The Seattle Community Council Federation is sounding the alarm. The threat?
Apartments and condos, apparently:
Over the holidays, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) quietly issued a Declaration of Non Significance (DNS) on what it bills to the public and Council as a “Multi-Family Update.”
“Multi-Family” means apartment buildings or condos. “Multi-Family” doesn’t not mean single family housing, which makes up three quarters of the residential zoning in the city.
Adrienne Quinn, the City’s Housing Director, perhaps unwittingly, misrepresented the code changes to City Council when she described them as “some proposed changes to the multi-family code, really more clean-up”
Actually this “cleanup” is a total rewrite of all of the development standards for all the multi-family zones, a complete change in the comprehensive plan.
One person’s “clean up” is another’s “earth-shattering bureaucratic change”, so I’ll let this one slide for the moment.
Most important, it destroys the consensus reached after a long process in 1988 and 1989, when the city rewrote the code to deal with ugly, excessively dense conditions created by the city’s 1980’s attempt at an “experimental code.” The 1989 process took over a year and had an enormous amount of citizen input. Now the planning staff proposes to bring back the very problems that caused the 1989 rewrite—and even worse—to break all the promises made to communities who agreed to take Urban Villages.
Holy fucking shit, Batman! A consensus reached in 1989? What was that, like, two decades ago? (I was in second grade, for fuck’s sake!) We have to have the same fucking rules as 1989… after all, it’s not like anything has changed, right? Gas is still eighty cents a gallon? A hundred and eighty thousand bucks will buy you a house in any neighborhood in the city, right? Of course!
What kills me about these NIMBY types is that they fear ALL change. EVERYTHING new is suspect. Condos are evil, apartments are bad, mass transit will bring “undesirables” to the neighborhood, so on and so forth.
I’ve seen these folks in action. They’re the folks who fought the monorail because they didn’t want “those kind of people” (Blacks? Hispanics? Dan Savage?) taking the train to Ballard. Another group is lobbying hard against replacing the 520 bridge because there might be more “traffic” in their neighborhood (even though the neighborhood in question is far, far away from the bridge). In Magnolia, neighbors protested the building of- can you guess? A methadone clinic? A homeless shelter? Neither. The protest was over- get this- cottage housing. Wow.
What’s more, the SCCF have their meetings in a Homeland Security facility. Their meeting site is the NOAA site near Montlake. If you want to get in, you have to call somebody or be on the pre-approved list. It’s almost like they don’t want young kids like me showing up…
It’s a good thing that people in this city are committed to their neighborhoods. I just wish that the neighborhood folks realized that they live in a city. I’d love to one day be able to buy myself a reasonable flat in one of these neighborhood. But if we jihad against this zoning changes, I’ll be left with Mill Creek, Algona, or worse, Bothell. As someone who’d like to stay in the city, the reactionary “Lesser Seattle” folks are making that harder and harder.
Growing up, I had to watch the Laurelhurst Community Council rail against helicopter overflights to Children’s Hospital. Because God forbid, someone might get disturbed in their sleep from a helicopter that needed every second of 180 MPH flight possible to save a kid’s life.
The actions of whining NIMBYists like these are why I don’t own a house in Seattle- affordable housing’s too hard to find. Yeah, it’s easier to buy housing in BELLEVUE than Seattle if you are middle-class. Go figure.
Don’t get Piper started on transit and undesirables, man.
Thank you. Now if only some of our elected officials would have the guts to speak the truth to the NIMBY activists. The fact is that only about 11% of the entire city is zoned for multifamily development. If the city is to fulfill our obligation under the growth management act, it must be able to accomodate growth. So far the evidence is that we are failing miserably. The majority of growth in our region is happening in Snohomish county (Marysville) and north Pierce county. If the City cannot figure out how to accomodate more density of housing in our urban areas, then more farms and forest will be converted to tract housing.
While I can’t dispute any suggestion that small groups of activated property owners have obstructed useful progress in Seattle (remember our very first attempts at light rail? – Will wasn’t even born yet), this narrative can be carried too far. And it certainly isn’t a phenomenon unique to Seattle.
