After reading Susanna Lin’s excellent article on Urban Villages, I decided to “dive deeper” into the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) that she referred to as it was hard for me to believe that in this day and age we would be dumping sewage into our waterways. The City of Seattle defines Combined Sewer Overflow as follows:
“In Seattle, like many older cities, sewer pipes carry both wastewater (used water and sewage that goes down the drain in homes and businesses) and storm water (rain or snow that washes off of streets and parking lots) to a sewage treatment plant. In many parts of Seattle the mixed wastewater and storm water flow together in a single pipe. During a heavy rain, the pipes may get too full and start to overflow into Lake Union, Lake Washington, the Duwamish River or Puget Sound. When this happens, it is called a COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO). This provides a “safety valve” that prevents back-ups of untreated water into homes and businesses, flooding city streets or bursting underground pipes.”
There are 151 overflow locations throughout Seattle and King County with 5 overflow locations in Wallingford. That page provides a map of their locations plus live indicators when they are overflowing.
The Wallingford and Ballard neighborhoods are among the biggest offenders when it comes to combined sewer overflows of raw untreated sewage within the Seattle area. In 2014, Wallingford dumped 12.3 million gallons of untreated waste while Ballard dumped over 40 million gallons.
One response from the city has been to subsidize residential run off mitigation through RainWise, helping you build cisterns and rain gardens on your own property. Many Wallyhood residents qualify for this program. If you would like to learn more about the state of CSO, you can refer to the Seattle Public Utilities CSO Program: 2014 Annual Report
As a result of a suit filed against the City of Seattle and King County for violations of the Clean Water Act and the Washington Water Pollution Control Act, on May 29, 2015 the City of Seattle developed its Long Term Control Plan. Unfortunately it will not be completed until December 2025.
So now I have some questions.
- How much have the overflow numbers increased with the added housing growth in Wallingford, Ballard and all of Seattle?
- Will the city’s Long Term Control Plan be adequate to accommodate all of the future growth of 50,000 homes in the next 10 years as outlined in the Mayor’s HALA (Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda) plan? (This goal does not include additional housing units planned by developers and builders that are independent of the HALA initiative)
- At the end of the day, I have to ask myself “What is the Mayor’s definition of Livability”? Does it include additional pollution of our waterways for the sake of housing growth? I, for one, certainly hope not.
I would like to thank Jim Bentley of Wallingford for the research and data that he provided to assist me with this article.
One of biggest concerns has been this topic. If we are dumping raw sewage in Lake Union now, I can conclude that with all the new construction, added population, that even a larger amount will be flowing down he hill to Lake Union in the future. Thank you for doing the research on this topic. Victoria, BC also has raw sewage, all of it, going into the Strait of Juan De Fuca. The Long Term Control act is a long time from now. Thank you, Susanna, Jim and Glenn for bringing up this critical topic.
I thought sewage overflow was caused by excessive rainfall. Unless increased density is going to lead to more rain I think we’ll be fine.
Also, I work half a block from the new siphon that is being built in Fremont, which will provide a way for the sewage to make its way to the treatment plant in Magnolia even during heavy rainfall. So I can attest that something is being done about this problem!
Philip, it can be, but if the natural absorption of the earth is curtailed by paving over a lot more of it, what would have been a normal rainstorm’s runoff has nowhere to go but the sewers. And you’re right about the siphon…I’ve been following that construction for awhile now from the Burke!
The over flows are caused by rain fall most of the time, but the concentration of human fecal matter will increase, and it is already dumping untreated slug in at some thousands of times the legal limit. Yes they are working on a solution to fix the problem, but should they finish the project and have it connected to the sewage plant before we increase the load on the system? The earliest that the project will be done is 2025, and as far out as 2030 by the city’s own admission. But realistically, when has Seattle ever finished an ambitious project like this on schedule?
The siphon does not solve the CSO problem; the pipe system and the treatment plant at the end (West Point) simply cannot handle the rate of flow. Instead, Seattle and King County are working to increase the short term storage capacity. See this page. A similar storage tunnel was completed not long ago under Mercer.
It’s not excessive rainfall, it’s excessive runoff. Buildings don’t absorb water. Neither does pavement.
My concern in Tangletown has been the amount of inbuilding we’re allowing. Neighbors building an accessory unit and a garage in their backyard (well, they’ve left, to avoid the glares and angry words) were right on the 50% limit until Tuesday, when they had a crew come in to concrete up the rest. The crew were not interested in the law they were breaking, they were on a job. Spouse got a real person on the phone at the city, and they will send someone out. Sometime. Concrete is all nice and hard now.
I know they are woefully understaffed for this work at the city. I know some fine people in construction who know other overworked people in permits. The city isn’t that large that we can’t see what’s going on here.
If our city is going to fund itself with property taxes, the least it can do is use those taxes to make it a livable city, instead of concerning itself with just increasing the number of buildings it can get a hit on.
Greed tends to win the short game, and doesn’t live here anymore to enjoy the consequences.
