What was different about this meeting was that the crowd was more evenly balanced between the two sides. It was also an effort to give equal time to developers. What emerged, though, wasn’t much new information but the overreach of opponents of small, affordable apartments.

The complaints from neighbors were the same. Noise, criminal behavior, construction, and the size of the buildings were all trotted out as reasons why this type of housing was disastrous for neighborhoods. What continues is the strain of argument that people already living here in Seattle ought to determine the way new people moving into the city should live. This housing form is bad for families because it promotes a single lifestyle. How can families move in if this is all we build, they asked? And families is what we need here!

But the NIMBY presentation lead brilliantly by Dennis Saxman went further than that, drilling down to the individual unit. The panel showed detailed drawings of a small housing unit, pointing out that it had only one sink.

“Now when a person comes out of the bathroom and tries to wash their hands in their one sink, what happens if there is a head of lettuce in there?”

Hmmm? What happens? C’mon developers, what does that person do? They have to choose between eating at home and washing their hands. Obviously, the presenter went on, these people (living like rats as one NIMBY characterized it) don’t cook at home anyway. They couldn’t possibly. And we all know that people who don’t cook at home aren’t healthy and die sooner than everyone else.

The brilliance of Saxman and his colleagues was to take the twenty minutes handed to them by the City Council for no other reason than they are breathing opponents of this type of housing and making themselves look somewhat credible. “What’s this?” a person in the crowd might ask, “they have facts and diagrams!” They’re not just irrational opponents of change fearful of the future and of new people.

But do we want Dennis Saxman and his colleagues programing our homes? Does Mr. Saxman get to decide how many sinks I should have in my house and where they are? Why? If I am new to the city does Mr. Saxman and his friends have approve my quarters? When did we turn planning and land use over to the Harper Valley PTA?

What is disturbing about the debate so far is not just the fact that Council is considering doing something to fix something that is already working—small units are meeting an obvious demand for housing—but that opponents of change want to get into the bathroom and kitchen of new residents of Seattle. They know how you should live and where you should live and what you should pay.

These local NIMBY warlords haven’t won yet, but how much longer will Council allow this debate to continue. What’s needed is an economical way to integrate this innovative housing form into the code in a way that doesn’t increase their price. Letting NIMBYs decide where new residents of our city wash their hands isn’t welcoming to new people and it isn’t necessary. It’s also just bad policy. It’s time to shut off the NIMBY’s microphone and come up with useful ways to welcome new people into our neighborhoods.

But in his new e-book, Wolfe in his own subtle way and at his own pace, unfurls a view of planning, land use, and the future of what has been called “urbanism,” that might be radical. And by radical I don’t mean revolutionary, a departure from current practice to something entirely new, speculative, or made up. Instead, I mean radical as in to the root of the matter.

Wolfe’s book is short and full of pictures, a practice of illustrating ideas and examples he took from his late father Meyer “Mike” Wolfe, a pioneer in urban planning at the University of Washington. Wolfe argues, as his father did, that such illustration is essential to explaining what works in creating good cities but also required to make those solutions work.

But what is Urbanism Without Effort? Wolfe describes it as

What happens naturally when people congregate in cities—based on the innate interactions of urban dwellers that occur with one other and the surrounding urban and physical environment.

Wolfe makes the point throughout the book that planners spend too much time trying to impose urban planning structures on cities with the intention of making them places people want to be instead of looking first at the places people already want to be. Those places are instructive when asking, “What do we do?” It might be better to ask, “What do we not do?”

At it’s roots, urban planning is what happens after planners experience time in cities learning what supports and facilitates great places, filled with people interacting happily, and even making a profit and creating art and music. What planning becomes is an abstraction of forms and policies extracted from principles and then imposed on an urban environment.

Perhaps the best local example of this is Seattle’s waterfront. I can’t think of another place where everything is so totally backasswards when it comes to an urban process. The premise of what Seattle is trying on the waterfront has to do with “weaving the city back into the water” or some variant of this kind of Plannerese. The fact is, last time I checked (yesterday) the waterfront is a vibrant and bustling place full of people.

There is a bizarre, self-conscious and sentimental effort to “restore” something that never was simply because the viaduct is going away. The viaduct never did cut people off from the waterfront; they simply walked under it. Graduates of the University of Washington’s planning school sketched out an absurd vision of the waterfront complete with people lowering their canoes into the water at the end of Madison and children chasing beach balls.

