Think different.

"Stringer Bell's worse than a drug dealer. He's a developer."

Last night, the CEO of my organization, Bart Harvey, stood in front of the nation's biggest developers and delivered what one might reasonably call the "inconvenient truth" about housing: of the more than $150 billion spent each year on housing by the federal government, the vast majority of it goes to the nation's wealthiest households by way of the home mortgage interest deduction and other housing exemptions. See, for instance, this graph from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.


Harvey used this depiction of inequality and questionable priorities to suggest a different approach to how we think about housing policy, one that would better meet the needs of all Americans by redirecting housing subsidies to where they are needed most – namely, the 15 million households earning median income or lower that are currently paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. In order to leave the lecture in one piece, he emphasized the need to harness the power of our housing development system (public, private and non-profit) to accomplish this goal.

Still, despite his emphasis on using the market for good and profit (and not just profit), the crowd was, predictably, skeptical. Developers make a lot of money off the mortgage interest deduction's artificial inflation of home prices.

Of course, our organization is not going to make repealing the "indefensible" deduction (in the words of former Senator Connie Mack) a major initiative. That wasn't the purpose of the speech. The purpose was to, hopefully, set in motion the glacial shifts needed to bring about a paradigm shift for a system that has, over time, become distorted and increasingly unworkable, yet it's existence is seldom reexamined and almost never questioned. Which is a roundabout way of getting to the point of this post.

Like the home mortgage deduction (which evolved from a general interest deduction, intended for business interest, in the first income tax legislation to an American "birthright") our growth policy – indeed that of almost every locality in the country – is based on a system started almost 100 years ago in New York City. And though it has adapted over time to address changing circumstances, the foundation of the system remains basically the same.

We have a system of zoning that excludes certain uses for the benefit of the people, and also their detriment. Within this system of limited possibilities, we have landowners and developers who, naturally, want more and neighbors and others who, naturally, want less.

We have a system where competition, reactivity, hostility and divisiveness thrive, where developers are forced to be underhanded and citizens are forced to be constantly vigilant. We have a system that lacks true accountability, that is easily corruptible, that offers no room for nuance and that is weighted against citizens, who often lack the time, expertise and financial resources to compete with developers, who also are relegated solely to the role of "opposition."

Rather than allowing us to envision what's possible for the future of our community, our zoning system forces us to start with someone else's vision and work, usually back, from there. It's a tug-of-war where our side of the rope is almost across the line and where we struggle to pull it back to a reasonable point. But, while we're always tugging, we never win. Usually, nobody does. Instead, everyone gets tired and settles.

Of course, you can echo the words of Churchill and say our zoning system is the worst way to manage development, except everything else. But is it?

I look at proposals to adjust our system, to make it more "better" for existing residents and to make it incumbent upon developers to pay their "fair share," and I see deck chairs being rearranged. The philosophical foundation -- namely, us versus them in a zero sum situation -- is still there and it's still going to cause endless strife (and meetings) and higher and higher housing costs, which don't particularly matter to existing residents, unless they're children wishing to stay in the community where they were raised.

But then I look at what's happening in Oakland Mills and I can't help think that there is a better way and it's not as hard to achieve as it may seem. Rather than waiting for developers and landowners to envision our future, residents of Oakland Mills have taken it upon themselves to create their own picture of what the community should look like. And now that the vision has been laid out, the work of creating a coalition involving property owners, residents, public officials and developers is underway. With a coalition of equals, a compromise (not settlement or victory) that benefits all is certainly possible, if not probable.

Ah, I'm rambling at this point. I have more thoughts than time. (And more thoughts than coherent sentences, apparently.)

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that it's possible to work together toward a new paradigm. We talk about this all the time at Howard County Tomorrow meetings, and maybe I'm just an unrepentant idealist, but I actually think a new, better development system, one without as much acrimony, is possible. Of course, I don't have the answer -- no single person does and campaign season probably isn't the best time to come up with it -- but I'm sure it's out there.