So it took a lawsuit to force the city to address the sewer overflows. A few years ago, it took a lawsuit to stop the city from violating it’s own use rules for Gasworks park (it’s plans would have eroded the cap that protects park users from the toxic sludge under the cap). Does the city only respond when it’s sued? Is it possible that the only way to force the city to obey the clean water laws, which it’s already been sued over, in it’s own growth plans is through lawsuit?
From the articles I’ve read and the 2 meetings I’ve attended, I have the impression that most residents don’t have a problem with increased density that’s done well — that doesn’t overwhelm the infrastructure, maintains the current height limits, setbacks, greenery, etc. for the neighborhood. Yesterday, I was in Ballard at the intersection of 15th Ave NW and 55th. I guess I haven’t driven by this particular intersection for a long time. The new apartment buildings there are huge!! They look to be at least 6-7 stories. Buildings like that might explain why Ballard dumped 40 million gallons of raw sewage in 2014. So far, the new buildings on Stone Way are much smaller and nicer. But after the City Council decides, will Wallingford get buildings like those I saw in Ballard and triple our sewage contribution to Lake Union?
I would add that I think some of the new city building codes require more runoff to be directed towards the sewers, rather than surface-level controls. This was, I believe, in response to the woman killed in her basement in the Madison Valley flash-flood in 2006. When the house behind me was renovated in 2008-9, all of their plans for extensive French drains were rejected by the city, who required them to direct the gutters into the sewer-lines. I have heard of that happening with other houses as well. It might be due to lot size and some other factors, but it would be worth looking into.
Every house we’ve designed within Seattle in the last 6 years has included on-site green storm water infrastructure most often in the form of bioretention cells or what is more commonly known as rain gardens. While there is an overflow from the cell to the sewer system (for obvious reasons) the cells are sized to accommodate the roof run-off in a downpour. We also have to calculate the other impervious surfaces on the site (paving, etc.) because there’s a maximum allowable amount. This strongly encourages pervious surfaces over impervious surfaces. In addition, all of the soil on site must be remediated post construction to return it to a condition where it absorbs rainfall and all of the above is inspected for compliance.
I am glad to hear that you are doing solid green design like that. However, are the kinds of bio-retention measures you use required? Or are they simply the practice of more responsible firms? Also what about larger projects, like the one next to Walgreens, or the former Sutra site, where several smaller structures are being replaced by one large multi-unit. Are they required to do some sort of bio-retention, or is it going straight into the sewers?
Clearly if the definition of “livability” among Wallingford homeowners includes preventing sewage overflows into the lake, every homeowner reading this will take action to retrofit their homes with rain gardens before the rainy season returns.
Tell you what, Bryan. I’ll build a rain garden if you and the rest of the density-at-all-costs urbanistas take a refreshing dip in Lake Union.
Just to be clear, I am not against more building and (limited) infilling. I was raising a point about the city rules. When the house behind my house was renovated, I was surprised to see the city requiring the roof runoff to run into the Sewers. My next-door neighbor recently ran their rain runoff into the sewer as well because they had a persistent water issue in the basement. I would be please to hear that the city was now requiring bio-retention, a little more skeptical of voluntary built-green (I mean, it’s great that people are doing it, just skeptical that the volunteerism will be sufficient – we have hard building codes for a reason).
My point is just that the city’s solution to urban flooding is at least partly contributing to sewage overflows, and development will increase that.
Ragweed – For sure, I was not intending to attribute / impugn yours or any individual’s views, and I agree it’s an issue worth paying attention too. It was a broader observation that when this issue has come up in this and other forums before at times the discussion has flirted with something along the lines of an Onion parody of quote-unquote “Nimbyism:”
“This problem that we’ve been a part of causing for years is so terrible that we must now impose cost and inconvenience upon others–but not so terrible that we should incur any cost or Inconvenience ourselves, even while the cost and inconvenience we’re lobbying to impose on others further increases the windfall home equity that we don’t see fit to tap in order to help make the situation any better.”
This is one of those “gotcha” comments that make it so “clear” that homeowners don’t really care about the environment because they are not retrofitting their own homes.
But what it really shows you is the attitude of the developers. Existing homeowners who may be on fixed incomes should pay for the excesses of our increased development while we developers pocket our cash.
Or we could just do the obvious and not especially complicated thing of having a public financing program for people on fixed incomes, rather than using the fact that a minority of us homeowners enjoying massive home value appreciation are on fixed incomes as an obfuscatory justification for nobody doin’ nothin’…
Let me get this straight, Bryan: It’s not enough for you (and the city) to take away the neighborhoods voice in the Design review process. It’s not enough for you to insist that we END zoning altogether. Now you’re demanding that those of us who already live here have to PAY for the destruction of our neighborhood? Why should we be made to pay for something that will degrade our quality of life and our neighborhood? I don’t think so….
Here’s a thought: If you plan on moving to Seattle and you can’t afford to buy in Wallingford, DON’T BUY HERE! And don’t ask others to help you do so. You’re entitled to expect decent roads, schools, police and fire service, and a clean and safe environment. You’re NOT entitled to live wherever you please, regardless of cost.
