Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck says he wants to increase the supply of "affordable housing" -- his solution? New obstacles and disincentives for developers who seek to increase the housing stock. It might not make economic sense, but it does play well in certain circles in Seattle.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 09, 2005 11:43 AM | Email ThisThe political geniuses who drafted the Act knew very well that the lowly proletariat would interpret "affordable" by the laws of supply and demand, and think that Joe average worker could hope to find housing to fit his budget, once the GMA was in place.
But in the mindset of the planners who have hijacked the American dream as a paradise to be imposed on the citizens, the laws of supply and demand should be trumped by correctly thinking activists who acquire political power.
And as a red herring, they have used the word "affordable" in the best tradition of George Orwell: as the reverse of its economic meaning. Reading between the lines of the Growth Management Act, "affordable" housing is to be provided by government fiat to a worthy and deserving subclass, at the expense of those ordinary citizens called taxpayers. There will never be enough of it, and unless the Act is reversed and people become free to buy and sell and subdivide property, and choose freely where they will live, the situation that Commissar Steinbrueck has chosen for a model will remain under control of its Politburo of unelected planners.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on December 9, 2005 12:25 PMHousing price inflation is slowing or going negative in the rest of the country. But, not in Seattle. That is because supply is artificially restricted in Seattle.
Meanwhile, Seattle politicians bemoan the fact that there is no affordable housing. So, they impose housing levies and build subsidized neighborhoods in South Seattle.
But, actually, that is just for public consumption, I'm convinced. They can't really be THAT stupid.
The fact is, Seattle politicians do not want a middle class to remain in the city. The want classes of people they can predict and can get votes from. Middle class people are too unpredictable. But the millionaires who live in Belltown are predictably liberal, as are the poor who require government assistance.
So, Nickels' strategy is to drive out the middle class and be left with a smaller wealthy class and a large pool of government dependent voters.
Amazing that nobody points this trend out.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on December 9, 2005 12:34 PMActually the crowd is pretty libertarian. But we probably seem liberal these days since the "conservative Republicans" are all social conservatives and economic liberals. Lets face it; GW Bush would probably add $100 billion to the federal budget to give housing subsideis as long as there was some faith based angle.
I agree that this affordable housing deal is a sham; the real scandal is that even if the republicans were in power in Seattle - we wouldn't have a free market solution.
So yeah, if the republicans aren't going to be the free market fiscally conservative party and we have the choice between two parties that dole out taxpyer money, libertarians will vote for the people that party that at least does not try to regulate their private life and make Generation Xers feel bad for watching so much MTV.
Posted by: Julie on December 10, 2005 12:19 AM
Buy all the property you can now, because you will get rich.
Okay, so thats at the national level- but lets get more local. Back when the republicans controlled the county council only two of the seven members Chris Vance and Rob McKenna (a total stud!) actually voted for budgets that grew the government by less than the inflation rate.
"But the millionaires who live in Belltown are predictably liberal" -And btw, when did Republicans turn into the party of class warfare?
I feel like I'm living in a nightmare where the republicans move to the left on fiscal and economic issues to capture voters and democrats become "tough on crime" and go after "values voters and move to the right on social issues. At the end of this story all of my money will taken the government owns everything and on the other hand I have no right to privacy, we are in the second round of prohibition, and we have a national mandatory service requirment.