Of course we need to make sensible modifications to our zoning standards over time. And each time we do so it shouldn’t be subject to a wrenching process of drawn out negotiations with neighborhood activists. But the future of residential density in the region is far less dependent upon what happens in Seattle, than it is on what happens in places like Redmond and other nearby communities.
Take a look at a residential density map of the region some time. And ask yourself why it is that communities east of the lake yet within the urban boundary retain density standards developed a half a century ago at less than half the density of communities along the I-5 corridor? Whether or not Will is able to afford his “flat” in Seattle will not only depend upon the available inventory in Seattle, but also upon the available alternative inventory in nearby communities.
The NIMBYs play a relatively small role in dictating market conditions on a regional scale. And the fact remains that, despite occasional extremes, community councils have done much of the heavy lifting in preserving quality of life in the city. While parochial and isolated decision making on development standards impacts every aspect of quality of life in the region – usually negatively. We need regional planning.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about the specific issues involved. Since I live in Everett, it’s only of peripheral concern to me.
But I’m always very cautious whenever somebody starts to change zoning rules. It usually means there is a very wealthy developer waiting in the wings, with lots of money and at least a few political connections, that will benefit from the changes. Otherwise, who would be pushing so hard to change the rules? The developer’s real intentions won’t necessarily be obvious in the public statements about the proposed changes, and the real benefit he receives might be found in the rather technical code sections which are inserted only in the final version of the ordinance change.
That’s when you find out that the rather complicated mathematical formula contained within is how the developer can suddenly put up some really ugly twenty-story apartment building across the street which blocks your views, requires some 300 tenants and guests to find street parking in the surrounding area, casts a shadow over your property 2/3 of the day, and the “mixed use retail space” is actually a nightclub which discharges drunken patrons onto the street early every morning at 2:00 a.m., with the resulting fights, broken bottles and car windows, police sirens, and leaving used condoms, vomit, and an occassional passed-out patron on the sidewalk in front of your house.
In effect, the developer has seized a significant portion of the value from your house and converted it to his own use, without compensation to you. That’s a very Republican way of doing things, although they claim that they are exercising their own “property rights”, and the rule changes are to remedy rules which are “too restrictive”.
Will, if you think the city’s Lords of Land Use trying to slip a “minor housekeeping change” in under the radar this way is intended to benefit ordinary folk like you and me, you still have a lot to learn about Seattle politics. This has to have Nickels’ fingerprints all over it.
So, Will — how long have you been dedicated to the cause of unregulated vertical sprawl?
Maybe if you actually OWNED a home, you’d understand why people worry about whether the city will allow developers to do things that increase traffic, degrade the neighborhood, and erase hard-earned property values?
And I’m not talking about what skin color the residents are … I’m talking about how many rats you can stuff into a cage before they start eating each other.
@1 Laurelhurts is a whole ‘nother universe when it comes to pampered pricks feeling entitled because they have money …
The war between North and South has been going on for decades. No, I’m not talking about the Civil War, or War Between the States, or “The Rebellion,” or whatever you like to call it … I’m referring to the line drawn through the Ship Canal and the ancient city politics that dictates that everything dirty goes on the south side of this city — all the smokestack businesses, truck traffic, flight paths — anything that pollutes, makes noise, or makes life in residential neighborhoods a living hell.
@2…YP…
Just what do you think I’d say about transit and “undesirables?”
The Piper
Roger;
How are you feeling today? I’ve been worried about you.
Of course, the ultimate “NIMBY” is Montlake’s eternal objection to anything which might solve the 520 Bridge problem. They would be quite happy to have it sink, and then they would litigate it to death to keep it from being re-built.
Not to mention Mukilteo’s NIMBY objection to anything which hints at additional usage at Paine Field. All those Harbour Pointe golfing buddies like having Paine Field available for General Aviation use (including private jets), and they can’t stop Boeing from using the field, but they will fight like hell to keep any commercial flights out.
Personally, I would like to see some “light” commercial scheduling out of Paine Field. When I fly into L.A., I always try to fly into either Burbank of Long Beach airports, and avoid LAX like the plague. Paine Field could handle similar type of traffic as Burbank does.