I know you’re going to argue that your agenda will make Wallingford even better, because we will get all kinds of wonderful new restaurants to satisfy the new demand. We have PLENTY of restaurants already.
And you like to talk about how zoning is “exclusionary” and “racist.” You want to know what long time residents of Harlem think of all those fancy new restaurants that you urbanistas keep crowing about? Want to know what they think of plans to increase density in their hood? Guess whose side they’re on: The side of us evil neighborhood NIMBY’s! Guess whose to blame for gentrification and pushing minorities out of their neighborhoods. Density boosters like Mayor DeBlasio and our own Mayor Murray, along with all the useful idiots who think the answer is to let developers do whatever they want.
Here’s the link to today’s NYT article on Harlem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-black-harlem.html?hpw&rref=sunday-review&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
And the same story applies here in our own Central District:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/historically-black-central-district-could-be-less-than-10-black-in-a-decade/
Just un-ban multi-family housing and housing will be more affordable. I don’t object to people not being able to afford whatever they want, I object to some people using political power to price people out using the force of law.
https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/05/08/more-missing-middle-housing-ons-single-family-zoned-land-means-more-affordable-family-sized-homes/
You just won’t stop posting this claim will you: More multi-family housing = more affordable. How does any of your posted data support that? Does anything other than increasing zoning capacity ever occur to you even though we already have more than enough capacity for many years even assuming continued growth at current rates?
Here’s a few more questions for you based on your posted graph “renters-heres-the-chart-showing-exactly-how-much-too-few-homes-is-costing-you” —
• Why do you suppose NYC and L.A. are floating above the line? What do you think drives the cost of housing so high there notwithstanding the relatively lower median income?
• What are the most obvious differences between most of the cities in the lower left and the cities up to the right? Have you compared their density? Comparing Seattle and Lincoln and Omaha Nebraska?!
• Why are San Diego and San Jose outliers?
1. Because multi family housing is more affordable, as what I just posted documents.
2. I think it’s more likely LA and New York City are anomalies relative to the res of the country than that they are the way the rest of the country works. If nothing else, they are orders of magnitude larger than every other case. And probably much more international.
3. Yes, I have compared their density. I will post at some point all the behind the scene work on finding the compelling units – payroll link.
4. San Jose isn’t an outlier – it fits the line perfectly. It’s also (my company is headquartered there) a perfect visual example of utter insanity: it’s a city of 1 million zoned like a suburb, acre after acre of single family homes sprawled across the valley. I don’t know why San Diego is an oddball–although the San Diego-Tijuana conurbation is a huge cross-border economic engine, so that’s a possible reason.
1. Despite your conclusory statement, you have proven nothing: Adding new market rate housing does not make housing more affordable for people significantly below AMI. You never address this failure of causation in your argument.
2. L.A. and NYC are anomalies because of their size. S.F. and Seattle (and esp. Vancouver BC) are catching up in being repositories of international capital. You never address this factor of housing cost escalation.
3. Look forward to seeing what you come up with. I note that most of the cities in lower left are either low density or very sprawl oriented or both.
4. San Diego is an outlier on density—it’s much lower. But the town is driven by a very large percentage of military payroll.
Remember, not even the HALA “grand bargain” relies on your erroneously assumed causation (more market rate = more affordable).
MIZMH is designed to extract money for public/NGO sector housing in exchange for more capacity in the private sector.On 4, I also meant to note that San Jose is also an outlier on density; it too is lower. It’s nutso market is likely driven by being so close to Silicon Valley.
Thank you for the suggestion that we are practicing in an exceptional way but we are simply complying with the code and it applies to larger mixed-used projects as well. Here’s a link:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/changestocode/greenfactor/background/default.htm
I know the architect for the Suta site and he pushed his clients to employ green storm water strategies before the code required it so I’m quite sure he’ll do a good job on that site as well.
“3. At the end of the day, I have to ask myself “What is the Mayor’s definition of Livability”? Does it include additional pollution of our waterways for the sake of housing growth? I, for one, certainly hope not.”
The same could be asked of the mayor vis-à-vis the city’s stated goal of increasing tree canopy. That upzoning has decreased the amount of greenspace in Wallingford is evident just looking at for instance the construction of row houses in the area. They have bigger walk-in closets than they have space for a garden. Row houses were a zoning give-away to developers. If the lot size is over 3000sf they have no maximum density limit unlike all the other zoning designations. Google “Seattle’s Lowrise Multifamily Zones” if you don’t believe me.
Tree canopy is right on topic, as that can be a significant factor reducing storm surges. Trees can hold a lot of water, and particularly large trees that extend over streets and sidewalks. Most of us have taken shelter underneath a tree in a sudden downpour, and the tree isn’t shedding water like a big umbrella, it’s just holding on to it; those downpours are the storm surges that cause the trouble, and the more big street trees, the weaker the surges. Of course, since this is Seattle, large trees have fairly specific protections in the Land Use Code – but also of course, since it’s Seattle 2016 under a mayor and city council brought to us in part by commercial real estate developers who are inconvenienced by these protections, they’ve been removed from the 2035 Comprehensive Plan that will be adopted this summer.
