I’ve been writing a lot lately at Forbes about the power of narrative, the way stories and perceptions can take hold and be incredibly hard to overcome. The most obvious one lately is the notion that eviction is a “crisis” or an “epidemic;” it’s neither, but all it takes is a slapped together “report” and the media and politicians snap into action. There are three stories that demonstrate this power locally, the recent DADU dust up, the weird story about where MHA came from, and the attack on neighborhood councils a couple years ago. All three are a bit mind bending.

First, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) were outlawed more than two decades ago. About 15 years ago, conversation started about allowing the again both new and making existing ones legal. The Council passed legislation that allowed a pilot project in Southeast Seattle for 50 DADUs; about 35 or so actually applied for permits. I wrote about it more than a decade ago, urging that the Council allow DADUs citywide. A few years later they did exactly that. The DADU has been legal citywide for about a decade now, but I had someone the other day tell me, “I can’t wait until Marty Kaplan’s appeal is defeated so I can build a DADU!” I said, “Dude, DADUs are legal already!” He said, “They are?” Yes. But somehow one appeal has turned into a battle over making DADUs legal; they already were folks.

The second example of this is the notion that the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability scheme somehow helps developers and that “greedy” land grabbers twisted the City Council’s arms to pass MHA so they could get all that extra density. I was talking with a member of the neighborhood group that filed the appeal on MHA because they oppose the density. There was astonishment that most developers and builders outright oppose the scheme or are extremely wary of it because while there is a bit of added density. The additional additional capacity forced by MHA simply isn’t worth the hassle or the cost of the fees being mandated on projects to pay for it.

Finally, a couple of years ago in a Trump like rage, former Mayor Ed Murray declared war on Seattle’s old and venerable Community Council system. The 13 districts had already been decimated with the shrinking of Department of Neighborhood staff when Greg Nickels was Mayor. The Community Councils were hardly a hotbed of NIMBYism; I know, I’ve been fighting NIMBYs and angry neighbors for more than 20 years. The Council’s were actually sane and relatively diverse groups that are made up of representatives from neighborhood chambers or commerce, community councils, and crime prevention groups. In my years working with these Councils when I was at the City and since, I have found them to be more or less clearing houses for information as well as the group that divides up Neighborhood Street Fund money.

In each of these cases, lots of hullabaloo was made by so called, “Urbanists” who saw each as some kind of battle against racist neighbors or something. In each case, anyone with just a bit of knowledge and history would know that the narratives in each were false. Sure, some community councils like Wallingford’s and Eastlake’s and Roosevelt’s are hotbeds of angry neighbor sentiment. Those groups can and should always be ignored on land use issues; the Council and Mayor can simply shut off their microphones and move on. But the District Councils are a pretty functional and even useful group. Instead of blowing them up why not encourage more participation in them so they can act as a filter for some of the more bitter acrimony at the community council level? Who cares? Just push the story that the District Councils killed microhousing, small-lots, and hate DADUs even though it was community councils that did most of that work.

And as far as DADUs the Seattle Times is announcing that the appeal is over.  Great. But as I’ve pointed out, the code is not the problem keeping DADUs from proliferating; the problem is lack of financing. The changes being contemplated will make some DADUs easier for sure and there may be an uptick, but neither the angry neighbors or “Urbanists” are right about the idea that suddenly DADUs will spring from the ground like toadstools after a rain storm.

And MHA? I’m tired of talking about it. Anyone who builds housing Seattle isn’t battling for more FAR, they just want to get their permit to build what they’re already allowed to build. The “Urbanist” crowd shuns developers as much as the angry neighbors. The real road kill of MHA isn’t the neighborhoods, but people trying to get projects for what we need – more housing – to pencil. The entire MHA mess is all about grabbing cash for inefficient non-profit housers who simply have no interest in addressing overregulation; the answer is always more money, more money, more money.

So there you have it. Three fake narratives that have always left me shaking my head. I’m no longer surprised. This is what happens when people who know what they are doing – builders, developers, and landlords – are vilified and excluded from discussions about what they do, build and operate housing. Instead, the Council makes stuff up and imposes it. It’s like having a space program not run by physicists and engineers but the lady that walks her dog down the street and the local communists who pack meetings. Maybe someday this will change. But it won’t happen by itself.

Help stop the crazy pointless fake narrative machine in our city; give to Seattle For Growth!