Now, millions are being spent to turn areas opened up by the deep bore tunnel to create a waterfront park. Hello Seattle! We already have at least three waterfront parks at Alki, Myrtle Edwards, and Golden Gardens. Each of these places allows one to take off one’s shoes and “connect with the water.”

The waterfront effort, well intentioned for sure, ignores that the waterfront works fine. What’s needed is a plan to support the development of real estate previously consumed by the viaduct for more housing, which means more people, which creates the opportunity for spontaneity, a term that I am sure Wolfe had no intention of connecting with Hayek’s “spontaneous order.” But it’s an association I will make. Yes, people will make oodles of money developing the waterfront for housing. So what! Good for them. It gives us the base ingredient for what every great city needs: more people.

Instead we have an out of control academic exercise trying to reinvent the waterfront using principles being applied without any reference to the success that is already there. What will result is likely to be wind swept plazas with a scattering of food vendors. “Such places,” Wolfe points out, “end up as little more than a hollow reminder of their authentic inspiration.”

Wolfe joins the chorus of those of us who say regulation is our friend outside the city walls, but within, we need to simply “let it be.”

The copyright cops got to the Youtube version of the Beattles roof top concert that I think is so emblematic of what Wolfe is talking about when he writes about Urbanism Without Effort. You’ll have to click on this link below since Word Press won’t allow an embed of video unless it’s from Youtube. And you may have to watch a 60 second birth control advert on Daily Motion first. So much for spontaneity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtrooe_the-beatles-rooftop-concert-london-original-version_music#.UYaScuD0jkZ

One woman testified that aPodments would quickly be overrun by mold, “meth addicts,” “wild parties,” people with “mental illness,” and men who will terrorize “our daughters.” (Then, in a classic case of concern trolling, she worried that microhousing residents wouldn’t be able to cook decent food, because they’d have filthy shared kitchens and in-unit microwaves that wouldn’t “even be big enough for a Hungry Man dinner.”)

This orgy of fear and hate toward a type of housing was, of course, about our city’s fear of new people, fear of intimacy, and, in the, end our resistance to love our neighbor as ourselves, no matter what kind of house or apartment they live in.

Later that evening something else happened; a performance of Collision Theory: The Finale, created by local genius KT Niehoff. To call what Niehoff creates dance may be limiting, but it is dance at it’s core. I had the opportunity to work with Niehoff several years ago when my King County program sponsored Inhabit, an earlier innovation by Niehoff.

If the angry mob assembled at City Hall is where our city might go when it comes to growth, Niehoff points us in another direction; intimacy, acceptance, and transgression of boundaries.

True to the spirit of Inhabit, the dancers in Collision Theory move about the audience, interact with them, talking and touching them, and even handing them things. There is narrative, but it pairs so beautifully with the space and the movement that it is almost liturgical in form. It’s like Eucharist, except that I was eating the bodies of the dancers with my eyes.

And the dancers dance but they also tell stories. Molly Sides moves and tells a story about a teenage experience with a pink back pack full of Bud Light. Meanwhile, dancers occupy creaky table like stages that make you sweat, worried someone might fall. I saw one woman reach out as if to stabilize one of the dancers hanging, dangerously, off the edge. Sides piece in particular made me think, “if this could be squished into a pill the size of an ibuprofen, I’d swallow ten.” It’s that good.

The intimacy achieved by Niehoff’s work is a powerful expression of hope in human beings, in their ability to learn and love one another by connecting physically and sharing stories. It is, simply put, the antithesis of where our public process around land use is going, down a path of tapping in to the worst aspects of human experience, fear and loathing of other people.

Our city and our City Council ought to be embarrassed at what transpired at their gathering yesterday. And they ought to get on the phone and call KT Niehoff (I understand she’s closing her company) and ask her to take over all the public process for land use in our city going forward. It would be weird, but we might learn to fall in love with each other and and all those new people coming to Seattle who will need a place to live in the years ahead.

Performances of Collision Theory: The Finale continue at On The Boards through the 21st. Go. 

When it comes to housing my question goes something like this, “if Seattle has a housing affordability problem shouldn’t we increase supply? See, since this economics thing says that when supply goes up, it will eventually exceed demand, and when it does, BOOM, price comes down, right?”

