Today the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee passed 11 amendments to the Mayor’s proposed framework for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning. I’m not going to get into the technical details of all the amendments but the most significant one passed by the Committee was one that created a big dust up earlier this week. Herbold’s said in an Op-Ed in The Stranger

Would require that we use a displacement risk analysis to approximate the number of existing affordable housing units demolished as a result of upzones. The mandatory affordability requirement would then be adjusted higher over the entire area being upzoned commensurate with the number of units likely to be demolished. While this doesn’t require any mitigation of increased rents from other market forces, it is a modest but necessary amendment.

There were a few issues with this amendment and it’s passage that are worth noting.

First, it was passed over the objection of Chief Grand Bargainer Jack McCullough. This matters because it shows that the big time attorney couldn’t convince anyone on Council to stop what he called “a material change in the “Grand Bargain” if implemented.” As if to make this point even stronger, two Councilmembers, Burgess and Gonzalez,  materialized on cue when the amendments were offered. Burgess cheered the amendments the way he always does when the Council does something controversial. I was right that McCullough is more sheath than saber when it comes to rattling the threat of legal action to stop the amendments. City Council 1, Grand Bargain 0.

Second, this does make things worse. In essence what this does is tilt the value exchange more in the direction of the exaction of value from new housing in the form of higher fees in areas deemed by the City to be “at risk” of displacement. Never mind that the kind of displacement that is conjured up by the word simply doesn’t exist. It doesn’t. It’s a myth. In fact very few units of any kind of housing are lost to new construction. But as always the Council marches on to the music of band that isn’t playing.

What this means is that the City has come up with some way of identifying areas that are “at risk” of displacement. Then when a builder tries to build there, that builder will have to pay even more fees that anywhere else. How much? We don’t know because the framework legislation underlying this has no numbers. We have to wait and see what happens when the Council does upzones. I won’t even bother to link to all the times I’ve said that even as it’s currently hypothetically construed–10 percent boost of FAR for an inclusion of 5,6, or 7 percent inclusion–the Bargain won’t work. Will it work better when the fees or inclusion are increased. Obviously not.

Third, what is notable about the passage is something that Councilmember Johnson said to me after the passage to explain the consensus.  “Everyone realizes that there is a need for more affordable units.” But we’ve been saying over and over again that this isn’t about cranking out units, it’s supposed to be about affordability which is a relationship of a household to price. A person with fewer dollars facing higher rents will obviously find things in Seattle unaffordable. There are two ways to cure that problem, increase the money in that households bank or decrease the price of housing. What’s the best way to decrease the price of scarce housing? Increase supply! But that isn’t good politics at City Hall. In fact, many social justice proponents see the boost in FAR in MIZ as a big “giveaway.”

So what best sums up the latest steps by Council? The sage words of David Neiman: