I was on the radio on Friday talking with Dave Ross. The story that was posted later captured what I said:

“I’m not advocating for no regulation,” Valdez said. “Health and safety, we should keep that stuff.”

“But if you can get a loan from the bank to build an 80- or 100-story tower for housing and there is enough demand for it, we should let that happen,” he said. “Our problem is that … we have this guy with a “New York Times” rolled up under his sleeve, and a latte, walking his dog, listening to NPR who feels like, ‘Well, it’s the rich guy’s problem. And somehow were are going to have to get him to take care of it.'”

Valdez endeavors to change that latte-drinking, dog-walker’s mind.

“We need to start updating our ideology and say, ‘Ya know, really, building more housing is a progressive, liberal, generous thing to do and if we make sacrifices for it. It is for the common good,'” he said. “It isn’t really about increasing profit for developers, it’s about lowering rents for the people that live here.”

I’ve been criticized before for advocating no land use regulation. That’s far from the truth. Regulations and rules are important for the business of building housing. Predictability is essential to taking risks. More predictability means less risk. But there comes a point when rules get in the way of a good thing, more housing. I’ve suggested Zero Based Zoning, the idea that we should be able to build whatever is needed to meet housing demand. It makes sense, especially as we prepare for more people moving into Seattle in coming years.