No nits to pick with the policy direction of the Seattle Times’ surprisingly forceful editorial in favor of stronger inclusionary zoning rules. I agree: “The policy makes sense in a city like Seattle, where population and job growth are boosting housing costs and most new developments cater to high-end renters.”
That said, if the editorial board really means what it says when it concludes…
The City Council should consider a more aggressive target that caters less to developers’ interests.
… it might want to endorse City Council candidates who cater less to developers.
Just sayin’.
Right, if only there had been some proposal to liberalize zoning laws to allow more infill through ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and so on…
… nope, can’t think of anything
@1 All very nice, but I paid a lot of money for a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes that I expected to stay that way, and while I don’t have an issue with the extra-big lots in my neighborhood being subdivided into smaller lots and having compatible houses built on them, being forced to live next door to a light-blocking, noisy, traffic-generating, multistory apartment or condo building wasn’t part of the deal. What are existing homeowners’ rights in this situation? Zoning laws are something we’re supposed to be able to count on, and changing zoning is like changing the rules in the middle of a ballgame. It is precisely when rapid population growth creates intense pressure for more housing that existing homeowners are most in need of protection from zoning laws. I’m not saying don’t build more housing, not at all, but apartments and condos should be concentrated in multifamily zones, and if we need more such housing, then find new places to create more such zones, but if by “infill” you mean allowing multifamily projects in single-family zones, I say to hell with that, no fucking way. That breaks faith in a very major way with people who have invested their life savings in their homes; it’s a confiscation of their quality of life without just (or any) compensation. This issue is about being able to trust government to keep its commitments to those who depend on its protections.
I’m not sure of all the housing issues in Seattle nor NYC for that matter and not to say that NYC has got the right stuff, but couldn’t Seattle learn from NYC? Or is NYC the wrong place to learn from and exactly what Seattle is try to avoid from becoming like?
Well……the Dennys originally proposed to name this town “New York Alki”, meaning “New York By-And-By”.
Based on our present-day density (or comparative lack thereof, despite recent trends) we’ve turned out more like Los Angeles.