As it is, if I have to catch a flight to anywhere, I have to drive from Everett, through Downtown Seattle to SeaTac (plan on 1 to 1-1/2 hour drive time), then check in two hours before departure, and do it all over again, in reverse, when I return. If my wife is driving me to the airport, that’s two round trips and added fuel consumption. If I could depart from Paine Field, I would be able to get to the airport in fifteen minutes, and check in only one hour before the flight (possible due to less passenger congestion at Paine Field). I’ve shaved a total of 4-1/2 hours off my total travel time, before the aircraft even leaves the gate.
Of course, some of the more astute my point out that my preferences in # 12 and # 13 seem contrary to my essay in # 5. Both do, indeed, involve some “taking” of nearby property values for the benefit of the transportation projects I refer to in # 12 and 13. But the crucial difference is this: in # 5, a private developer profits from a private project to the detriment of a large number of those owning (or renting) nearby. The developer doesn’t share in those problems, because once the project is built, he’s gone, like a Seagull which just left a deposit on your car window. If the project was built according to the zoning and building codes, the affected neighbors have little recourse against the developer.
In contrast, the transportation projects I referred to in # 12 and # 13 are PUBLIC projects, for the use and benefit of all. And there is case law in this state which allows for landowners to be compensated for the “taking” of part of the intangible benefits of their property by a nearby public transportation project (the original case dealing with the original construction of SeaTac airport).
9 “…ancient city politics that dictates that everything dirty goes on the south side of this city”
Excapt the water, of course. We’ve covered the difference between Cedar River nectar and Tolt River possum piss in another thread.
Actually, this trend is not ancient but fairly recent. As recently as the early 60’s there was a lot more heavy industry in Ballard and Salmon Bay than there is now. Basically, our industry originally grew accessible bodies of water (the ship canal and Elliott Bay) and the railroad lines. The latter came in from the south because that way they could catch Tacoma as well. The next big natural harbor to the north is Everett. There ain’t no Port of Lynnwood.
The real irony is that most of our civic leaders who make the decisions about all this live in Mount Baker.
15 Speaking of Mount Baker….funny thing, you don’t see a lot of condos going up there, do ya?
Density doesn’t have to mean rotting slums. Vancouver BC has twice the residential density of Seattle, yet many people find it to be an attractive place to live or visit. On the other hand Phoenix AZ has less than half the residential density of Seattle, and if you’ve ever been to Phoenix then you know low density doesn’t necessarily mean high quality of life. A vibrant city needs to have all types of housing to accomodate the needs and income levels of different people. One size does not fit all. Seattle is unfortunately drifting rapidly toward a city that only accomodates the very wealthy and the very poor.
Hmm… I don’t find this post any less reactionary, or more factual than the post over at SCCF.
Having a screed duel to the death?
“The latter came in from the south because that way they could catch Tacoma as well.”
If I remember the history of the region correctly, Tacoma got an east-west railroad quite a bit before Seattle did, causing quite a bit of worry among the Seattle boosters. It took quite a while before they could put an east-west railroad across the passes to serve Seattle directly. So originally Seattle developed to the south first, along the Duwamish and towards Renton, etc.
That’s why the Univ. of Washington was re-located to it’s present location – everybody thought it would remain rather “rural” there, for quite some time. And the city fathers were content to let the Norwegians and and Swedes settle in Ballard, which was kind of “off the beaten path” from the rest of Seattle, which was growing south and east (towards the lake).
If you get a chance, look for some articles on how the capital came to be in Olympia. The original contenders were Walla Walla (the largest city at the time), Tacoma (2nd largest) and Seattle. They finally chose Olympia to break the deadlock – everybody in Walla Walla, Seattle, and Tacoma preferred seeing Olympia chosen, rather than to give it to one of the other three. There was quite a lot of boosterism and competition among the cities then – everyone believed that one city was going to become dominant, and they wanted to make sure it was their city.