Comments like these were usually greeted with derision. I didn’t understand, people would say, that housing is different. Housing price isn’t affected by housing supply, the way, say, hot dogs might be. I was called a libertarian, lost in a Hayekian reverie. One snarky guy on Facebook invited me to join him in his graduate level economics class so I could learn that I was wrong, supply doesn’t positively affect housing price. But I stuck to my guns.

Now, over at Citytank, David Moser wrote these words that sound, to me, like poetry.

The only way to slow [poor people leaving the city] is to build enough housing to meet the demand, preferably near transit. Incumbent property owners who seek to limit development and additional housing in their neighborhoods are therefore also supporting the de-facto eviction of the poor from the city.  They are the “haves” excluding the “have-nots” once again.  Though their intentions are not evil, the consequences of their actions are. And opportunistic politicians who position themselves as populist defenders of “neighborhood character” must be defeated. We must intensify our efforts to build this city. It is a just cause.

All stuff I’ve said before with much criticism from people with planning degrees and with a progressive bent. Today, we’re seeing a shift toward supply talk. Not only that, but Moser is tying this to politics, suggesting we replace politicians who don’t get that we need to build more housing and reduce the costs of production by having fewer rules.

We tried the political accountability route back in 2010 with an effort called the Party of the Future. The Party of the Future efforts fizzled because nobody really wanted to challenge Councilmembers politically and publicly, even though, in private, they were livid about Council decisions on land use and density.

I am not claiming credit for anything, especially credit for being the first to argue that increased supply will lower price. I’m sure it’s been argued and suggested before in Seattle, but I don’t think it had much effect. I believe that’s changing.

Here’s a revised version a comment I left on Citytank in response to Moser.

Thank you for this, especially your point about supply.

There almost isn’t a day that goes by when I am not talking about housing supply. I just finished a rant about it a little while ago.

We live in a city that is full of progressives who desperately want to help poor people by making housing more “affordable” by lowering housing price.

Price and affordability are not the same thing; affordability is a relationship to price. If we want housing prices to go down or stabilize we must increase supply.

However, ideology –the myth of the “greedy” developer– tends to trump common sense.

We’re making progress. Gradually I am beginning to hear closet doors creak open and I am hearing the sweet sound of “supply! supply! supply!”

That’s how we fix price. Living outside the city will likely always be “cheaper” than living in it, especially since the costs of living elsewhere are largely externalized.

Part of the solution to this last problem is redefining “affordability” into something that is more comprehensive and reflects all the costs and benefits of living in the city.

Today we talk about “affordability” and mean something, usually, more than simply housing price. Once we bust the iron grip of liberal progressive ideological language and bigotry against private profit, we can start to take our foot off supply by lowering regulatory barriers and, also, incentivizing development rather than taxing it and penalizing the private sector while subsidizing more expensive “affordable” housing.

These things together, increasing supply and developing a broader concept of affordable city living, can lead us to an outcome we want: more people living more sustainably in the city.

And, yes, we still need subsidies for housing, especially for populations who can’t pay enough rent to cover the debt and operating costs of new housing. But that’s another post. For now, let’s keep using that word, supply, as much as possible when the topic of affordable housing is brought up.

And the Council has just finished it’s latest agonizing over “affordability” in discussions about zoning in the South Lake Union neighborhood. The market is producing apodments—people want them so developers are building them. Shutting these down now would be entirely inconsistent with what the Council says it wants and what its trying to tax development to do in South Lake Union. Apodments are affordable!

The first argument I’ve heard is that somehow developers are exploiting a “loophole in the code” to build apodments. That’s just nonsense. Developers are building these entirely within the existing code, a code that, in fact, has been around for a long time. Furthermore, neighbors that are griping about apodments generally speaking live in neighborhoods already zoned for low-rise multifamily housing. The truth is that places where apodments can be built would already allow regular apartment buildings. So what’s the big problem?

Opponents say that the apodments are too small. What doesn’t make any sense about that criticism is that the people making the fuss aren’t even going to live in the apodments. I’ve been in the apodments several times and even talked with people who live in apodments. They seem lucid and sane to me, not drugged or somehow coerced into living in the buildings. The truth is that the apodments pretty much have a zero vacancy rate; when one becomes vacant it gets rented out right away. People love being able to have the choice to live in an apodment.

Someone worried about apodment development on Capitol Hill said she was worried about her neighborhood changing; that’s an honest concern. She described how she knows all her neighbors and how they look out for each other, even checking in when someone’s lights haven’t been on a few days, or someone has been sick. But she worried that the apodments would be like a dorm, full of loud young people and a transient population.

