So the other day I stumbled upon a very interesting and well put together slide show on file sharing site Slideshare. The presentation, titled, “Strategic Communications Plan for Seattle Affordable Housing and Homelessness,” goes into some really deep detail about how Seattle arrived at the so called “Grand Bargain,” the scheme that would require builders to pay a per square foot charge in lieu of building rent restricted housing. I think the creator of this presentation has a lot of the facts exactly right, but there are some things he accepts about the Bargain that are more part of the sales pitch than the way it unfolded. You can go through the slides yourself. When you get to the slide about my role, you’ll see that I am characterized as a “neoliberal,” and there is a definition (see the featured image) of what that is supposed to be. 

It’s not surprising that I’d be called a neoliberal. After all I’ve written about and publicly embraced economists like Hayek and used earlier writers like Mandeville who’s Fable of the Bees is considered a precursor of Adam Smith and his “Invisible Hand.” Many who believe the market can absorb a lot of the demand if it were allowed by regulators are called neoliberal. And one of the favorite jibes against the concept of filtering — the theory that building more housing, even newer expensive housing, has a beneficial effect by reducing competition between wealthier newcomers and incumbent people paying less rent in older buildings — is calling it “trickle down economics” after the criticism leveled at Ronald Reagan’s policies.

I don’t consider being called a neoliberal a bad thing, but I also don’t think recognizing the basic economic fact that if there is scarcity of a product it will be expensive is really being a neoliberal. In my view, the most compassionate and beneficial thing we can do as a community for people with less money is support the construction of more housing — lots more housing. And I think capitalism is really just the state of affairs in human nature — people are motivated to innovate when they think they can beat competitors. And poverty is a strong motivator for innovation as well, creating a strong incentive to seek economic opportunities to get out of it. This is just the way life works, not an ideology.

I sent the creator of the presentation the email below the slide show in hopes that if indeed he does create a film or video that other points of view might be represented. I’ve told people that someday I might write down the whole story of how we went from incentive zoning, to linkage tax, to mandatory inclusionary zoning, HALA and the Grand Bargain. I’m not sure anyone would buy the book, but it is quite a story. Anyway, here’s the

Hello Adrian,

I happened upon your slides on slideshare and I think you’ve got a great idea. I appreciate you telling this story. I think you’ve got it mostly right.

However, as someone was part of the machinations from arguments over the voluntary incentive program then linkage taxes then the current “Grand Bargain” and after, I’d appreciate giving you that perspective. It’s quite a story. The Grand Bargain is a disastrous policy that will increase housing prices over all and is illegal. And the money wrung from market rate development will be poured into a very inefficient system; I know since I was a non-profit developer.

Also, I would not characterize myself as a neoliberal, at least not by the definition you use. I am not a supporter of austerity by any means. On the contrary, we must use debt efficiently to stoke demand just as we need to cut back on rules that prohibit a good thing, more housing supply. And I actually support a guaranteed basic income program using taxation.

Your project looks important, and this has been the fight of my life lately and I’d like to a chance to pitch my sense of the narrative. We’re not going to get another chance at this, and I think we’re about to go down a road with Mandatory Inclusion that will only add to the challenges people with less money and fewer opportunities face in Seattle.

I hope we get a chance to talk.

Roger.