These 2 changes found on the SCCF post could be really bad. I don’t know enough about to say either way (I don’t live in Seattle and I don’t like Seattle), but they do raise some red flags.
Oops forgot to post the changes. Here they are:
http://seattlefederation.blogs.....ywide.html
• Replace nature’s way of accepting storm runoff–-open space—with the “Green Area Factor,” a complicated numbers game just adopted for business districts that has not been demonstrated to have any real benefits.
• Replace predictable development standards with vague design standards, such as ‘choice of articulation,’ with the DPD director (which usually means plan reviewer) as the sole judge and no community participation or appeal allowed.
Off topic, but lest we forget those who serve:
“Jobless After War: Veterans Find Tough Going
Study says employers reluctant to hire, wages are low for many
WASHINGTON – Strained by war, recently discharged veterans are having a harder time finding civilian jobs and are more likely to earn lower wages for years, partly because of employer concerns about their mental health and overall skills, a government study says….”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23056355/
Our obligations to our veterans don’t end after they come home.
Bad news for the cycling world, Sheldon Brown died last night.
http://www.bicycling.com/artic.....-1,00.html
@11 The Veterinarian Says I’m Gonna Die!!
That’s right, when I returned an urgent phone message to Doc Sawbones’ office today, the first thing he told me was,
“I want you to get this idea that you’re immortal out of your head. King or not, you’re going to turn into dust like the rest of us.”
He then asserted that I probably won’t even outlive the human race. I argued with him, pointing out that, at the rate you humans are going, that won’t be hard to do.
Anyway, they saw something on my chest X-rays they don’t like so I’m supposed to go back in for a CAT scan. They haven’t ordered me to report to the hospital yet, and they refused to say I have pneumonia, but they’re saying “Houston we have a problem.”
Hell, I could’ve told them that! I’ve been coughing my guts out for the last week. But don’t start celebrating yet, fascists!! Even though the vet is promising my eventual demise, I ain’t dead yet.
Mrs. Rabbit made a deposit at my establishment today.
@26 You’re an optimistic sonuvabitch, aren’t you? I suppose you have to be, in your business.
23 It’s not that far off topic. Whilst Seattle continues to open its arms to the landed (or airborne) gentry, watch for more and more of these guys hanging with another generation of veterans at the Urban Rest Stop.
Fucking vultures. Only capitalism can turn death into a profit center.
23, 26 – Yeah, and why do Senate Democrats have to pull teeth to get a stinking $300 tax rebate for disabled veterans out of Bush and Pelosi?
@12 They’re not waiting for it to sink. They want to spend $1.5 billion of our money to bury it under the water.
Let’s see, 520 has been there how long? Since 1963, and I’ll bet not more than 3% of Montlake residents have lived there 45 years. The other 97% bought their homes knowing the bridge was there, and would always be there, for their lifetimes anyway.
I almost bought a Montlake home once, years ago. It was a big spacious lovely old house. It was on the street overlooking 520 and Husky Stadium, about a block from the arboretum. I didn’t buy it because the $167,000 asking price was a tad out of reach. I forget what year that was, obviously some years ago, but even then — when $167K was a lot of money for a Seattle house — I thought it was a lot of house for the money. The point is, house prices in Montlake carry a discount because of the neighborhood’s disadvantages (freeway noise, traffic congestion, proximity to U.W., etc.), and nearly everyone who lives there got a lower price when they bought their homes because the freeway and bridge are there.
What they want to do now is spend a shitload of YOUR money so THEY can get a property value windfall. Fuck ’em, the fucking leeches. Goddam welfare bums. If they didn’t like the bridge, they shouldn’t have bought homes there.
That’s because
@15 Depends on what you mean by “recent.” I used to live in the south end, and was involving in fighting NIMBY battles back in the 70s and 80s. Back then, City Hall’s SOP was to dump anything the north end didn’t want into the south end, and so far as I can tell, still is.
31 Hey, Roger….have a little pity on those folks in Montlake. After all, they have to put up with us on Tuesday nights.
Hey, Bothell ain’t half bad. UW North has really brought some life to Main Street.