I think this last worry, that apodments will change a delicate neighborhood ecosystem by introducing new, different people into it, is truly the biggest issue for apodment opponents. Change isn’t easy, especially when things are already pretty good. But the fact is that apodments are a great part of a housing continuum in Seattle. Being worried about more people isn’t unusual, but if we’re going to grow as a community we’ve got to get over it.

Finally, and most importantly, apodments are affordable. It’s baffling to me that the City Council could one day worry about taxing new development to create subsidized affordable housing—a paradoxical and self defeating move—but the next day consider putting a stop to housing that is produced for profit, with no subsidy and really is affordable.

In fact, apodments are addressing what some on the Council say they are most worried about: workforce housing. The normative standard for housing—how much we should pay for housing—affordability is 30 percent of monthly income. There isn’t a pod I’ve seen that rents for much more than $1000 per month, which is just about what a person making a little over 60 percent of Area Median Income makes.

The apodment concept uses the code wisely, using the smarts and innovation of developers to create housing that is less costly to build. The subsidy for apodments is created by innovation. The value created gets passed on in lower prices for rent and the public benefits by getting affordable density.

The City Council should resist any changes to what’s happening, but instead pass a resolution declaring May 2013 Micro Housing Month. There should be tours of apodments, a big fair highlighting other micro housing ideas, small-lot development, pre fabricated back yard cottages, anything that produces an innovative housing solution. Let the Council know, “we’re winning with apodments. Don’t go back now!”

* The term “apodments” is a brand name of one particular housing product. I’m using the term here broadly for all small apartments being built in the city.

Here is Ferris on so called work force housing back in 2007 in an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce:

The [2012] starting salary for a Fire Recruit is $64,884 per year with scheduled pay increases per union contract. Specialty and administrative premium pay can add an additional 5-20% depending on the specialty.

The Real Area Median Income (RAMI) in Seattle in 2011 was $64,085, slightly less than what a firefighter in Seattle would make as a recruit. The typical normative standard for affordable housing –what you should be paying for housing– is 30 percent of monthly income. That means a beginning firefighter could afford about $1,621 for housing per month. How does that compare to average rents in Seattle versus a place like Bellevue. The Seattle Times reported that in 2012

The average third-quarter rent in downtown Seattle, Belltown and South Lake Union in August was $1,628, Apartment Insights said, second only to downtown Bellevue’s $1,756.

So our firefighter could settle down in an affordable apartment in Belltown and still be paying an affordable 30 percent of her monthly income. Why move to Bellevue and pay more when she could walk to her firetruck in Belltown?

Still, the narrative of the firefighter, teacher, or healthcare worker earning $51,268 (80 percent of RAMI and thousands less than what the City says an actual firefighter earns) a year but unable to find a place to live in Seattle is influencing public policy.

City Councilmember Tim Burgess has decided that the public would benefit by taking Ferris’ advice, charging developers who are building new housing in Seattle’s South Lake Union neighborhood a tax to fund the development of more housing, and then making them put that housing priced the way he wants it in their buildings. Burgess is pursuing this policy even when market studies say that without more housing supply, price will go up.

The Dupre + Scott study quoted in the Seattle Times found last year that

73 percent of landlords responding to that company’s survey said they plan to increase rents over the next six months.

The average projected bump: nearly 4 percent.

Renters pay more and must look harder for vacant apartments in close-in Seattle neighborhoods, according to both research firms.

The vacancy rate is just 2 percent on First Hill, 2.2 percent in the University District and 2.3 percent on Capitol Hill

If we’re worried about affecting housing price the obvious solution is to increase the supply of housing. More housing means more competition between landlords and developers and lower prices for firefighters and everyone else. However, the paradoxical view that we should tax new housing (a tax that will add to the cost of housing and increase its price) in order to achieve fairness, equity, and affordability persists.

In his 2007 article Ferris said that the “shortage of workforce housing is a silent epidemic.” The real epidemic is an intellectual one; the stubborn insistence in the face of basic economics that the way to lower perceived high housing prices is to increase costs and limit supply. Let’s hope we find a cure for this epidemic in the deliberations about zoning in South Lake Union before it spreads elsewhere.

