Running for office isn’t easy. It’s more or less a gauntlet of trying to make and keep people happy. There is an element of sport to it since it is competitive. But anyone who has been through it will either say they love it or they hate it. Those that love it tend to be elected officials; those that don’t are, well, everyone else. As I said to one of the candidates last week when we interviewed them, whenever someone shows up and asks me for advice because they’re running for office, I generally ask the, “When did you stop taking your medication?” Too many people running for office suffer from a serious and incurable disease, Sally Field Syndrome; the desperate and urgent need to be liked (I came down with the disease in my 20s, but it’s in remission). Some politicians can manage and learn to live with the symptoms of the disease, but, sadly, for most its a terminal condition, and the desire to be liked and appreciated leads to all manner of bad decisions and policies the rest of us have to live with forever.

The latest crop of 21 candidates are a mixed bag of people with multiple disorders (see Alex Tsimmerman), including Sally Field Syndrome and socialism, but there are some candidates who have emerged as more lucid than others. The Master Builder Association’s Political Action Committee, the Affordable Housing Council (AHC) and members of Smart Growth Seattle interviewed 5 candidates, Senator Bob Hasegawa, Libertarian Casey Carlisle, former State Representative Jessyn Farrell, former Mayor Mike McGinn, and former United States Attorney Jenny Durkan. Carlisle is a smart and principled candidate, but he’d admit he is a a big long shot. Endorsements shouldn’t just be about electability, but for this post I want to focus on the 4 candidates that might emerge out of the primary.

I give a general view, then whether I think the candidate would be good for housing, and by that I mean would the candidate stop or pause the disastrous policy of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) in the form of the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Program? And does the candidate understand that builders already contribute millions of dollars in taxes and fees to support growth. In fact, builders are doing God’s work, building housing for people who need places to live in our city. It shouldn’t be surprising that none of the candidates expressed a deep appreciation of the work that builders and developers do, although some seemed more persuadable than others. Also I consider whether the candidate would survive the primary, although this is truly a big unknown since there are so many candidates that could gather just enough votes to squeak through the primary. So far, I don’t recommend endorsing anyone, but McGinn and Durkan are getting close.

And by the way, leadership to me means telling the voters they are wrong. That’s the single most important medicine for Sally Field Syndrome. It’s strong medicine, but it really does work wonders. 

Senator Bob Hasegawa

Hasegawa is a long time labor activist, and his campaign reflects this. For the most part, Hasegawa reflects the growth fatigue being experienced by older, more established single-family residents. He said in his questionnaire that, “growth is a regional issue and the responsibility for accepting growth should be shared throughout the region.” This is the ‘taking growth’ school of thought; growth is like radioactive waste, something that should be avoided and put somewhere far away where it can’t hurt anyone. Hasegawa thinks that the establishment of a public bank will solve the housing problem. I think a public bank is a good idea, but for it to back housing it would have to make loans to private developers and the constitution currently won’t allow that.

Good for housing?

Hasegawa would likely take a high inclusion and high fee approach to implementation of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ). Interestingly, after our conversation, it seemed to dawn on him that the vast majority of housing is built by smaller family owned businesses, not corporations. If elected, he might listen to reason on the impact of MIZ on housing production.

Survives the primary?

While Hasegawa has won elections in the Seattle sections of his legislative district, those are low turnout areas and he can’t raise money during the session, meaning he’s running a money free campaign; laudable but unlikely to produce a win.

Endorsement?

No. However, if Hasegawa makes it through the primary and is faced off against Cary Moon or Nikita Oliver, neither of which has any experience in government and who support higher fees and mandates, Hasegawa might be far more appealing.

Jessyn Farrell

You’d think that Farrell would be the ideal housing candidate with her background in transportation policy and extensive knowledge of the political process at the state and regional level. But Farrell has a stubborn urge to talk about developers and builders “making a contribution” to housing. When pressed, she just believes that we should tax new housing to pay for some subsidized housing, something that makes no economic sense. Like many so called “urbanists,” Farrell likes the politics of MIZ because, on the surface, it represents some kind of compromise. But she won’t acknowledge that economically, adding costs to housing will make it more expensive and she didn’t seem to understand that the fire hose of cash created by MIZ and extracted from market rate housing will wind up paying for very, very expensive subsidized housing that will take years to build.

