State law says Seattle residents have to pay for tunnel cost overruns. You then tell us that Mallahan has said city residents should not absorb tunnel cost overruns - what's he going to do about that? He says he will manage the project so there won't be any cost overruns.

This tells me Mallahan is either a liar or is completely clueless. As mayor you don't manage the Washington State Dept. of Transportation. They will be building the tunnel. Seattle has to pay the cost overruns - probably over a billion dollars worth & Seattle does not manage those doing the work (WashDOT).

And after we pay all those overruns, how will there be money for neighborhoods? There will not be any.

Publicola reported on a 1996 letter to the New York Times, when then-Chicago resident Joe Mallahan argued in favor of building more prisons and imposing longer sentences on inmates.

In the letter, Mallahan—identified as M. Joseph Mallahan—wrote:

"...My Christian ethics would answer no. I will respect the first politician who is brave enough to stand up and advocate longer sentences and improved living conditions for inmates."

Good article, John. As you know, I voted for some but not all of the candidates you support. But it was a good summary of the alignments in local politics---in many cases involving people and groups who are supporting candidates who oppose what they purport to stand for.

A bit puzzled by the LiviaRyan comment, above. Is there something wrong with Mallahan's Chicago statement, if in fact it was the same Joe Mallahan, in which he advocated "longer sentences and improved living conditions for inmates?" Shorter sentences in many cases result in
release of criminals who quickly commit new crimes, in other cases not. It is a case-by-case matter with the heaviest weight going to the interests of public safety. Likely repeat offenders should receive longer sentences. And what on earth is wrong with providing all inmates with better conditions? Is this intended to be some kind of damning disclosure?

John Fox rants at the Cascade Bicycle Club and FUSE for their support of my lovely spouse, Sally Bagshaw. He dismisses her by claiming without any basis in fact that she “blindly support[s] Paul Allen’s agenda” and that she is a “corporate democrat,” and then he concludes that the support of the Cascade Bicycle Club is “mysterious” and that FUSE’s support just proves how “out of touch” it is. Sally, of course, does have substantial corporate support, she is endorsed by the Alki Foundation, and although she has never met Paul Allen, she has received a contribution from Vulcan. But she also has the endorsement and financial support of social justice advocates Hubert Locke, Sandy Brown, Paul Lambros and Jamie Pedersen, does that mean she is “blindly supporting the agenda of the Plymouth Housing Group, the Church Council of Seattle and Lambda Legal?” And she has the endorsement of the Firefighters Union, the Police Union, the Teamsters and a dozen other unions, but does that mean she is blindly supporting the Union Agenda? And what about her rating of “Outstanding” from the Muni League, do they even have an agenda that she could blindly support?

No Mr. Fox, Sal does not “blindly support” anybody’s agenda, and the support she has received form progressive and environmentally sensitive groups is not at all “mysterious.” She has been bringing people together her whole career and she is now receiving broad support from all across the political spectrum for one simple reason -- she will make a damn good councilwoman.

There are a few major factual inaccuracies in this article, in addition to some remarkably tendentious statements. Sticking to the facts, the following are blatantly untrue:
1.)$65,000 is not 80% of the area median income for individuals (I assume that's what you mean by "folks"). It is close to 80% of the median household income.
2.)Incentive zoning has literally nothing to do with giving away tax dollars. That is simply false. Generally, the "incentive" involved is extra height for new buildings. This has absolutely nothing to do with trickle-down economics.
3.)You say that "The limousine enviros support candidates like Mike O'Brien who oppose use of developer fees that would require developers to share in the costs of growth or replace housing they remove." I'm pretty sure that O'Brien supported HB 1490 (as did most of the environmental community), which you mischaracterized later in the article; it required replacement of affordable housing stock.

With John Fox, it's not enough to share his basic ethics, like social justice, affordability, etc. You have to also share his particular recipe for addressing those ethics, and his level of fervor in putting those particular priorities above all others. Anyone who doesn't is vilified. I bet he'd protest Mother Teresa for helping the sick, and "taking needed resources from housing our poorest residents".

John has some good ideas, but as far as I can tell, he fundamentally doesn't understand economics or how economics affects even his core issues, such as basic supply and demand with housing prices. And he apparently understands environmental, growth management, and transportation issues even less.

How perfect to see John Fox so clearly articulate the nonsensical myth that Seattle is overrun with "density-at-all-costs" enviros. And perfect too, that he aligns himself with David Miller on that fantasy. For a reality-based discussion of what enviros like McGinn and O'Brien actually believe and practice, go here:

http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/08/02/the-truth-about-density-advocates/

John Fox here. Just a few responses to my blog critics.

Regarding Mr. Bagshaw's claim that his spouse is not bankrolled by downtown interests, over half her contributions - a veritable war chest comes from downtown and Eastside donors(many of whom I recognize in the employ of major downtown corporate interests). I've also never seen so many 'maxed out' corporate contributors (who've already anted up over $500 to her campaign before primary). Having monitored local contributor lists for years, it's unprecedented - her level of support from the major corporate players. You don't garner that kind of support unless to tow their line. Don't believe me, I'll quote the PI's Joel Connelly in an August 4th blog of his...

"Sally Bagshaw is clearly the business community's candidate in the contest to succeed Councilwoman Jan Drago, who is running for mayor. She is "Aligned" with the Downtown Seattle Assn. on all fronts."

