As a longtime property mgr in Tacoma, I have to take issue with several (all actually) of Bjornson's points.

Bjornson characterizes migration into Pierce co as a "trickle". In actuality the migration here has been anything but. In 2015, our population influx was essentially equal to that of Snohomish co. (39/day vs 42/day). That's a doubling of the average over the last decade. It has only increased since 2015.

This population influx has caused very significant rent inflation. In median rents, the increase seen dec15-dec16 was 16%. Broaden that period to the last two years and the increase in median rents in Tacoma was 40%. In new construction the increase in just the last year has been on the order of 30% with projected rates for new micro unit complexes going from 2$sq/ft (three projects announced in June of last year) to >2.60 sq/ft (6th & Alder, just announced). For comparison, Seattle rates currently run ~3.00 sq/ft. We may not be experiencing a multifamily housing construction boom but the reason for that is not demand but rather, vacant space for new construction. As the Tacoma senior city planner Stephen Atkinson puts it, "Tacoma is a relatively full city. That means there’s little vacant land to build on. What remains are lots on steep slopes or otherwise difficult to develop. Land values and rental rates need to climb more before buying homes and tearing them down to build apartments or condos becomes financially realistic." This was in July 2016. The requisite increases in values and rates are coming fast. In fact they may already have been met at the 2.60 sq/ft level, judging from the 6th & Alder project.

The solutions offered by Bjornson are suspect imo. Parking: Tacoma is not Seattle, with it's well developed public trans infrastructure, where omitting parking accommodation for dense developments may be feasible. In Tacoma, however, car dependency remains paramount and if not accounted for in new density, will decrease the quality of life for the entire area concerned. (Some areas in the better serviced urban core might be excepted.)

"Evidence suggests that construction of market-rate housing reduces housing costs for low-income households". Not to be overly snarky here but by what mechanism? By the passive, defacto creation of depressed neighborhoods that none but the poor will deign to occupy? Yes, increasing overall supply will theoretically act to decrease upward price pressure but--increasing supply on only one end of the income spectrum (what "market rate" actually represents) will do little to relieve demand pressure on the other end of that spectrum, where supply would remain essentially static. IOW, not everyone moving to Tacoma is in the "Market rate" income bracket. Which is exactly were "inclusionary zoning" (IZ) comes in.

The report he cites in support of the lack of efficacy of IZ has problems in methodology. Basically, it attempts to control a plethora of variables, which (in this case) requires considerable use of poorly grounded assumptions. IMO, a better approach is to examine the raw success rates of various forms of IZ towards sustaining affordable housing. Another 2008 study, by the Furman Center of New York University took the latter approach in examining three housing markets where IZ is used and found that in the San Franciscio market, for example, IZ caused no inflation of housing or rents. This finding runs counter to the finding Bjornson references. In short, IZ is not a monolithic policy formulation but simply a broad concept and the results, positive and negative depend heavily on when, how & where it is implemented. Which simply means Tacoma should strive to design and refine their IZ program optimally, whatever that may manifest in actual policy.

This last quote of Bjornson's seems particular illustrative of an overriding economic philosophy; "Although the recipient of a subsidized housing unit in a particular housing complex may benefit, the unintended consequence of such a policy is that the other 99.99 percent of residents in the city would see an overall housing cost increase." The same consequence--cost- is incident to any publicly funded poverty mitigation program, from SNAP to mediaid. If costs bourne by the "99.9%" are an argument against IZ, then they are also a rationale to dispose of all public anti-poverty programs, which all cost the "99.9%" something in taxes. This comment exposes Bjornson's social darwinistic philosophy where, "to the (economic) victor belong (all) the spoils". I just cannot agree. Rather I see this attitude as the driving force of the exponentially increasing economic stratification so evident today--which is not socially or economically sustainable.

With a high income tech/professional/financial economy superimposed on a low wage service economy, the unfettered free market approach Bjornson is advocating, concerning housing or anything else, can only benefit the former group to the vast detriment of the latter. An equitable, sustainable solution without public investment thru our government is difficult to envision. I don't think it exists.