Of course, no one is stopping you from planting trees on your own property. Some of us are surrounded by them. They do do their work.
Not sure what your point is, but if it’s “why protect trees?” — a street tree takes generations to grow to the size we’re talking about, where it significantly intercepts rainfall to the street and other impervious surfaces. During that time, it’s practically guaranteed to get in some property owner’s way, and weighing that inconvenience against its value to the community is unlikely to add up in its favor. Development boom cycles – like this one – can set a neighborhood’s canopy back generations, unless there are some protections (and they’re enforced.)
On the other side of it, those property owners who do maintain some mature tree cover on their properties are sure appreciated.
Thanks for digging into this a little deeper! Great article, Glenn.
I’m glad Glenn mentioned the Rainwise program. It’s nice to have something that we can do, especially if you live in an area that drains into a CSO.
I will be encouraging my Councilmembers to not upzone any area until the sewers have enough capacity for not only the current density but what would be expected with the upzone. The State Growth Management Act requires concurrent growth of infrastructure with density, and our Councilmembers should uphold this state law.
When I talked to O’Brien’s staffer I made this point explicitly. Keep it up!
I’m finding this post irresponsible due to several factors.
1. It expresses “concern” without actually providing any meaningful information. Glenn asks whether outflows have increased; the context insinuates that they have. Surely this is information that is available. Rather than expressing “concern”, go get the information and report it.
2. Glenn fails to provide information that most new development requires rainwater management on site. In Wallingford (for example the new development on Stone Way), this means we’ve replaced impervious surfaces with new buildings that requires improved rainwater management.
3. Glenn fails to note that the city has been working on this problem for decades. In some cases since the early 20th century, and in general has ramped up attention since the 1970s. The EPA consent decree came 40 years after passing the Clean Water Act. To express “concern” about current development ignores the problem that has existed for decades from the toilets of long-time current residents.
4. Glenn fails to note that a larger, and more harmful, problem of CSO is not from our toilets, but the gas, oil, and metals from our cars. Sewage is after all, biological and will break down even if icky and unhealthy. However, the toxins from our cars however builds up in the environment and ingested up the food chain. With all the angst in Wallingford about preserving out parking/car lifestyle, it is disingenuous to express “concern” about the impact of increased sewage from development while also ensuring that our car dependency grows.
To sum, this article stirs up misinformed emotions against “development” using “concern trolling” rather than facts. We should expect better.
I don’t see that you have many numbers to back up your opposition, but if you want a few more numbers here they are:
Total Combined Sewage Overflow Volumes Per Year
2010: 189,996,720 gallons overflow (46.99 inches rainfall this year)
2011: 78,194,356 gallons overflow (36.39 inches rainfall)
2012: 154,232,337 gallons overflow (48.26 inches rainfall )
2013: 37,497,450 gallons overflow (32.56 inches rainfall)
2014: 115,586,683 gallons overflow (48.50 inches rainfall)
When we have more rain, we have more overflows. When we have less rain, we have less overflows.
2010 Total housing units: 308,516
2012 Total housing units: 312,853
http://www.seattle.gov/dPd/cityplanning/populationdemographics/default.htm
This graph shows that population and housing units in Seattle have steadily increased in the time from 2010 to 2014. But sewage overflows have not steadily decreased, so without a much more detailed look at the numbers I do not think we can make any conclusions that more construction (with their more efficient methods) has decreased overflows.
What is indisputable is that millions of gallons of untreated combined sewage, both from the streets and our toilets, is overflowing into our waterways. It has been occurring for more than 20 years. Enough is enough, Seattle needs to make this a priority and fix this (and I’m sorry but individual homeowners cannot get out with a shovel and fix this, the government has to do it). Unless YOU can show me some hard numbers that more housing units means less sewage overflows, then I’m not buying it.
Here are a few more numbers:
Total Combined Sewage Overflow Volumes Per Year
2010: 189,996,720 gallons overflow (46.99 inches rainfall this year)
2011: 78,194,356 gallons overflow (36.39 inches rainfall)
2012: 154,232,337 gallons overflow (48.26 inches rainfall )
2013: 37,497,450 gallons overflow (32.56 inches rainfall)
2014: 115,586,683 gallons overflow (48.50 inches rainfall)
When we have more rain, we have more overflows. When we have less rain, we have less overflows.
2010 Total housing units: 308,516
2012 Total housing units: 312,853
http://www.seattle.gov/dPd/cityplanning/populationdemographics/default.htm
This graph shows that population and housing units in Seattle have steadily increased in the time from 2010 to 2014. But sewage overflows have not steadily decreased, so without a much more detailed look at the numbers I do not think we can make any conclusions that more construction (with their more efficient methods) has decreased overflows.
What is indisputable is that millions of gallons of untreated sewage, both from the streets and our toilets, is overflowing into our waterways. It has been occurring for more than 20 years. Enough is enough, Seattle needs to make this a priority and fix this. Unless someone can show me some hard numbers that more housing units means less sewage overflows, then I’m not buying it.