Also, a quick response to willechols. If you go to HUD's or the City's website, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2009/2009summary.odn?INPUTNAME=METRO42660MM7600*5303399999%2BKing+County&selection;_type=county&stname;=Washington&statefp;=53&year;=2009, you'll see the median income, county-wide, now is 84,000. 80% of that is $67,200. Seattle's median probably is higher. Broken down by household size for a family of 3 it's $57.6 thousand. Rents affordable to these households at 80% of AMI push $1300 a month for a 1 bedroom and $1500 for bedroom. These units are hundreds of dollars above what an average wage earner in Seattle can afford (whose income is about $43,000 according to Washington Employment Securities). Giving away subsidies to promote development of units affordable at 80% of median is a priority for our current Mayor and most on the City Council.

O'Brien and Bagshaw talk about promoting use of incentive zoning and use of tax breaks to promote more "affordable housing". They're talking about units at that 80% threshold encouraged under these programs. The need is for units below 40% of median and by contrast there is a surplus of rentals at 80% (meaning more stock in relation to households at that income level according to the 2008 Kg Co. Benchmarks Report). In fact, according to that report, 80% of all rentals county-wide including Seattle are priced below 80% rent thresholds.

Incentive programs and tax exemption programs offer developers added density or lucrative tax breaks and in return all they have to do is set aside a handful of units at 80% of median. The market already is providing units without subsidy in that price range - in fact we have a surplus. Where's the public benefit? That's called a giveaway and/or subsidy. We've broken records for new construction in Seattle from 2005-mid 2008. Housing didn't trickle down to the poor. Quite the contrary, it caused the loss of several thousand existing low income rentals. Those who think by merely unleashing the market,or "subsidizing it", it'll free up housing at the bottom never got beyond their Econ 101 class.

And HB 1490, the transit oriented development lacked measures to ensure 1 for 1 replacement nor did it include language to curb speculation and gentrification that causes indirect displacement. That's a key reason why we continued to oppose the bill even after 50 unit per acre mandates were dropped from it.

I think John Fox does understand the economics of what has been happening in Seattle. Don't believe me?-read the research available from Edward Glaeser of Harvard who has made urban issues/economics the focus of his voluminous research. He has much to say about housing prices, transportation issues, gentrification, densification, consumer cities, poverty in cities, and all the other issues we are dealing with in Seattle, and his conclusions from meticulous research are more in line with what John argues than with what some other people are claiming. On environmental issues, people might want to read Curtis White's series of essays on "The Idols of Environmentalism" available on orionmagazine.org. Many in Seattle are heavily engaged right now in worshipping at the feet of the idols of the cave/den and the idols of the theater ( see Francis Bacon).

First lesson in economics: There are dozens of PhDs and several experts for every opinion you can think of. The idea that one, even one from Harvard, is proof of anything is BEYOND absurd.

John-
If you want to write about the median income of a 4-person family, then you should have written that $67,200 is 80% of area median income for a family of four. You did not. As you well know, the eligibility for public housing is based upon a.)household income and b.)family size. I'm not sure anyone reading your piece would know that by "folks" you mean a family of four.

Your numbers then devolve into incoherence. You write that the average wage earner in Seattle earns $43,000, and that they can't afford apartments targeted at FAMILIES earning 80% of the area median income. But you're mixing categories. For an individual, 80% of the area median income is $44,800 (you can use the mean if you want, but please be consistent). Then again, I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make; in the article, and indeed later in your comment, you argue that people earning 80% of AMI shouldn't be able to rent subsidized housing, and that the market is making plenty of housing affordable to people earning these incomes. Which is it? In any case, please keep your numbers straight. Also, the HUD numbers for single-bedroom rents affordable to those earning 80% of AMI are calculated based on the earnings of individuals. So yes, the average wage earner could more or less afford an apartment at $1,300 per month (you really mean to say $1,265 per month, which is the Seattle Housing Authority's standard, but clearly you don't believe in precision with numbers).

As for the issue of incentive zoning, I assume when you refer to tax breaks that you're talking about the Multi-Family Tax Exemption. However, in arguing against this program and incentive zoning, you're mixing numbers again, using county-wide statistics to comment on a city policy. In fact, until the recession, rents in the city were rising far faster than income, so those earning 80%-120% of AMI were getting pushed out of the city; most of the units lost to development in Seattle were in that range. Furthermore, there are areas of the city where it was economically impossible to build housing at the 80% of AMI mark without the MFTE program. Finally, please try to learn about how the rental market actually works. New units affordable to people earning 80% of AMI increase the rental vacancy rate, which is the most significant variable in overall rental costs.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that HB 1490 "lacked measures to ensure 1 for 1 replacement"; that is precisely what it did. As far as lacking measures to curb speculation and gentrification, there are no such policies in the city (or, indeed the country), and one of the primary reasons for HB 1490 in the first place was the realization that the light rail line would lead to increases in housing costs, pushing out low-income renters in the absence of legislation to guarantee replacement of units and creation of new affordable units.

Mhays -we're all used to your boilerplate and we all know your background.
It'd be nice if you could broaden your thinking about city growth issues. If you'd bother to read Glaeser-among many others, you might get some surprises.

Glaeser has a page, with papers. Which one are you thinking of? But taking a quick look at some of the titles of his papers, he seems to be like most economists a fairly free market oriented personality. For instance, a paper on his page called "Why is Manhattan so expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices." I might imagine him opposing housing mandates, but also supporting vastly loosened zoning. Is that really a close match to what Mr. Fox is proposing?

The "Editor's Pick" was the original writer's refeed. Sweet.

Group hug, well, dyad.

Raise the REET rate, and stop picking and choosing favorites. Stop funding basic gov services with REET, fund affordable housing with it, and infrustructure.

prescribed density efforts? no thanks

It looks like the downzone of vacant light industrial land perpetuates urban blight in our city.

walker -- Are you defending the idea that one leading voice is the be all, end all? Or more specifically, are you trying to avoid defending that point?

Excellent article by John Fox. Thanks for putting it on Crosscut.