Good for housing? 

Farrell has adopted the language of supply and demand, acknowledging that, indeed, increasing supply would help housing prices. But she has a kind of middle of the road approach to getting there. It was pointed out that Farrell would end up being kind of like the 10th Councilmember, sort of going along with the tide of well meaning but damaging legislation being passed lately by the Council. Like Councilmember Johnson, saying the word “supply” doesn’t mean you’ll do anything about that once elected.

Survives the primary?

Farrell plainly states that 20 percent of the primary vote comes from her 46^th legislative district where she was elected and reelected to the legislature. In a crowded field this could make the difference.

Endorsement?

No. Farrell, like her north end colleagues Rob Johnson and Mike O’Brien are enamored of process and policy that addresses political problems rather than actual housing problems. We don’t need fees or taxes on new housing to fuel subsidized housing; if we produced more market rate housing free of restraints, prices would go down, options would increase, and the demand on the subsidized housing system would ease. But this isn’t palatable politically. Maybe Farrell will come around someday, but I’m not betting on it.

Mike McGinn

McGinn seems to be running a somewhat less intense campaign in the past, relying, it would seem, on the fact that some people think he’s still Mayor. This might seem silly, but it’s a real thing. Lots of people in Seattle remember McGinn, and he’s counting on them to give him another shot, and it’s a reasonable strategy. McGinn said he didn’t necessarily want the endorsement of builders; he seems to be building a platform based on the fact that the Grand Bargain was not inclusive. He’s right. But it wasn’t just neighbors that were excluded, but the vast majority of builders and developers who build housing. He seems prepared to stop MIZ in its tracks.

Good for housing?

McGinn gets annoyed when I say it, but he’s playing off the neighborhood opposition to MIZ in the form of Mandatory Housing Affordability. I don’t have a problem with that. The end of the MHA program is good for housing policy, period, whether it dies from wounds inflicted by angry, entitled neighbors or our inevitable lawsuit. As Tommy Lee Jones would say, “I don’t care!” Just kill it or at least slow it down. The problem is that the Council has embraced MHA and would see McGinn’s efforts as an attack on their agenda; I’m not sure he can stop it.

Endorsement?

Hmmm. McGinn would likely be very disruptive to the status quo at City Hall. I think that’s a great thing. Could he make things worse? Possibly. But as it stands now, McGinn would likely create enough disruption that it could buy us some time and a reprieve from MIZ in 2018.

Jenny Durkan

It was notable that of the 5 candidates we talked to, Farrell and Durkan were the only ones with staff accompanying them, and Durkan’s was the only one to sit next to her during our talk. Durkan is well backed by City Hall regulars and by big developers, like Vulcan. When I pointed out my concern about that she pushed back saying, “How do you know I met with Vulcan first?” I said that I read it in the papers. She didn’t deny it but didn’t like the fact that I brought it up. The bad news about Durkan is that she is new to land use and housing policy, and the people she knows and who are supporting her candidacy, have terrible and self serving notions about what to do about housing issues.

Good for housing?

The good news about Durkan is that she is intelligent and experienced and I could see her recognition that MIZ is problematic economically. I think of all the candidates, while the most poorly advised, probably has the greatest potential of renegotiating the Grand Bargain. While this would like be simply figuring out how much more ransom non-profits want paid, I think what could emerge is a voluntary program that was not extortionary. But big developers downtown like Vulcan and the Housing Development Consortium would likely still be the dominant forces, a terrible thing for housing policy.

Endorsement?

We’ll see. Durkan isn’t used to being hassled as evidenced by her evident but low-key annoyance at my pointed questions. The questions are uncomfortable; Vulcan and the people in the room who signed the Grand Bargain support her. But she’s going to have to open the door and listen to the people that actually build housing. I asked her, very explicitly, to stop MIZ, period. I also handed her a copy of RCW 82.02.020 and urged her (she’s a lawyer!) to read it a few times. Durkan is probably the only candidate running that has the ability and smarts to stop Seattle’s slide into liberal, progressive oblivion. But will she?