I was writing up some broader thoughts about housing and as part of that spent some time going through things on this website. I had mixed feelings when I clicked on the menu item called “Seattle’s Housing Future.” My feelings were mixed because I realized how I still completely agree with everything on this list of ideas and solutions. They are so simple and straightforward. My feelings were mixed because this approach was offered at the same time the Seattle City Council was in the process of killing small-lot housing in single-family neighborhoods and then microhousing soon after. These ideas were offered to try and steer them away from doing both of those things, but also away from downzoning the low-rise zones and imposing a linkage tax on all new development. They ended up doing the downzone, and instead of a linkage tax we got something just as bad, Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ). This page was well ahead of the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee.

What is so strange is that most “urbanists” out there would embrace these ideas. And anyone reading who builds housing certainly would approve. Even City staff in moments of lucidity, away from Councilmembers who can’t see any solutions to housing issues that don’t involve punitive measures against landlords and builders and taxes, would probably agree this is a good way to get started. But the City marches on with rules, taxes, restrictions, and bad ideas like MIZ. Building housing is complicated, risky, and expensive. But the ideas I compiled for this page are simple and straightforward approaches. Local policy makers and advocates have gotten the discourse on housing completely fouled up, turning it into tribal warfare between neighbors angry about homeless camps, so called YIMBYs weirdly pushing for taxing housing and modest upzones, and lefty progressives who call some others “hate groups.”

Also strange is that angry neighbors are helping to stop the MIZ disaster by appealing the City’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) proposal. These are the same people who killed small-lot housing, microhousing, downzoned the low-rise zones. Other groups are pushing for sweeps of homeless people. On the other side are “urbanists” who are obsessed with upzoning single-family neighborhoods and pushing for MHA, a proposal that will certainly push up housing prices. And non-profits keep pushing for more and more money from every possible source rather than seeking, along with market rate developers, regulatory relief. It’s a mix of people doing the right things for the wrong reasons, and the wrong thing for the right reasons. And the press has largely only produced story about average rents rising or falling.

All of this is so unnecessary. Pretty much it is all right here. There are even links to more details on reducing rules and innovative financing options. The only thing I can figure is that all our political discussions have gotten less and less rational and more and more about blame. Someone has to pay, I guess. There can’t be win and win and win solutions and turf has to be protected. People have to have the “right” ideas and belong to the correct groups or they shouldn’t be listened to. Anyway, it’s still good stuff after more than four years. Maybe, when we’ve completely driven the city into a ditch, somebody will dust this list off and use it.

Single Family Infill

Δ IDEA: KEEP SEATTLE’S SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS A VIABLE OPTION BY ALLOWING MORE NEW HOMES IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

• Small-lot homes
• Cottages
• DADUs and ADUs
• Flex housing
• Corner lots

Multifamily

Δ IDEA: PRESERVE AND EXPAND HOUSING IN DENSE, TRANSIT RICH NEIGHBORHOODS

• Expand the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program
• Support continued microhousing development
• Keep the LR3 Zone as a growth zone
• Reduce barriers for more housing
• Create real incentives for developers to build more housing
• Subsidize housing where people want it and need it most

Financing

Δ IDEA: USE EXISTING FINANCIAL TOOLS AND RESOURCES MORE EFFECTIVELY AND DEVELOP NEW ONES

• Make existing affordable housing funds easier to access and use
• Develop more land acquisition funds and loan programs for land purchase
• Tax underutilized land to fund subsidies
• Partner with private entities for financing, land acquisition, and technical assistance
• Offer more relocation assistance
• Explore versions of value capture (Tax Benefit Districts and Public Development Authorities)
• Push for Tax Increment Financing in Olympia

Reform, Reformat, Reduce, and Rethink Rules and Regulation

Δ IDEA: REVIEW WAYS IN WHICH CURRENT REGULATION COULD BE PARED BACK TO ALLOW MORE HOUSING, BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE

• Use public lands for housing
• Fix design review
• Create new NDM position
• Explore Lean Urbanism
• Promote and incentivize innovative solutions to welcome growth
• Try a zero based zoning experiment