Goldy

Song of Solomon 4:5-6
Your breasts are perfect;
they are twin deer
feeding among lilies.
I will hasten to those hills
sprinkled with sweet perfume
and stay there till sunrise.

Discuss.

It was sometimes a source of tension between me and my editors at The Stranger, but as both a blogger and a “real” (i.e. paid) journalist, I’ve always tried to resist the urge to scoop—and I’ve always resented the occasional demand from other journalists that I somehow owe them a public hat tip for “breaking” a story that I could’ve broken first if I wasn’t so busy making sure I got my words and analysis (and, sure, facts) right.

This has nothing to do with journalistic ethics; I don’t even claim to know all the rules, let alone adhere to them faithfully. I’m just more interested in adding value than being first. That’s what bloggers do. Of course, I’d rather be first. But the only scoops I’m truly proud of are the ones I made by virtue of seeing a story where others did not.

Perhaps had the New York Times embraced the same sentiment, they might have averted an embarrassing shit show like this:

Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.

In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG’s referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many “degrees of separation” for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.

To be clear, the New York Times libeled Hillary Clinton, and were she not a public figure the paper would be facing a multi-million dollar settlement as the price of their negligence. And it all resulted from their prideful pursuit of a scoop.

The irony is, in the Internet age, nobody really gives a shit who was first. The way I experienced it, the story first broke on Twitter. But everybody now knows who broke the news by breaking it wrong.

What with Seattle Mayor Ed Murray dramatically backtracking from HALA recommendations that would have allowed denser housing in many single-family zoned neighborhoods, I thought I should take a moment to elaborate on a point I made in my recent affordable housing post regarding the impossibility of making single-family detached housing affordable. “We all need to give up this fantasy that every middle class family can own a bungalow and a yard,” I insisted. And the table above helps explain why.

That’s the past 15 years of tax assessment records for my own bungalow and yard, copied and pasted from the King County Department of Assessments website. And assuming the total appraised value in the righthand column comes anywhere close to tracking the actual resale value, I’ve earned a surprisingly modest return on my “investment” over the past decade and a half: an average of only 4.29 percent a year, just twice the rate of inflation (Consumer Price Index) over the same period of time.

Thanks, Great Recession!

But that righthand column only tells half the story. The truth is, adjusted for inflation, the house itself has actually decreased in value over the past 15 years. Which makes sense. Depreciation. My house is old. It’s the value of my land that has figuratively gone through the roof.

According to King County, the land value of my 6,800 sq ft lot increased by almost 10 percent a year, from $54,000 in 2000 to $224,000 in 2014. That’s a fourfold increase—threefold even after adjusting for inflation. And unless our population growth projections are totally wrong, there’s no reason to expect Seattle land values not to continue to grow faster than the local economy as a whole.

Why? Because the supply of land in Seattle is finite. We can build more housing, but we can’t build more land. In fact, as the HALA recommendations acknowledged, to address our housing needs we really need to reduce the amount of land in Seattle restricted to 5,000-plus sq ft lot single-family detached houses. The mayor’s decision to reject these recommendations may or may not be good politics, but it’s certainly bad policy. Though either way, homeowners like me ultimately win.

If we do nothing to loosen density restrictions, then the value of my land continues to increase as demand for bungalows with yards increasingly outstrips supply. If we rezone my lot to accommodate greater density, then the value of my land probably increases even more, as it could then hold two or more $255,000 homes where it now holds just one. But either way, my land value goes up.

Of course, economics is a lot more complex than that. “Supply and demand” isn’t a law, per se; it’s more like economic shorthand. But while there are many factors that could alter demand, the supply of in-city land can never increase.

“Early growth skeptics would have found it hard to imagine the era of the $1 million bungalow,” Lesser Seattle booster Knute Berger recently bemoaned on Crosscut. But I don’t know why—it was inevitable. For you can build as many duplexes, triplexes, apartments, and condos as you want, and the iconic Seattle bungalow would still remain in short supply.

I dwell on this point to emphasize that when we talk about affordable housing, we’re not really talking about making houses more affordable—at least not those of the single-family detached variety. We’re mostly not even talking about affordable homeownership, what with renters bearing the brunt of the affordability crisis. And yet the pundits and policymakers driving this debate—as well as the reliably voting constituents most politicians tend to answer to—are disproportionately single-family detached homeowners like me.