POO POO IS THE NEW NIMBY!!!
Susanna: here’s a bit of analysis on the data:
2010: 189,996,720 gallons overflow – 46.99 inches rainfall – 4,043,343 gallons/rain-inch
2011: 78,194,356 overflow- 36.39 rainfall – 2,148,786 gallons/rain-inch
2012: 154,232,337 overflow – 48.26 rainfall – 3,195,862 gallons/rain-inch
2013: 37,497,450 overflow – 32.56 rainfall – 1,151,641 gallons/rain-inch
2014: 115,586,683 overflow – 48.50 rainfall – 2,383,230 gallons/rain-inch
While 2014 had 33% more rain than 2011, it had only an 11% increase in outflow. And while 2014 had 3% more rain that 2010, it had a 41% decrease in outflow. 2013 had 11% less rain than 2011, but 46% less outflow.
In other words, as the city finally got serious about the problem, the overflows have decreased substantially even as population and housing units have increased.
The outflows have been occurring since Seattle started building sewers, about 100 years, so this is not a *new* problem. The city has (finally) prioritized this and is building retaining systems to bring us into full compliance *and* in the meantime has significantly reduced the problem.
Just realized the numbers I posted are for the City of Seattle CSOs only. The 1.14 billion gallons of sewage overflows for 2014 that Jim mentioned is combined city and King County lines that all drain into Seattle waterways.
Here Paul, have some facts:
HALA’s Bid To Turn The Emerald City Brown
Seattle has a growing problem that most Seattleites are completely unaware of. Many areas in Seattle have combined sewer systems meaning precipitation that hits the roof of a building or dwelling is funneled into the sewer system. Storm drains also often pour directly into the sanitary sewer system. The result is too much sewage flowing through or antiquated sewage system resulting in overflows of raw sewage directly into our recreational freshwater lakes and waterways. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are one of Seattle’s biggest hidden environmental problems. King County and Seattle City CSOs discharged a total of 1.14 billion gallons over 388 events during 2014(this includes only untreated overflows).
Wallingford and Ballard Neighborhoods are among the biggest offenders when it comes to combined sewer overflows of raw untreated sewage within Seattle, followed closely by Fremont and the greater area East of the U-District (Northeast District). The latest compiled data as of this writing, is for the year 2014. Ballard dumped 41.1 million gallons(CSO 152) and 3.5 million gallons(CSO 150 and 151), Wallingford dumped 12.3 million gallons(CSO 147), and Fremont dumped 8.7 million gallons(CSO 174). The Northeast District dumped 5.1 million gallons(CSO 18) on average over the last 20 years. King County overflows in the same areas have 20 year annual numbers: KC 3rd Ave West Regulator dumped 17.1 million gallons a year, KC University Regulator dumped 19.4 million gallons a year, and KC Montlake Regulator dumped 28.8 million gallons a year. There are other areas that also have significant raw sewage spills into Lake Washington, Union Bay, and The Puget Sound.(see Appendix A in the 2014 Annual CSO and Consent Decree Report July 2015)
The Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology, and The State of Washington, filed suit against The City of Seattle and King County for violations of the Clean Water Act and The Washington Water Pollution Control Act. The results of the lawsuit are the Consent Decrees filed 04/16/2013. The positive outcome for the environment and those who come in contact with the contaminated water is a solution to resolve the CSO issue In areas that are affected by CSOs, but unfortunately the plan will not be fully implemented for another 9 to 14 years or more from now. There are some relatively minor fines for each incident of uncontrolled overflow that amounts to less than 1 million dollars a year to the city. In 2014, The City and King County combined paid approximately $970,000 in fines for overflows of raw sewage.
The biggest shortfall of The Consent Decrees is that there is no stipulation or further penalty should The City or The County decide to significantly increase the concentration of raw sewage overflows. The way the antiquated sewer systems are designed within the CSO areas means that increased density of population may not result in a significant increase in the total volume of raw sewage overflow, but the raw sewage overflow will contain a higher concentration of raw fecal matter with each new toilet added to the system. This means zoning changes proposed by HALA for the purpose of significantly increasing population density in areas that have large amounts of overflow volumes, will likely have a significant negative impact on the environment, specifically with respect to the fish and bird habitats. Additionally, human contact with the water is already ill-advised on average more than two days a week in Lake Union; if the city up-zones these areas with already inadequate sanitation infrastructure, safe water contact days could drop to even less than that.
HALA upzoning should be put on hold until the infrastructure in the affected areas is capable of handling the proposed population growth. Any actions by HALA to add more toilets in these areas is not only irresponsible, it is likely criminal.
