so I suggest 'funded' can, should open door to a better way: open policy platforms (' #HousingScore' ?) to surface, incent, analyze, compare programs, find and prefer most effective. If such *isn't* done, policy choices tend to reflect power politics, fads, fallacies; vs public goals, interests. 5/5

I understand you believe in something and want to promote it; but imo, both for a crisis of trust/legitimation, to pledge towards careful & cost-effective governance, and for more persuasive presentation, we need clear analysis, comparison of all options.
Cf #HousingScore
bsky.app/profile/tmcc...

seems the largest potential impact is #CoLiving provision, using/extending 2024 WA #HB1998 (app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default....; RCW 36.70A.535), mandating permitting of it wherever 6+ units are allowed. Plus imo #HousingScore -type policy/project evaluative metrics that'd prefer the most cost-efficient

what for you might be the other factors, and how might they be ranked or assessed for importance?
[btw, thread got me thinking again to broader problem of how me might metricize and evaluate many-valued, many-goaled policy decisions, I've been working on this for housing mostly. cf #HousingScore ]

passing bills is great, we might also consider metric(s) of, what are or would be highest impact on key outcomes, e.g. affordability. of course raises Qs of, how to define such metrics, and model likely impacts? hard, but conceivable. cf #HousingScore @dpherriges.bsky.social
bsky.app/profile/welc...

many good ideas, and many existing programs— how to decide what to do or prioritize, eg how costly vs effective, for what goals? discussing one, or one type, separately, it's very hard to answer. So how about we grow an open #HousingScore platform/forum, to honestly compare?
bsky.app/profile/coun...