Fear of high prices: Councilmember Burgess as firefighter

The basis of social policy is to ensure the welfare and health of a population, specifically the population of a political unit like a country, state, or city. Housing and shelter are commonly accepted as important elements of basic welfare and health, but the issue of how to ensure that everyone is at least sheltered, if not housed, has been a source of controversy.

In Seattle, well intentioned efforts to address housing issues have lead to a strange, self-defeating spiral in which elected officials and others are arguing for policies like inclusionary zoning that actually make housing prices higher by adding costs to new housing. Policy makers need to better define what problem they are trying to solve when they impose schemes like inclusionary zoning. If the problem is housing price, the obvious solution is to increase housing supply.

If the problem is defeating developer “greed,” redistributing wealth, or increasing wages, perhaps policy makers should widen their scope. The problem with Seattle’s approach to housing affordability is that it is attempting to address a scattering of social issues with a very blunt tool: price controls on monthly rents in new buildings.

Social welfare efforts have many origins, but almost every survey begins with the social reforms instituted by Prussian leader Otto Von Bismarck in the late 19th century. At that time, the conservative government of Prussia wanted to positively affect wages to offset pressures to immigrate to the United States—it was also a political move to staunch growing social unrest. The Prussian programs also included comprehensive health insurance. In the United Kingdom in the early part of the last century, the government passed a similar set of programs to ensure social welfare.

In the 1930s, the United States followed, passing lots of similar programs like Social Security Insurance. Eventually, when it came to housing, the normative standard of affordability was pegged at one week of wages or 25 percent of a workers monthly income. Later, in 1981, that figure was adjusted up to 30 percent of monthly income. Additional adjustments were made to discount the Housing Cost Income Ratio (HCIR) for a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI). So today you’ll hear policy makers and housing advocates talk about 30, 40, 50, or 60 percent of AMI since that’s the basis of subsidies for non-profit housing developers.

What has emerged in the United States is a measure of affordability that does not correspond to the hopes of advocates. A measure of income relative to monthly cost of housing is a pretty weak basis upon which to correct social inequity. Equity and fairness, the latest buzzwords associated with the efforts to impose inclusionary housing schemes, are not likely to be achieved by adjusting people’s rents in new developments or taxing developers for the subsidies necessary for the adjustments.

Everyone has a different sense of what “affordability” means or should mean. One Seattle City Councilmember, Tim Burgess, has a view about what dealing with monthly price of housing is all about:

“We are not currently balancing public and private benefits,” said Burgess, who prodded the council to hire experts to review the mayor’s proposal to allow taller building heights in South Lake Union, with some as high as 400 feet. “We must craft a better deal for the people of Seattle.”

Burgess in a recent story in the Seattle Times also described currently policies requiring some developers to contribute cash to subsidy programs for housing priced at a certain level an “escape hatch.” Why is it an escape hatch if it actually creates subsidized housing? Where is the case that including subsidized units in market rate buildings solve the public benefit problem if there even is one?

Burgess’ latest foray into the housing affordability discussion is only the latest of many efforts to affect social policy—to achieve equity or fairness—by bargaining for lower monthly prices for rental units in new developments. How lowering the rent of a few hundred one-bedroom apartments in South Lake Union from $1150 a month to $900 a month is going to achieve social equity is beyond my comprehension. And does it solve the perceived problem of not taking enough public benefits at the expense of private businesses? How?

Additionally, if the problem is developer greed, then why not shut down all new development everywhere? Would that be “a better deal” for the people of Seattle? Or perhaps we should simply try imposing rent control (deemed unconstitutional up to this point) on all new housing, allowing the City Council to determine what prices can be charged for monthly rents in the City. Would that be a better deal? Ask people who live in cities with rent control.

Perhaps Councilmembers and all people discussing the issue of “affordable housing” should get together and decide what their point really is: affecting the price of a few hundred units of apartment housing or something greater.

Then they should consider the words of Otto Von Bismarck who endeavored to use social welfare programs to squash political dissent, but ended up building a system that, arguably, lead to many of the good ideas we have to day about broad social justice and equity.

The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is not sure that he will always have work, he is not sure that he will always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be old and unfit to work. If he falls into poverty, even if only through a prolonged illness, he is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and society does not currently recognize any real obligation towards him beyond the usual help for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so faithfully and diligently. The usual help for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large cities, where it is very much worse than in the country.