Which I think tends to color the debate with a glaring lack of perspective.

Look, I love both my bungalow and my yard. And I’m very happy to have been born early enough to be able to afford it on less than a six-figure income. But unless she strikes it rich, I know full well that the only way my daughter is going to own a house like the one she grew up in is if I die in it. So if I really care about keeping Seattle affordable for my daughter’s generation then I know we’re going to have to radically change our expectations about what housing will look like for Seattle’s future middle class.

Seattle needs to grow denser and taller. And if we want to adequately address affordability, we need to grow denser and taller throughout the city. That doesn’t mean eliminating zoning. And it doesn’t mean eliminating single-family zoned neighborhoods entirely. But it does mean making smarter use of the limited land we have as we grow into a city that lacks the space to house the majority of residents in single-family detached homes. All options should be on the table.

So fight to preserve these neighborhoods if you want (politics is an adversarial process, after all), but understand that you are ultimately fighting to preserve these neighborhoods for the relatively well off. And please don’t pretend that there is anything we can do to keep the iconic Seattle bungalow affordable.

[Cross-posted to Civic Skunkworks.]

I’ve recently been drawn into a Twitter feud with a self-proclaimed “urbanist” who insists that the only solution to Seattle’s affordable housing crisis is to free up developers to build whatever they want wherever they want. Really. I don’t want to mention him by name—because why drive attention to his extremist libertarian views?—so for the purposes of this post, I’ll just call him “Ben.”

When I asked Ben if it would be okay to build 30 stories on my 6,800 sq ft single family lot, he said, “Of course!” When I elaborated, “How about an office tower, or a Hooters … or a rendering plant?” he countered that a rendering plant wouldn’t pencil out with our land values, but “sure.”

And when I pressed on, “So you’d argue for no zoning and no Growth Management Act …?” Ben was unequivocal: “It is very likely that today we would get better enviro and affordability outcomes with no zoning, including no GMA,” Ben replied.

Okay.

I largely share Ben’s vision of a taller, denser, more walkable, bikeable, and transit-rich Seattle, and to this end I support substantial up-zoning and other regulatory changes. But anybody who argues that the market alone can solve all our problems is simplifying Seattle’s housing crisis to the point of absurdity. In fact, I’d argue that we actually have three distinct housing crises, each requiring its own set of solutions: homelessness, workforce housing, and middle class housing.

Homelessness is at once the easiest and most difficult crisis to address. The most obvious solution is to just give these people homes—problem solved, and most likely at a price well below the real financial, human, and societal cost of allowing the problem to fester. Yet housing alone cannot address the mental illness, addiction, and domestic abuse that leads many people to the streets.

Even those who find themselves homeless due to mere misfortune are almost by definition destitute to the point of being outside the ability of a rational housing market to serve. Thus, one thing we should all be able to agree on is that homelessness is not a problem that can be solved by the market: there is simply no way to profit from building safe housing affordable enough for people who have reached such a level of desperation. How and how much we address homelessness is mostly a matter of how much taxpayers are willing to spend.

Likewise, our workforce housing crisis also cannot be solved by the market, as given the fixed costs of land and construction, there is no way for developers to make a sufficient profit building units within Seattle aimed at renters and buyers earning substantially below Area Median Income (AMI). In fact, the market is busy exacerbating our workforce housing affordability crisis by renovating or tearing down older buildings that have served lower-income Seattleites for decades.

Yeah sure, low-income Seattleites could always double and triple or even quadruple up with roommates in order to pay ever rising rents, and many already do. But as Hanna Brooks Olsen explained on Seattlish a couple years back, the math is truly awful. Add a child or two to the equation and awful becomes impossible.

Free-marketeers like Ben argue that eventually all this new upscale housing becomes affordable when, you know, it becomes old and rundown. Maybe. Or maybe Seattle’s ever-rising land values dictate an accelerated cycle of renovation and renewal? But even if true, eventually doesn’t help people living in the here and now. In the meanwhile, show me the private developer going to bankers with plans to build to 50 percent of AMI. Betcha you can’t.

It’s hard to see how any amount of deregulation can entice developers to build to this market without substantial public subsidies; and subsidies cost money. Whether that money comes from linkage fees or a property tax levy or a citywide income tax, it has to come from somewhere if we’re going to make an honest effort to address this crisis.

