Local builder Mark Huber has been featured in a blog post at the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) that highlights his work with communities here and internationally building housing. We’ve featured Huber before in our City Builder series that featured stories about the actual humans that build housing for other humans in Seattle. I have two points to make. First, we’ve heard a lot in the last few days about not attributing the motives and actions of individuals to the groups of which they are part. I agree. And second, Huber has a lot to teach us about how we deal with the challenge and work of how we meet housing demand.

First, one of the most serious problems housing faces in our region is that many, many people harbor resentment for developers and builders. One Councilmember, Tim Burgess even told me that when I get up to speak to the City Council he discounts what I say because I represent people who make money from housing. Yes, Councilmember Burgess, it’s called earning a living. But somehow, unlike many other professions or callings, people who build things are supposed to be greedy. Greed is a character trait, not a business model. And people who build housing are engaged in doing what they love to do and what they produce is a benefit to people who need housing.

Locally, Huber is working with many others to rebuild a family’s home that burned down. The family had no insurance and was faced with a problem that many families experience: where will we sleep tonight. Huber’s work on this project is an example of how a team of people are using their building skills to help real people in need, right now. And I think the vast majority of builders and developers in our city get that there are serious housing problems that need a solution, but our political system would rather tax them for their “fair share” than marshall their knowledge and skills.

Not all builders are as socially driven and conscious as Huber, but his work here and in other countries shows a commitment to the person who needs housing and meeting their needs. From the NAHB post:

“This isn’t about us simply building something and then turning it over to whomever is going to use it or live in it,” Huber said. “A lot of what we focus on is learning how and why these people live they way they do. When you come to that understanding, then it’s easier to identify the best way to work together and address their needs.”

And that brings me to my second point. I’ve written about The Jungle, the spontaneous housing solution put together by a couple hundred people under I-5. Is that the best solution? Probably not. But it’s working for the people who are there at the moment. What the City has done is to give the residents of that neighborhood two choices: leave or move into a conventional subsidized unit or shelter.

The problem is that if there was a subsidized unit available, why would anyone sleep in a tent under a bridge. And shelter options don’t work for many families. The City doesn’t seem to be able to cope with any housing solution that works but doesn’t fit their conventional model of what housing is supposed to look like. I’ve pointed out that this was exactly the case with microhousing, because of its size and unique place in the code it was hounded out of existence. It was different so it had to go, even though it was working well for many people.

I wish the City would engage with builders and developers and ask them, “How should we address the challenge of finding housing for everyone that wants it in Seattle?” If it did, the City would tap a valuable resource. Instead, we vilify developers, deny them a place at the table, and set up schemes like Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning to squeeze cash out of their projects to subsidize enormously expensive subsidized units. Mark Huber is a great example of a builder who could help the City not with fees and an inclusionary unit here and there, but developing an efficient and compassionate and useful system wide solution. If only they’d just ask.