The “usual help,” taxing developers to build a few hundred apartment units priced at 30 percent of the pre-tax income of a worker who earns 60 percent of Area Median Income, isn’t likely to lead to fairness, equity, or increasing benefit to the public. On the contrary, by penalizing the development of more housing supply by making it more expensive, policy makers would be having a deleterious affect on the very thing they seek to fix: housing price.

Goldilocks and the three NIMBYs: Waiting to get it just right.

The story posted last night on the Seattle times was headlined “South Lake Union neighborhood advocates oppose taller, fatter buildings.” And South Lake Union NIMBYs are actually calling themselves NIMBYs and saying “it isn’t just the views, but yes the private views matter.”

What is breathtaking about the story is the complete paucity of any substantial argument by neighbors against more housing.

“It’s too fat!”

“It’s too tall!”

And they were so civilized, these Goldilocks of South Lake Union, considering their whole way of life is being put at risk by proposed changes outside their windows.

While opponents of change might be patting themselves on the back this morning, they really have outed themselves as opposed to change because its change. If it doesn’t look like they want to look they want it stopped.

In the end this is better for the debate on land use in Seattle. Change opponents can keep opposing density until it’s “just right,” and those of us who argue basic economics (more supply of housing means lower price) can make our case without resorting to plannerese. What’s better for the future of the city, waiting for the perfect urban form or building more housing for new families trying to make ends meet in our city?

In the end it’s up to City Council. Will they give in to the Goldilocks approach to urban form or will they support vibrant growth in South Lake Union and welcome new people to our city? Only time will tell, although the issue has already been debated for years. Isn’t it time for a decision? Which bed will we sleep in; the past, the future, or the status quo?

Pay to play: Why should the City get access to private profit when they won’t take any risks?

Proposals for incentive and inclusionary zoning in South Lake Union seems like Seattle City government playing politics with the balance sheets of private businesses. Upzones create private value, the argument goes, so the City should share some of that value and use it for affordable housing. More profit is possible with additional building, but what about the risks? Profit is a reward for successfully taking risk. Is the City willing to share the risks too? If it wants to tap into the profit stream created by new development, the City should put up some cash like other investors rather than fining developers for success.

Don’t get me wrong; I love taxes! Taxes pay for public goods, redistribute wealth, and create disincentives for stuff we shouldn’t be doing, like sprawl (this last point is a central point of Dan Bertolet’s latest post). Taxes are one thing, but when the City tries to create public benefit from private investment without taking any of the risk, it’s not fair. If the City wants to “extract value” from private development at South Lake Union then they should put some money into projects being proposed there.

Instead of having City Council staff standing on the sidelines speculating about just how much money is going to be made from increases in development capacity being sought by developers in South Lake Union, how about getting in the game by buying a share of the projects. I can’t think of a better way to get more control over what happens with the upzones than if the City itself was an owner or shareholder.

As an investor the City would have to take on some risk. If there is too much housing built with additional zoning, then the City would lose it’s shirt along with other private investors — but the price for units would be cheap. But if demand for new housing stays high, the City would make it’s money back. And guess what, it could contribute its share of profits to reducing rents in the project. It’s a win-win!

The City has lots of power when it comes to land use, but trying to squash private profits from private investment to make political points doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to tax something that’s good for the public, like additional housing. If the City really wants to influence housing price they should allow as much housing construction as private investors think would be profitable, then let those investors make a profit.

Imagine if the “incentive zoning” concept was applied to other businesses in the city. Since the City gives out a business permit should it share in the profits of a restauranteur, in addition to other taxes and fees, and require an affordable menu? Should a pet shop have to create a certain number of affordable pets for children? How about affordable hot dogs? If the City wanted to accomplish these things they’d regulate them or create a tax or fee structure, but they wouldn’t game the profits of local businesses. Housing is different and more important, but is 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) really the income band in the city that needs help with housing costs?

One last point that I made in a comment on Bertolet’s post at Citytank:

The longer we try to suppress developer profits to prevent them from “laughing all the way to bank” we’re simply preventing new housing, attenuating supply which drives up prices and keeps them high, and, in the end, transferring wealth to the people who got here first at the expense of future residents of the city.

The real value extraction — and social injustice — is making things more expensive for families who want to live with us by keeping housing supply low and fining developers for trying to build more of it. Increasing costs of housing and limiting how much gets built siphons money out of the pockets of newcomers into the pockets of homeowners already here by increasing the value of existing homes and developable land. That doesn’t seem fair either, does it?