Of course, our growing middle class housing crisis is something that the market can chip away at (depending on your definition of middle class)—but that doesn’t mean we’re better off leaving it to the market alone.

We need to change our zoning to allow Seattle to grow taller and denser. We need to allow (even encourage!) accessory dwelling units throughout the city, relax costly car-centric requirements that new developments provide off-street parking, and yes, we need to substantially reduce the amount of land in Seattle that is restricted to detached single family housing. Seattle needs townhouses, row houses, triplexes, micro-housing, and many more two and three bedroom apartments suitable for families with children. And much of it needs to be built on land currently restricted toward low density use.

We don’t need to eliminate zoning the way Ben advocates, but we do need to zone smarter. And we all need to give up this fantasy that every middle class family can own a bungalow and a yard. Our population (demand) is growing while our land mass (supply) cannot. Barring an economic collapse (or a dramatic shift in housing tastes), single family detached housing will increasingly become a luxury that fewer and fewer Seattleites will be able to afford. Nothing can change that. Not the council, not socialism, and certainly not the market.

To be clear, I’m not anti-market or anti-developer. But this idea that the market, free from zoning and other regulations, will fix our entire housing crisis, is magical thinking. The market cannot touch homelessness. The market cannot come close to addressing our shortage of workforce housing. And while a unfettered market might well build a lot more housing than it’s building now, it will build it in a chaotic way that will surely piss off a lot of Seattleites—and because we are in competition with much higher priced cities like San Francisco, the market would still have a helluva time keeping up with demand.

The real decision facing Seattleites is whether we have the vision, the empathy, and the will to really address these problems? Are we willing to spend the money necessary to address homelessness by building more shelters and temporary housing, and by providing the costly wrap around services necessary to get the homeless off the street and back on their feet? Or are we comfortable enjoying the benefits of our economic boom even as homeless encampments sprout beneath our city’s freeways?

Are we willing to spend the money necessary to fund, build, and maintain the subsidized housing necessary to sustain a culturally diverse city—the culture that made neighborhoods like Capitol Hill so desirable in the first place? Are we willing to even consider a modest program of rent stabilization as a short term solution? Or do we want to become a culturally sterile city of haves by virtue of driving out the have-lesses and have-nots for want of affordable housing?

And do we want to broadly slow skyrocketing housing costs for the middle class, but only to the extent that the market delivers? Or are we willing to use the bonding capacity at our disposal to build thousands of publicly owned, non-subsidized middle class housing units a year that would grow more affordable over time by keeping them outside the rent seeking impulses of the for-profit market?

At the very minimum we have three separate housing crises, at least two of which require public money, and all of which require public will. Solving them won’t come easy or cheap. But if we choose to solve these crises they can be largely solved.

The Bens of this world insist that we only have one choice: To let the market do its magic, and live with the Seattle the market begets. But that’s not really a choice at all. It’s an excuse for failing to make the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to build a more humane, more diverse, and more affordable city for today’s Seattleites and for generations to come.

[Cross-posted to Civic Skunkworks.]

Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.

Discuss.

Luke 19:29-34
As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’”

Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”

They replied, “The Lord needs it.”

Exodus 20:15
Thou shalt not steal.

Discuss.

If the Sawant-haters think their anybody-but-Sawant standard bearer can sweep the socialist from office by substantially outspending her, they have another think coming. Just weeks before the primary, Sawant has already raised nearly $200,000; across all the council races, only biz-favorite Tim Burgess has raised more. Sawant is also blowing the rest of the pack away with her sheer number of donations, 1,590, over 600 more than the next closest candidate.

But Sawant and her supporters shouldn’t get over-confidant about their convention-defying performance in the money game. Because our airwaves, Internet, and mailboxes could soon be crowded out by big league professionals from the unregulated sport of independent expenditures.

Take for example the race for Council District 5, where a crowded field of qualified candidates including Sandy Brown, Debora Juarez, and Halei Watkins have closely competed for cash and endorsements. Then, out of nowhere, the National Association of Realtors suddenly dumps $48,000 into an independent expenditure on behalf of little-known also-ran Kris Lethin.

Um… Kris who?

Lethin said he has basically no campaign staff or apparatus. “Even my brochure was made by a buddy and me over a weekend,” he said. He described his website as “rookie.” I’m almost embarrassed,” he said. “The other guys have got such fancy stuff going.”