CSO Program 2014 Annual Report:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@drainsew/documents/webcontent/1_037450.pdf
Ship Canal Water Quality Fact Sheet:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@drainsew/documents/webcontent/3_036587.pdf
2014 Annual CSO and Consent Decree Report:
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/wastewater/cso/docs/AnnualReport/2014_CSO-CD_Annual.pdf
Long Term Control Plan Final May 29, 2015:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@drainsew/documents/webcontent/01_030101.pdf
Consent Decrees:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/kingcountywashington-cd.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/cityofseattlewashington-cd_0.pdf
Current safety status of recreational areas:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/cso-status.aspx
Seattle Public Utilities CSO Map:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/02_008043.pdf
Ship Canal Water Quality Project:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/Projects/ShipCanalWaterQuality/ProjectDocuments/index.htm
jbentley — So your proposal is that we freeze all housing construction, and prevent additional people from moving into Seattle, and prevent new births so that we can keep the amount of poop down?
To be clear: I’m *not* saying the overflows aren’t a problem that need to be fixed.
However, this has been a problem for 100 years, the city is now on very clear plan to fix this issue, and the city has reduced the outflows substantially in very recent years through building code changes, programs like rainwise, and other fixes and mitigations.
This issue is being raised here and now not to educate people about “Here’s what everyone living in a CSO area can do contribute” (Glenn’s questions weren’t about what we can do in our yards to help), nor shame the city into action (the city is finally seriously addressing this, and more shame doesn’t build storage tunnels faster).
The real reason this is being raised now and here is to use “concern” over a problem that is actually pretty well under control to increase a drumbeat against addressing the problem of affordable housing.
Yes! Freeze growth in the major affected areas. When it is fixed we can grow those areas again. The major affected areas account for a very small portion of Seattle City limits. In the major affected areas, like Wallingford, Ballard, and Fremont, the problem is actually pretty well NOT under control, in fact they actually call them UNCONTROLLED overflows. I know facts, are hard for Urbanists to work with. I agree, the plans to fix the problem is actually really great, but by their own omission they will not be done with fixing all the CSOs until 2030 (see page 302 of the Volume 2 Long Term Control Plan)
As far as the problem of affordable housing, I have yet to see a proposal that will actually work. The only way to make housing affordable in desirable areas is to make them undesirable. We could do that if we tax Microsoft and Amazon out of town. If I am wrong provide an example of one city in the country that has achieved the goals you want with the methods you propose.
Here you go. We just need to build enough housing to keep up with wage growth.
https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/05/30/renters-heres-the-chart-showing-exactly-how-much-too-few-homes-is-costing-you/
Again, this has been a problem for the past 100 years, and the city now has a plan that is being implemented to address the problem in the next 10 years.
What makes this problem more urgent today than 10 years ago? 20 years? 40 years? Unlike, say, build-up of carbon in the environment this isn’t a compounding problem. And we have a clear solution that is being implemented.
In other words, this is really angst about increased density and change masquerading as “concern” about the environment and health of the city.
And since I don’t think we’re about to ban births in Wallingford, Ballard, and Fremont, I don’t think “freezing growth” is a feasible step.
“Unlike, say, build-up of carbon in the environment this isn’t a compounding problem.” “this” is not clearly defined but in context appears to be the need for affordable housing in Seattle.
This statement is not accurate. The impacts of exponential (or even arithmetic) population growth and resource use (either per capita or total) are cumulative.
I disagree with your assertion that “we have a clear solution that is being implemented.” You sound like a politician running for reelection when you say nonsense like that. Is inequity decreasing? Are ecological metrics improving. No and no. How can you separate the build up of carbon from “the build up” of the city? What is your evidence that a “solution is being implemented”?
You denigrate peoples’ concerns about the environment. Sure, some urbanists claim “density has enormous benefits to society as a whole” (direct quote), but the empirical data says otherwise; it has minor benefits that are arguably outweighed by the detriments, especially in larger cities.
Growth is not a simple issue. There is growth inside Seattle city limits, growth in King County, growth in Washington state, and in the U.S., and in the world. They are all related and the problems they cause cannot be ‘solved’ independently of each other.
Have you studied systems analysis? I think it would help to clarify what the problems are before you start talking about “solutions.” On political economy I recommend Wallerstein’s 100 page book summarizing the development of the current global capitalist political economy. On systems ecology try H.T. Odum’s work.
Of course, the ultimate systems analysis of human sustainability is the methodology Meadows et al first published in 1972. The models and outputs they produced over 40 years ago have been repeatedly proven to be accurate.
Back to Wallingford, and Fremont and Ballard. Sure, people will still have babies. So what? That’s not the issue; the question is what will the world be like in 25 or 50 years that those children will grow up into. The longer we ignore the impacts of not actually dealing with the growth of human population (and thus of consumption) the worse off we’ll be when the transition to much less low entropy energy is complete.
Do you have a clue what I’m talking about?
“This problem” in context is actually the problem of sewage, not affordability.
Seattle has had a raw sewage problem for 100 years. Unlike climate change the raw sewage problem isn’t compounding (meaning creating a positive feedback loop of more poop). So what does make this problem more urgent today than 10, 20, 30 years ago, *particularly* when the city has a clear plan to fix the problem faster than we’ll get light rail to Ballard?
