“Feels > Reals” in the Housing Fight

Ignoring accepted fact is causing erstwhile allies to fight amongst themselves

At the Republican National Convention this summer, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota sat down with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to discuss violent crime in the United States. Camerota noted, rightfully, that violent crime in American cities is falling over time. Gingrich contested this fact by arguing that the American people don’t “feel” like crime is falling. Whether or not that’s actually true is apparently irrelevant. What followed is probably the most succinct demonstrations of the Feels over Reals phenomenon you can find.

We can all laugh at Newt here for so blatantly ignoring reality, but what we really aught to do is think about the ways in which we might be vulnerable to the same mental trap. If we don’t get good at recognizing this truthiness, we might prevent ourselves from being effective at addressing the real problems we face.

This line of reasoning is not limited to violent crime statistics, global warming debates, or Brexit. This kind of anti-reality stance can appear anywhere on the political spectrum, any time a set of facts does not conveniently align with political convictions.

Here in San Francisco, it’s very possible for wealthier people to turn a blind eye to just how bad the housing crisis has hurt poorer and middle class residents of the Bay Area. This has always been an expensive place to live, yes, but never to the degree it is now. The displacement crisis is real, and it threatens the fabric of our historically marginalized communities.

Nobody has a God-given right to live in a certain place, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly damaging to families and workers to have their entire lives upended — to sever the ties to friends and family that offer them a social safety net and start over somewhere else, when you’re already well along in your life.

In turn, it’s also very possible to become your own worst enemy when you’re trying to stem the tide of displacement. Regrettably, many of the loudest voices in Bay Area politics have done just that.

The Fight for Economic Equality and Justice

Most political disagreements arise from vastly different priorities and vastly different visions for the future. When two sides of an issue pull in opposite directions, the only practical result is to meet somewhere in the middle. This is not the case with Bay Area housing politics. Paradoxically, both sides of the issue agree whole-heartedly on the end goal. We want to stop displacement. We want far better access to attainable housing for all residents. We want rents to fall and families to be able to stay in their communities without fear of eviction or displacement.

It is only in the means to this end that we disagree. This is where the danger of “Feels > Reals” comes into play in a big way.

Importantly here I am not discussing what is typically defined as a “NIMBY.” People who oppose dense housing because the buildings are, in their opinion, too tall, or because they don’t want the added traffic, or because they simply don’t want their view to ever look any different than it does today, are not captured in this simplistic, single-axis description of the housing debate. I am narrowly examining only two sides: Those who support the development of new housing as a means of fighting displacement, and those who oppose the development of new housing as a means of fighting displacement.

The simple truth is that the latter group is fighting for policies that push us further from our shared goal.

The SoMa Action Committee, the Sierra Club, Plaza 16, all of the self-proclaimed liberal fighters on this list, and worst of all Supervisor David Campos are either ignorant of the realities of our housing market or they chose to place more importance on their “Feels” than the “Reals” of our housing crisis.

The causes of this crisis are well-understood. Our Democratic mayor, governor, and president have all spoken on this issue. They rightfully took the findings of various experts into account. When the California Legislative Analyst’s Office released its report diagnosing the causes of the crisis, they listened. When U.C. Berkeley found that market-rate housing does not cause displacement, but actually ameliorates its effects on the region, they listened. When UCLA found that barriers to housing growth exacerbate segregation, they listened.

Fighters for economic justice often have an enemy in corporations, banks, and powerful institutions making big profits off of workers while their wages stagnate. Income inequality has gotten worse. The wealthy have gotten even wealthier and enjoyed our economic recovery alone. So naturally, fighting against a big developer trying to squeeze a profit out of San Francisco’s communities must be a noble fight for the little guy, right? Is it “real?” I mean, it sure “feels” that way. It must be impossible to support something that could benefit anyone with any money as a means of helping the poor, right?

We need to take a step back and ask ourselves, are our positions actually helping? Or are we just taking a stance that makes we feel like we are helping? Because the evidence is clear, and it all falls on one side of this issue. The McKinsey Global Institute, just yesterday, added their voice to the chorus. No academic or economist in this field has taken a definitive stance to the contrary. But are we listening? Or are we just tired of experts?

We all want to affect positive change in the region. But to do that, we must rely on the best evidence we have at our disposal. That means moving forward based on what we can reason to be true, not what we feel must be right. No matter how unintuitive or unappealing the answers might seem.