Lethin said he believes his opposition to rent control and linkage fees may have helped win the realtors’ support.

Yah think?

So if the Realtors are willing to flush $48,000 down the drain of a hopeless no-name, just because he’s the most vocal opponent of rent control and linkage fees, how much money do you think they’re ready to put into defeating these policies’ most vocal proponent, Kshama Sawant?

District elections were supposed to help take money out of politics by enabling candidates to focus on doorbelling and community organizing and other forms of direct grassroots voter outreach. But when you count the IEs, District 3 could very well end up being the most expensive race in city council history.

Sawant has proven herself an incorruptible champion of working-class Seattleites, earning her near unanimous support from union locals. No doubt these unions will come to her defense. But Big Business simply has a shit-ton more money than Big Labor. All the more reason why Kshama needs your relentless support.

Last week I told you for whom I am voting for city council. (Awkwardly formal phrasing, but you try flipping that sentence around.) So with the ballots arriving this week I thought I’d also mention that I’m voting for Julie Wise for King County Elections Director.

Why? For the exact same reason why I opposed making the office elected in the first place: This is a position that demands a professional who knows how to run elections, not a politician who knows how to run for them. And with 13 years working in King County Elections, deputy director designee Wise is that professional.

Nothing against the two Democrats running for the office. I know and like Zach Hudgins, and from everything I hear, Chris Roberts is a great guy. But neither of them have any experience running an elections office, let alone the largest all vote-by-mail jurisdiction in the nation. For them, this office would be a mere stepping stone to something bigger—maybe Secretary of State. But for Wise, this is her career. And I feel a lot more comfortable with a career technocrat running this office than just another politician.

I cut my teeth as a blogger following the controversially close 2004 gubernatorial election, but we haven’t heard much in the press about King County Elections in the years since. That’s because it’s being run great. Let’s keep it that way. Vote for Wise.

Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Luke 12:49
I came to cast fire upon the earth. How I wish that it was already ablaze!

Discuss.

HA doesn’t really do political endorsements because A) I think unsigned endorsements are kinda stupid, and B) it’s generally no secret who we individually support. But since I haven’t been writing much at HA recently, and I don’t have Slog at my disposal anymore to influence elections, I thought I’d take a moment to clarify my thoughts on a handful of city council races.

District 2: I’m voting for Tammy Morales
Nothing personal against Bruce Harrell… but I’ve got nothing personal for him either, and I’m hard pressed to think of anything he’s accomplished during his eight years on the council. He’s way too conventional for my liking, and yeah, okay, I’m a little pissed off at his pissiness towards Kshama Sawant. So I’m voting for Tammy Morales.

Morales is affable, smart, energetic, and not totally full of herself. (Also, she doesn’t live in Bellevue, ever.) Yes, I know Josh Farris speaks more directly to my issues, and I’m glad he’s running, but Morales stands the better chance of forcing Harrell to break a sweat. And I want to see Harrell sweat.

District 3: I’ve maxed out to Kshama Sawant
I rarely donate to political campaigns because I figure my blogging is contribution enough. But Kshama is more than just special. Never in my 12 years of closely following state and local politics have I seen a newly elected official achieve so much so quickly, sometimes by the mere threat of her presence. And as much as Sawant has dragged Seattle politics to the left, her defeat would be taken as a mandate to drag it sharply to the right. That’s why the business community is spending so much to defeat her.

So as an indication of how strongly I feel about this race, I’ve contributed the maximum $700 to Sawant’s campaign, and I encourage you to give whatever you can afford. Sure, my generosity is partially a reflection of my improved finances, but it’s mostly a reflection of how important I believe it is to our city, our state, and our nation to keep this particular socialist in office.

District 4: I slipped Michael Maddux a $20
I could think of lots of reasons to deny Jean Godden yet another term, but I only need to give you two: She’s been there too damn long, and she’s simply too damn old. That may not be nice, but it’s true. It’s time for her to move out of the way and give somebody else a chance.

As for Godden’s main opponents, I don’t hate Rob Johnson, but I don’t particularly like a lot of the people and organizations supporting him. And when the Seattle Times endorses Johnson by praising his “willingness to break from Seattle’s insular liberal orthodoxy,” that just gives me the willies. So if I had a vote in this district, I’d be casting my ballot for Michael Maddux, who clearly represents the progressive values of the district and the city. Also, he shows up at Drinking Liberally. So there’s that.