And as I said previously, raw sewage is a problem. I’m not dismissing anyone’s environmental concerns. I just want the “concerned” single-family homeowners to get some perspective: the problem has improved significantly (see the stats above), and the city is doing more to fix it, and the problem will be fixed in a few years.
So, let’s give this specious argument against density a rest.
Fine, sewage. However, I’ll never let you off the hook with your insulting way of engaging (“specious argument against density”) out of context and with nary a scrap of credible evidence. Cheers until next time.
anotherneighborhoodactivist: “out of context and with nary a scrap of credible evidence”… As I note above, the sewage problem has been reduced substantially in recent years (even despite dramatic growth in population and housing units over that time). And as I and several others noted, the city is currently building solutions to the problem that will be done in about 10 years time.
In my view, when the sewage problem is being solved and is dramatically improving despite increased density & population growth, we can’t use the sewage problem as an argument against density and population growth.
If you’re speaking solely of sewage with ref to density, it is probably true that other problems will overtake our species’ inability to accept—let alone act on—limits to growth.
Paul, you claim “it is disingenuous to express “concern” about the impact of increased sewage from development while also ensuring that our car dependency grows.”
Since you, and the city, have such disdain for car drivers, and you think it’s unfair to ask developers to do their part and provide parking for the high rises you want them to build in residential neighbors, I have a suggestion that I think is a win-win for the environment and HALA boosters: Enough of these half measures like “parklets” that take away parking spaces and protected, elevated bike lanes with their own set of confusing traffic signals down major arterials. Let’s go all in.
Mandate that any newcomers WILL bus and bike everywhere. Allow neighborhoods in proposed HALA upzones to get zoned parking, with RPZ stickers grandfathered in for those of us who already live here, whether we live in an apartment or a SF home. But if you’re a newcomer, no car for you. You can pedal away, up those monster hills in the rain, or ride a stinky, crowded, and slow bus, often with multiple connections, everywhere you go.
Doing that will make a major dent in our car dependency, and it might even soften opposition to the density you crave. Whadya say, Paul? You want to help the environment, right?
Hayduke, is your concern about sewage, about parking, about the environment, or about new people living in our city?
All of the above, Paul. As well as those of us who already live here.
The way, speaking of those who already live here, there’s going to couple of fascinating articles in the last few days about gentrification. One was in the Seattle Times about the Area in the other was in today’s Sunday Times Review in the NYT about Harlem. Guess who’s at fault for the gentrification, Paul hint it’s not the neighborhood defenders, it’s all you density boosters. Why are you being so exclusionary? Why do you want to push these poor people out of their neighborhoods?
I can’t speak for Harlem but Seattle’s Central District has been gentrified with the existing land use codes in place so it has little if anything to do with increased density and much more to do with dramatically increased demand for housing driving prices up. The bulk of the minority population in the central district lived in single family homes – I know, I lived on the edge of the CD from 1986-91 and my office was there from 2000-2005. Most of those single family homes remain although some have been replaced with newer, larger single family homes yet they remain single family. However, they are, for the most part, no longer occupied by minorities as the Seattle Times article notes. The issue of gentrification is extremely complex and can’t simply be ‘blamed’ on any one thing and it certainly can’t be blamed on providing a greater number and variety of housing types.
The “Seattle” Times isn’t worth using to line bird cages. It gave up being a city paper–let alone a paper for a liberal city–many years ago.
However, I’d love to read the NYT article if you have a link.
Only for bird cages… and NYT the mouthpiece for American neoliberalism is definitive? Have you bothered to look at the Times coverage? It says the same thing the McGee study concluded, and that the UW Labor and Civil Rights History project says. I.e., the displacement of the black community was all about the money (gentrification), and little to nothing about the zoning.
The NYT link.
Your judgmentalism and ideological constipation are pretty stark.
I’m judgmental and ideologically constipated because I don’t favor the Seattle Times? Okay….
You may be interested in this podcast series, which deals with development, gentrification, and greed much more in-depth than the NYT article can: http://www.wnyc.org/story/there-goes-neighborhood-brooklyn-gentrification/
Look Paul, I’m sorry if I over reacted, but it has nothing to do with you not “favoring” the STimes. My issue is Seattle Times all bad:NYT all good, black:white—either:or dichotomous thinking drives me nuts.
Thanks for the WNYC link; I listened to the intro and agree with the basic premise that gentrification/displacement causes are systemic and global. (I’ll listen to the rest of the series when I don’t have to work.) And I heard nothing that supports the gentrification promoting pieces of HALA. Like the piece of cr@p ‘bargain’ being pushed here compared with NYC’s recently adopted much more progressive MIH code that actually requires some “I”.
And BTW, my grandparents came to Brooklyn in the ’90s, my father was born there in 1909 (English was not his first language), I lived Uptown 1968-72, my daughter lived in Brooklyn and Downtown on and off since 2005, plus many other NYC connections. I’ve personally watched the changes from the bottom of the white flight urban core hollowing out era to the present. Because I moved to Seattle in ’72, I’ve seen the same here, and since my parents and a brother lived/live in East Bay since before that, similar story for Oakland.
