ago. Some other things are debatable. You’re in a position to make decisions about which which proposals fit into those categories, which means getting criticized. That’s annoying I’m sure. What we probably disagree on is what things live in those categories (decided, should have been decided, and debatable). I think up zones around light rail stations, for example, live in the “been decided” box.

I think we’ve got the first episode figured out already.

Sally Clark: Well, I’m not sure the first episode has been figured out. One thing that has been frustrating about this dialogue, if you can call it that, over the past couple of months is the idea that we are somehow debating whether there should be upzones around light rail stations. Was that a strategic decision on your or someone else’s part to frame it as a sort of “when did you stop beating your wife?” question for the land use world?

Given the work I’ve put into expanding overall capacity in the low-rise and mid-rise zones and getting the ball rolling on reevaluating zoning at light rail stations through the plan updates, it’s disengenuous to say I’m not interested in expanding capacity at Roosevelt and other areas. People need to move beyond the capacity-yes-or-no question. I’m not interested in debating whether there should be upzones around light rail. That decision was made even before light rail with the urban village and urban center framework. I am up for debating scale, pace and impacts — both for people who live with the impacts of our decisions now and in the future as the market rises and falls.

I get the sense from you that a little disinvestment now is a small price to pay in return for zoning that matches what the market might do 15 years from now. I think this mostly comes down to high-rise construction versus 85-foot buildings. Should zoning at Roosevelt go to 160 now if the market analysis shows rents won’t cover high-rise construction there for another 10-15 years? What if the community can accommodate the same capacity by converting more L zoning to 85-foot buildings? It’s not yes-or-no to capacity. It’s how and where.

Me: Frankly, I am surprised at where the “density advocate” effort went on Roosevelt and how successful it was on framing the discussion. This was not an effort to put you or anyone else on the defensive. Honestly, the source of the Roosevelt effort was ad hoc, and I’d be glad to give you my perspective on how that came together. I can assure you it did not originate from anyone at City Hall. Really.

You say that you are “up for debating scale, pace and impacts — both for people who live with the impacts of our decisions now and in the future as the market rises and falls.”

I guess I am too, as long as “people that live with the impacts” includes the people who can and should be living in Roosevelt in the future but who don’t live there now. I am less interested in haggling over the effects of shadows from big buildings, for example, on existing single family homes. The hard part is that we have to give equal or greater weight to the impacts of NOT increasing capacity on the people who aren’t here yet. Who’s going to speak for them?

And yes “a little disinvestment now is a small price to pay in return for zoning that matches what the market might do 15 years from now.” I am not a professional on projecting what that looks like. You’ve seen the density along the Expo line in BC. Arguing over 85 is absurd when you consider the heights they have there. Is there a market for it here, ever? I have no idea. I don’t honestly think that matters. If we permit 160 or even higher, and the market only wants 120 years from now, I can’t see what damage that does.

I think the City Council is a lot like the Fed when it comes to fiscal policy. You can essentially loosen regulation, but you can’t control behavior. When you limit development to less than what the market will bear, you can do a lot of damage. If you zone a group of parcels to densities that exceed current capacities the market fills in what it can. Constrain the market and you create scarcity which drives up price. This regularly goes on with office space, but nobody frets too much over that. Sure, we might get the equivalent of a liquidity trap (development capacity trap), in which you can’t up zone anymore. That’s an interesting risk, but one I would be willing to take.

And “what if the community can accommodate the same capacity by converting more L zoning to 85-foot buildings?” Good question. I am the first to say that height doesn’t matter, but density is what counts (check out what I found about Fairhaven Heights in Bellingham: http://daily.sightline.org/2009/09/23/size-matters/) I’m all for downzoning a bunch of L3 east of 12th near SU, for example, in exchange for up zoning everything from Yesler all the way to Pine.

I’m glad to know that you’re willing to consider this kind of thing. There are lots of places where this could be done. Are we willing to push those kinds of substantial up zones AND give equal or greater weight to people who aren’t here yet? Or will we only consider the people who live in these places now and who are motivated to show up? That, I think, is where we might disagree. Planning for potential people who aren’t here yet, and putting their interests over worried people filling the Council chambers isn’t easy. I’m with you on that though.