Personally I agree with Will (surprised?) that Seattle needs high density neighborhoods and I also agree that Ballard and some other areas would really be good places for such development … as long as the development preserves existing neighborhood environments or creates new ones.
If I may be extreme, plans for SLU and Broadway look too much like the rows of houses built large scale by Stalin. Oh, there is more architectural variety but like Stalin’s megablocks, a lot of this housing seems to lack any sense of neighborhood. Parks, schools, shopping streets … none of these seem well planned.
At DL the other night an urban planner was telling me how wonderful the plans are for Broadway. He was arguing with Chris and I that it was great that there was to be no parking at the John exit of the rail because “then people will walk!” He also dissed the idea that an important part of the function of the rail will be to get too and from the airport.
In other words, he insists that at my age I am supposed to lug my luggage 15 blocks up hill to get to the train! Sure!
We also argued abut the plan to replace Broadways current storefronts with six story combo buildings with NO set backs, no parking (other than one per dwelling), no park space, etc. Somehow this does not seem very attractive.
This “expert” was also convinced that most for the folks living in Cap Hill will be working down town. He seemed blissfully unaware of the emerging reverse commuter class that goes to Redmond or the students et al that live on Cap Hill and go to the UW.
This young fella trumped any arguments we had with “I am an urban planner, you are an not!” (Turns out the fella has not completed his two years at UW but did stay at a Holiday Inn one night).
Whats the point? Maybe he was right abut some of this. Maybe. WADR to this fella’s two years’ training, he was not very impressive. His arrogance was actually effin scary!
So far none of the new villages rising in Seattle seem to be creating the kind of magnets that define the older neighborhoods and in some case, Broadway, rather than improving the decaying core, I suspect this will make it worse.
But what do I know?
35 Stephen,
I was sitting right next to you guys and that little discussion sounded pretty intense.
Being as the non-residential part of SLU is so dominated by Fred Hutch and the UW research labs, an easy means to get to the airport for business travel would seem pretty important for the next few years.
That guy was also pretty wet behind the ears, and we don’t need more “urban planning” based on the assumption that all we need to accommodate in this town are affluent, childless young, healthy people with thighs like pistons and lungs like forge bellows. That’s even more elitist than the damned neocons.
However, in the not-all-that-long run, when gas costs $10 a gallon, so will jet fuel. You’re going to be doing a lot more “telemeetings”, dude.
I guess it depends on how you define sprawl, as people continue to move to urban centers:
http://www.economist.com/world.....d=10534077
Density does not prevent sprawl. Rather, the movement toward the cities is what drives development. It’s part of an overall process of moving away from a increasingly automated agrarian economy in rural America. To say that lack of density causes sprawl really misses the bigger picture. It’s a question of where people can make a living. If one can’t make a living on the farm or in a small town working at Walmart, they will come to the city or the close suburbs. The flight from rural poverty–driving people to the cities since the industrial revolution–didn’t end poverty or necessarily make life easier, no matter how “dense” the urban environments always have been.
But the myth that we need “density” because there is too much “sprawl” oversimplifies the discussion. If it is just a matter of hating the suburbs, people ought to just say so.
A suburban single family house in the Northwest causes more than twice the climate impacts of an urban multifamily dwelling. Usually it’s more like 4 or 5 times the impact when you consider the size of the home and its location. If we need to cut our CO2 emissions by 80% in the next 30 years (which we do if we want to save our economy, and prevent a massive outbreak of war and ecological devastation), then the fucking NIMBY-ist dinosaurs are going to have to fucking make fucking friends with their fucking neighbors and quit fucking whining about density.
37 People are going to be forced by economic necessity (if not by coercion first) to give up on pretending to be gentlemen farmers (of what? Grass? rosebushes? Doberman shit?) and going 20 miles every day in their own two-ton steel boxes to where they earn their livelihoods. If there’s a large-scale return to less destructive agriculture (and that may well come to pass) we’ll certainly see more more people living and working away from cities. For those of us who labor at other things, we’re going to eventually choose to live closer to wherever we work, work closer to where we live, or live and work close to public transportation that gets us there and back.