Looks like a pretty wonky mixture of infrastructure, density, zoning, transportation, etc. Enough for people to find their pet issue, vague enough not to piss anyone off. For lots of strategic reasons they may not be totally clear about what they want in a 30 second (or 30 miunte) ad:

1. Their coalition doesn’t agree–every agent probably has different ideas about “quality of life” issues and the policy choices that would follow.
2. Local conditions may differ–affordability may differ based on place, population, jobs, etc.
3. Local solutions may differ–Encouraging denisty in some places, relieving it elsewhere.

WAR represents varied interests. Like the legislature itself, their motives don’t need to be pure or unified. In fact, just getting people talking is probably the spark they need to open doors in Olympia.

Maybe the bottom line is that the ad is not effective. But I do believe that is their intention is to get you to go their website to get more specific details about the campaign.

I’ll put it this way. $1.3 million would buy half a SuperBowl ad.

I think, going back to Robbie’s article itself, for the WAR Commerical to appear sincere, it should have had a more specifically directed call to action. It is in the broad generalization of the message, that it appears to be weighted more heavily to the self-serving side.

We are doing X to help increase affordable housing…please call your legislators on X and X and help us help you…would have been “self interest as secondary”. But as it is, it currently is, self interest apears to be the primary function.

I believe that was Robbie’s point in the article…or at least question to us.

Even Mother Theresa received something for her good works: Eternal Salvation.

Every action causes a re-action and everyone receives SOMETHING for their good works, even if it’s just quiet satisfaction in something well done.

To imply that WAR is not honest because the good action (calling attention to a social problem) may result in a good outcome (creation of mid-priced homes) is dishonest in itself.

Even people who give donations to starving orphans get a tax deduction.

I just think it’s unlikely that the WAR would fork over $1.3 million out of the goodness of their hearts. I’m not saying that they aren’t at all concerned about “quality of life,” but that I personally doubt that it is the real motivation behind this ad campaign.

I’m not trying to be combative here or start an argument (too late?), I’m just calling it like I see it. Maybe I’m way off base and the WAR is like some kind of home-selling Salvation Army. I just kindof doubt it.

Acknowledging that we’re all in this together, I think it’s safe to say that, unless one is psychotic, we are ALL interested in our mutual quality of life. This is called “enlightened self-interest”.

What is good for you, is good for me, is good for my neighbor, is good for all of us.

So, they’re trying to attract attention to the shortage of mid-priced homes.

Isn’t this what your whole blog is about? Why fault them for trying to do something pro-active? Perhaps it’s not packaged in the way you like. Yes, Realtors could benefit if more affordable homes were built. But so could you and your readers, your neighbors, your friends and family and everyone else.

“The Washington Association of REALTORS®, the state’s largest professional organization, launched a $1.3 million advertising campaign designed to draw the attention of the public and of policymakers to the shortage of homes for middle-income families.”

It goes on to list “four strategies that will expand the supply of mid-priced homes,” but I do find it interesting that the article basically admits up front that it’s primarily an effort to grab attention.

It’s not “sinister,” but it’s definitely not some purely altruistic effort like they’re making it out to be. Let’s be honest. The WA Realtors® exist to help their members sell homes. They’re about money. There’s nothing wrong with that, this is capitalism after all, but don’t let them fool you into thinking they’re only interested in our “quality of life.”

The campaign appears to be a call to arms to state legislators: “Lawmakers must address this crisis and work for solutions. It’s time we make this issue a priority.”

I fail to see how this is sinister. There is no hidden agenda. You can read the entire Washington Association of Realtors agenda here: http://www.warealtor.org/government/images/legislative_solutions.pdf

As for it being a “ploy,” I happen to agree with the case for density. Ample housing close to urban hubs are great for meeting people, drinking close to home, living close to work, diverse restaurants, access to art, serendipity, etc. It also creates more incentives to build transit that doesn’t depend on cars. Save the foothills (and beyond), build up in town.

I am not a fan of WAR positions generally–I have perceived them to make the opposite (pro-sprawl) case in support of suburban development and opposing the GMA. But in this case, it seems consistent to say we need more affordable housing AND prices are going up.

The scarcity argument seems basically sound: increasing the number of units will decrease prices. Increasing the total stock of housing decreases rental prices as well.