I never said the NYT is all good. Just that the Seattle Times is not a fitting paper for an urban city, let alone one that has intentions of being liberal/progressive.
And yes, I agree HALA can be improved with additional public and private affordable housing.
You know what would be a pretty awesome solution to reduce Central Area gentrification?
The ability to build triplexes right next to single family homes. Buy three homes from the folks already there having trouble keeping up with the taxes on rising property values. Build two SFHs you sell for $1M to newcomers. Built one triplex with 3 $350,000 units for the folks who sold–thereby turning their equity into a massive downpayment on a new home, in the same area, that they can afford long term. Nobody has to leave and people with more and people with less live side by side.
(But then, that’s what singe family zoning is designed to prevent.)
(https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/05/22/support-hala-reco-sf2-open-zoning-for-affordability/ )
Buy “from the folks already there having trouble keeping up with the taxes on the rising property taxes?”
Bryan, people like you and Paul are THE CAUSE of why these people are having trouble keeping up with her taxes. YOU are the ones pushing the middle and lower classes out of the homes they’ve lived in for decades, just to create your socialist utopia. You’ve both said countless times that we don’t deserve any increase in equity in our homes, that we’re just “lucky,” and so we should be taxed even more to help others buy homes here. It doesn’t matter to you what what the salaries are of those people. All you care about is their equity in their home and how do we tax it. Plus, you want to double the housing affordability levy on us as well.
You obviously don’t care that those of us bought here paid alot of money to live in a SF neighborhood. You want to do away with zonibg and degrade our quality of life, erase our community, and lower our “unfair” property values. So screw you guys. I’ m encouraging everyone to vote against the housing levy. Why should I tax myself to destroy my neighborhood?
“Mandate that any newcomers WILL bus and bike everywhere. Allow
neighborhoods in proposed HALA upzones to get zoned parking, with RPZ
stickers grandfathered in for those of us who already live here, whether
we live in an apartment or a SF home. But if you’re a newcomer, no car
for you. You can pedal away, up those monster hills in the rain, or ride a
stinky, crowded, and slow bus, often with multiple connections,
everywhere you go.”
We all newcomers to this city ….every single one of us. Even if we were born here our parents or their parents moved here from somewhere else. All who’ve come here, including the Denny Party that landed at Alki Point on November 13, 1851, are ‘newcomers’. The idea that we would, suddenly and arbitrarily, in 2016 establish a temporal caste system designating those who are entitled and those who are not is utterly bizarre.
I’m guessing that’s not really your point. But if it’s not, I’m not sure what your point is.
Well fine let them all park wherever they please. And then we’ll all be driving around block after block, looking for parking ad infinitum. You know, like they do right now in Capitol Hill. Or, you could just ban cars out right. Of course, the city is already actively engaged in doing that, street by street.
If the DIMBY’s and the city are going to take the position that people can simply give up their cars and then bike and bus everywhere, then let’s put that theory to the test.
Paul. There is not a thing wrong with the article, or the concerns i the responses. I learned a LOT fro the article, and the responses, including yours. I don’t thing think that anyone is thinking of ignoring the problem of effluent from existing toilets. You write well, so now i suggests you write a thoughtful information based column with references, about cars, toxins and what to do about this increasing problem. Just wondering, are you a builder or contractor? You sure know a lot more than I know!
Paul is a real estate speculator, if he gets his way with HALA he will make a killing.
LOL! I’m as much a real estate speculator as you, Jim! Reality is, both of us will make a killing off our houses eventually, whether or not HALA passes. The bigger question is whether our SF house will go to a multi-millionaire to be torn down and replaced with a giant home, or if it will be torn down to be replaced by several more modest housing units.
Don’t be too sure about that killing. Depends on when you get out.
Could I recommend that we stick to the facts and keep things polite? Thanks neighbors.
Thanks Susanna!
Here’s some good perspective to keep in mind.
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/05/baltimore-basement-sewage-backup/484427/
Please please please don’t give this issue “a rest”. Those who try to minimize the real impacts of rapidly increasing growth do all of us a great disservice. Our Sound, waterways, lakes, rivers, creeks and ponds have and are suffering and dying from the effects of explosive population growth and development. We cannot divorce our environment from our living conditions and practices without dire consequences – something many of us here in the Pacific Northwest recognize and work hard to address.
IMHO the greatest lesson of modern times is our need to heed nature, to learn how to incorporate ourselves into the natural environment with grace and thoughtfulness and humility. We can do this even in an urban environment, and in fact, we must. We need to increase our urban parks and greenspaces; places where we can grow food, places where we can attract bees and wildlife, places where we can
manage animals. We need to protect and increase the tree canopy, preserve and enhance home gardens, reduce our resource use, simplify our lives.
When density advocates insist that rapid population growth and development does not increase and compound environmental costs and effects, I can only conclude that they have staked out a position so dogmatically that they have either lost their common sense or have a vested interest.
Groucho’s duck just dropped down, holding the words “Vested interest.” You just won our big prize!