Position 8: I’m voting for Jon Grant, if only to make a statement
This is without a doubt the toughest decision for me. First of all, I weirdly like and respect Tim Burgess (yay universal preschool!), even though he’s consistently the most awful vote on the council, and perhaps the biggest dick on the council when it comes to disrespectful treatment of Sawant. Second, I kinda like all three of Burgess’s serious opponents, if in different ways. Third, Burgess is almost certain to win reelection. So if I’m going to cast what I perceive to be a protest vote, then I’m going to cast it for Jon Grant, who is running almost entirely on tenants rights and affordable housing… issues Burgess kinda sucks on.

Position 9: I’m supporting Bill Bradburd (but secretly voting for Lorena Gonzalez)
The whole thing with Sally Clark’s sudden retirement followed by Lorena Gonzalez’s instant campaign stunk of Ed Murray trying to maneuver a political ally onto the council. But every time I’ve spoken to Gonzalez or have seen her speak, I’ve come away more impressed. I’d really like to vote for Bill Bradburd, what with his focus on affordable housing, but I’m not sure I trust his neighborhoody NIMBYist instincts. So, yeah, I’m voting for Gonzalez (who’s going to win anyway) and hoping she proves a disappointment to Ed.

The Others:
Mike O’Brien and Sally Bagshaw are going to win reelection regardless, and I haven’t paid close enough attention to District’s 1 and 5 (there’s just too damn many candidates!) for me to pick a definitive favorite in either. So if you vote in those districts, I’ve got nothing to offer.

There you have it. It’s not an endorsement, per se, because that would be stupid. I mean, who am I to tell you how to vote? Still, there’s no harm in telling you how I’m going to vote. Take it for what it is.

I don’t disagree with the Seattle Times editorial board on this headline:

Wash. Republican congressional delegation, stop Obamacare opposition

It’s just that, you know, if congressional Republicans are on the opposite side of the board on almost every issue, maybe it’s time for the board to stop endorsing Republicans for Congress. Just sayin’.

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Discuss.

1 Corinthians 7:9
It is better to marry than to burn.

Discuss.

Our state’s editorial boards love to complain about the budget impasse in Olympia, but for many years they have played a key role in the obstruction, consistently opposing any substantive new tax—especially on income—as fervently as the most dyed-in-the-wool anti-tax Republican. Until now:

A proposal in the Senate would apply a 7 percent capital-gains tax to 0.1 percent of the state’s residents, or about 7,500 residents. It would only apply to gains over $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for couples.

Instead of punting to committees and next year’s Legislature, they should buckle down and make the choice to begin taxing capital gains.

That’s the Seattle Times editorial board making the case that a “capital-gains tax is best option to fund education.” Seriously. And while we’ve been seeing their position evolve over the past few months, it’s still pretty stunning to see them state their support for the tax so bluntly.

And then there’s this from today’s Olympian:

A key element of our state’s F grade for effort was the comparatively low percentage of the state’s economic output that Washington has invested through taxes into K-12 schools. Part of the problem is our over-reliance and regressive tax system that ignores a large share of economic activity including the sales of services and such income-producers as capital gains.

I sometimes joke that I’m the only non-lawmaker who still reads the editorial pages, but of course that’s not true. Editorial board endorsements may not be nearly as influential as they were even a decade ago, but they still play a role in shaping public opinion. Or at least, reinforcing it. And anti-tax legislators no longer have the “serious” people behind them in obstructing all efforts to tax income.

Washington’s tax structure is absurdly regressive. I’ve been saying that since my very first blog post, more than 11 years ago. There’s simply no arguing with that fact. And now the editorial boards have finally acknowledged that our revenue system is insufficient as well. Republican lawmakers should take note that they are on the wrong side of the editorial boards on this issue, and that if we fail to pass the additional revenue necessary to satisfy McCleary, the editorial boards won’t be shy about pointing out which lawmakers are to blame.

Given my fierce criticism over the years, you might think that I’d hate to give the editorial boards credit for finally advocating for responsible tax policy. Not at all. Responsible tax policy is all I ever really wanted. And it’s great to see the Seattle Times on board.

[Cross-posted at Civic Skunkworks]

Genesis 1:24-28
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:7-22
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[…] And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Discuss.