THE QUESTION
Why is housing unaffordable here?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 6 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
| root cause | feasible | impact | fixes itself | priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The viability assessment is written by the developer | – | |||
| Councils cannot borrow to build at the scale needed | – | |||
| Empty flats are worth more than let ones to some owners | – | |||
| Offices sit empty while flats are unaffordable | – | |||
| The city has no number for how many homes it needs | – | |||
| The last time this city built at scale it was after a war | – |
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
| ACTION | ROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The viability assessment is written by the developer | Councils cannot borrow to build at the scale needed | Empty flats are worth more than let ones to some owners | Offices sit empty while flats are unaffordable | The city has no number for how many homes it needs | The last time this city built at scale it was after a war | |
| Publish a number for how many homes this city needs, and report against it discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 5 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 27 yes / 2 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 5 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| Time-limit objections to ninety days in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 24 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 27 yes / 2 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ⚑ the group split 8 yes / 21 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
| Buy land before rezoning it, so the uplift is public discuss | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 23 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 27 yes / 2 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 26 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 4 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 6 no · 22 of 29 settles it | ✗ no, it does not 5 yes / 24 no · 22 of 29 settles it |
Highest leverage so far
Publish a number for how many homes this city needs, and report against it reduces 3 of 6 root causes
Buy land before rezoning it, so the uplift is public reduces 3 of 6 root causes
Time-limit objections to ninety days reduces 2 of 6 root causes