One of my earliest memories of poetry and of libraries was finding a book of poetry by e.e. cummings called “No Thanks.” It was compelling for all the reasons cummings poetry is compelling; innovative, confusing, and full of flashes of insight. But it was also rejected by 14 publishers before cummings just published it himself calling it “No Thanks.” The following is hardly insightful unless insight is seeing what is right in front of one’s face. Someone on the Seattle Times Twitter feed saw my criticism and comment about a neighbor written op ed about the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) scheme called Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA). I have more or less given up on the Times but the Twitter Times asked if I’d like to write an op ed about MHA. So I did. And I sent it in . And waited. And emailed and asked about what they thought. No response. Not even a “no thanks!” So here it is. I think the reason why the Seattle Times won’t run this is because if it is true, it would point out a glaring omission of their coverage of this issue. This is the story: non-profits, Vulcan, and the City deciding to impose MIZ on the city without consulting builders or neighborhoods. Instead, the Times and the local media report the debate over MIZ as a YIMBY versus NIMBY horse race; which side will “win?” The truth is we’re all going to lose if MHA becomes law.  

In editorials, comment threads, and public meetings, the debate has started in earnest about the City of Seattle’s proposed Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program, a mandate to include subsidized housing in new housing development or pay a fee. It is time to set the record straight: builders and developers who build most of the housing in the city were not party to the so called Grand Bargain that created MHA nor do they support the upzones. Here’s why.

In 2014 Councilmember Mike O’Brien proposed increases to fees for the City’s Incentive Zoning (IZ) program, a voluntary exchange of cash for additional development capacity for projects downtown and South Lake Union; developers there opposed the increases. Few developers were participating; 62 percent of eligible projects opted not to pay the fee that would subsidize non-profit built housing.

That meant fewer funds for non-profits, so the City didn’t adjust the fees lower, they doubled down, with O’Brien proposing something called a Linkage Fee, a charge on every square foot of new development in the city going forward. Again, all these funds would be collected by the City then distributed to non-profit housing developers.

Lawyers for big downtown developers threatened a lawsuit. Mayor Murray convened an aggressive locked door bargaining session between Vulcan Attorney Jack McCullough, City staff, and representatives of non-profits like Paul Lambros of Plymouth Housing, a key member of Mayor Durkan’s transition.

The result was the so called Grand Bargain, in which Vulcan and other developers downtown and in South Lake Union would pay negotiated fees on projects they had in the works, and non-profits like Lambros’ Plymouth Housing would get the fees. The rest of the city would get modest upzones and developers, not in the room, would be charged fees on every square foot of new development, much like the linkage tax.

Who was missing from this “bargain?” Neighborhood opponents are correct when they say they were not at that table. Neither were all the rest of the builders, developers, architects, nor building owners who all build and operate housing in the city. Of the eight signers of the Grand Bargain, four had interest in non-profit housing development and two worked directly for Vulcan. Not one other private developer of any size signed on to the agreement promising not to file a legal challenge to what would become the MHA program.

The reason almost every other builder and developer in town opposes the program is that it will make many of their projects infeasible because of the added costs of inclusion or pay in lieu requirement. If projects do work, it will because rents or prices will have to go up to pay the costs of the fees or lost rent for subsidized units. Finally, most legal reviews like one conducted by the Pacific Legal Foundation have found the MHA program in plain violation of state law disallowing programs that require inclusion of subsidized housing or fees in lieu – state law only allows voluntary programs.

Most builders and developers in Seattle are small local businesses and already struggle to build housing under today’s regulatory gauntlet without requirements to build subsidized housing or pay a fee. Does it make sense to boost prices of all housing to subsidize as small number of units that are cost as much as $500,000 per unit, take years to build, and have 5 year long waiting lists? Most of the development community doesn’t think so, and eventually will have to challenge MHA in court if it’s passed. The City should encourage new housing, not making it more expensive and difficult to build.