We set out at the beginning of this year calling it the Year of the City Builder, a year in which we’d see a noticeable shift in anti-developer sentiment. While we made an effort and a difference, the narrative in Seattle remained hostile to the building and development community. Part of that was losing a volunteer that we dedicated to writing profiles about local builders and developers. We did get a lot of good stories told, but our efforts soon shifted to dealing with the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee. Still some of our message is getting through to the right people.

In a recent article in Seattle Magazine, Alan Michelson of the University of Washington said,

Many people wish we could slow down the development process a bit, get developers to work together to ensure we have a livable city full of light and air . . . But how do get Type A, ‘make money’ developers to cooperate or compromise? Think of Donald Trump. He’s a developer. Does he seem like the sort of guy who’d want to compromise on livability issues?

Hardly the positive and collaborative view of builders that we want. What we know is true is that builders and developers are hard working people like anyone else, and the nature financing makes building new housing a risky business that sometimes pays and sometimes doesn’t. Sure, Donald Trump is a developer and some people think he’s an ass. But being an ass isn’t a character trait limited only to developers; there isn’t anything about being  builder that means a person is going to be ‘Type A,’ whatever that means.

However, a new conventional wisdom about new housing construction is beginning to form. For a long time now, we’ve been telling anyone who’d listen or read that building new housing, even when it comes with higher rents, is the best way to ameliorate rent rises in the overall housing market. That’s having an impact. Twice I’ve heard this from people who matter in the housing discussion, a reporter and a candidate for the City Council. In the tower spacing debate going on about downtown, a reporter who often writes about housing said something like, “if those pricey towers don’t get built, the people that would have lived there would go and bid up the price of existing, lower priced housing.” Yes! I didn’t say it, she did. During a candidate interview, the aspirant said roughly the same thing unprompted; more housing, even when it comes with higher prices, is positive for everyone, including people with less money.

I also think that when a strong voice of skepticism about growth, Knute Berger, says he’ll try harder to look at the idea that new housing and growth is a positive, we’re on the right track and influencing the right people. Earlier this year Berger said he was willing to explore the idea that new growth isn’t as bad for the character of Seattle as some people are making it seem.

Why does this matter? The argument that new housing is more expensive is almost always trotted out by economic Ptolemists who say that increasing supply won’t help stabilize or lower housing prices. Countering that argument is important because lots of people intuitively believe it when they see the prices on new development. What follows from seeing new construction that is touting $1100 a month studios is that far from making things better, new housing is making things worse. If the collective conventional wisdom–among reporters and politicos anyway–starts to shift, other besides growth advocates can push back when this argument is made. Getting passed the mental block of “building new housing just makes it more expensive” means making better policy will be easier.

And this is also about pedagogy. Nobody gets more tired of repeating the same thing over and over and over again about supply, demand, and what Mike Scott calls the skew of the new; new housing helps even though it is more expensive. But all that repetition in comments sections, blog posts, articles, news stories, and in conversations is paying off.

Also, teaching people something, especially a new concept, is a lot easier when the new concept is connected with something that people have already committed to, in this case helping the poor. We’ve pointed out in our repetitive statements that no matter how odd it may seem, building that new studio in Ballard for $1100 a month makes life easier for the artist on Capitol Hill who works three jobs to support her art. The person who can afford that unit in Ballard won’t be bidding up the price of her lower cost living arrangement or apartment on Capitol Hill. So new, more expensive housing lessens market pressures on people with fewer housing dollars.

And speaking of that artist, stories are far more effective than facts. The story about how new housing can help the poor makes sense to most people. When they relate that, like cars, old products lose value and thus price, this aspect of new housing development and how it helps people makes more sense. We can show all the charts and graphs we want, but anti growth activists can always rely on the press to feature the hard luck story and attribute it to growth; it’s a lot harder to explain how that new unit makes everyone better off.

So 2015 comes to a close with a mix of success and failure on trying to tell a different story about housing and the people that build it. We haven’t yet gotten some people–even those who should know better–to realize that builders and developers are building something everyone needs: housing. Builders and developers have to be constructively engaged in making policy, not the target of punitive measures. On the other hand, our work of repeating the message, connecting the dots, and telling the story of how new housing helps, not hurts, people with less money is yielding some benefit, slowly shifting the conventional wisdom among policy makers and the press.