I don’t usually post on Fridays but the irony playing out over Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) is too good not to share in a short post. You may have gotten an email in your in box announcing the promulgation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the City’s version of MIZ, Mandatory Housing Affordability. You may have seen stories about it, like David Kroman’s take on the latest release at Crosscut. I called Kroman this morning to remind him that developer’s don’t want more square footage, especially if it comes at the prices being offered by the City. As I’ve pointed out a million times, MIZ/MHA is a recipe for higher prices. Kroman wanted to know if we were going to file legal challenges. Of course we will. In time. But to mount an as applied and facial challenge will take time and a lot of money. Here’s the irony part.

Angry neighbors might do a lot of the work for us, in another post by Erica Barnett there’s this:

City staffers and officials stuck by their timeline yesterday. Council member Rob Johnson, chair of the council’s land use committee, said the council “can do all the work that is necessary to get the bill ready for a vote while litigation is occurring—we just can’t take action. If we’re still under litigation this time next year, we just won’t be able to vote.”

That’s fantastic news. We may not have to spend any money to scuttle the disastrous plan; neighbors might just file enough appeals to keep the problem at bay for long enough that we can file challenges if there’s don’t succeed.

I explained to Kroman that local press has entirely ignored the question of, “What do people who build housing think about MIZ/MHA.” It’s a bizarre cold shoulder and works for the proponents of MIZ/MHA like big non-profits because it make the story about angry neighbors versus upzones and density. OK. Let’s go with that. If it kills MIZ/MHA, or delays it long enough, I’m happy.