If you are new to these conversations regarding the Mayor’s housing agenda, you may want to start with my first blog post for some background.
The City Council is now considering legislation that will enact the Mandatory Housing Affordability program, known as MHA-R (the “R” is for “residential”). MHA is a part of HALA (the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda). The MHA program will enact “upzones” (i.e. it will allow extra development) in neighborhoods throughout the city, and in return will require developers to include “affordable” housing units in new buildings in the upzoned areas. Or, instead of building affordable units, developers may pay an “in-lieu” fee that will be used by the City to fund affordable housing. This exchange – upzones in return for included affordable units or an in-lieu fee – is known as the “Grand Bargain.” The City Council is currently discussing the framework legislation that would allow for this program (but does not include the actual upzones). The schedule for the MHA-R framework legislation is as follows:
June 21st: Public Hearing at 9:30 AM at City Council chambers in City Hall
July 8th: Planning, Land Use and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee discussion
July 19th: possible PLUZ vote
July 25th: possible Full Council vote
Please attend the Public Hearing on the 21st and make a public comment. Although this legislation is not actually implementing the upzones, it is a preliminary step in that direction. Neighborhood residents in Seattle must understand the drastic changes that MHA will bring to many areas of the City. Eighty-five percent of housing growth will be directed towards the urban villages and centers. City recommendations are for all Single-Family Zones inside of urban villages to be upzoned to some version of Multi-Family. There are about 700 single-family homes inside the Wallingford Urban Village. The specifics of what the upzones inside Wallingford would look like have yet to be decided. Currently the City is only recommending that developers set aside 2.8 – 7% of their units as affordable in new residential buildings (2.8-5% in Downtown/South Lake Union and 5-7% in the remaining urban villages and centers). For comparison, other cities with similar programs require much more: New York City: 20-30%, Boston: 15%, Chicago: 10%, San Francisco: 12-20%. What percentage of affordable units the developers will be required to set aside or what in lieu fees they will be required to pay will be finalized when the upzones take effect (if it passes). Click here for the Wallingford Urban Village map.
Here’s the proposed rezone schedule:
Downtown/South Lake Union Rezone Legislation – Transmit to Council early July 2016
U District area rezone – 2016
23rd Ave area rezone – 2016 or 2017
Zone-wide changes in other areas – Summer/Fall 2017
In exchange for the upzones, Seattle is supposed to gain 6,000 new affordable units. The City, however, is not tracking how many “naturally occurring” affordable homes would likely be demolished in the development frenzy following the upzones. For example, the City’s affordability equation does not consider privately owned multi-family buildings that are kept affordable due to the choice of their owners or homes for rent, such as the many rental homes we have in Wallingford, that can serve as an affordable option when multiple roommates split the costs. These are often older homes and would likely be the first to be demolished following the upzones.
There is no guarantee that we will be gaining more affordable units than we are losing.
Also, the Mayor’s initial promise that “we will require market-rate developers to build a minimum number of affordable units in any new construction” is undermined by the developers’ option to pay a fee rather than actually build affordable units. Now, the City expects less than half of the developers to actually include affordable units on site.
There is no guarantee where or when the affordable units will be built.
Why is the Mayor pushing so many upzones around the city? Upzoning is not necessary to meet the demands of projected population growth. As I mentioned in my previous post, according to a report by the Department of Planning and Development: “Based on current zoning, DPD estimates that the city has development capacity to add about 224,000 housing units and 232,000 jobs, a sufficient amount to accommodate the 70,000 households and 115,000 jobs the Countywide Planning Policies assign to Seattle for the next 20 years.”
With current zoning, we have room for three times the building capacity we are expected to need.
The Countywide Planning Policies call for 70,000 additional housing units to be built by 2035. But according to a report from Dupre + Scott, 36,000 units are already in the pipeline and are planned to open in Seattle between now and 2020.
We already have in the pipeline more than half of the units we are projected to need by 2035 and we still have 18 ½ years to go.
A Summary of Concerns regarding Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA):
- Neighborhood input is being taken out of the process, only leaving City Hall and big money developers to influence zoning changes.
- Development capacity with current zoning is sufficient to handle expected population growth.
- The number of “naturally occurring” affordable housing that would be demolished with the upzones is not being considered. There is no guarantee that Wallingford as a whole would become more affordable.
- The neighborhoods that are targeted for growth risk becoming unrecognizable in the face of rampant development.
- Other options that do not involve upzones are not being considered.
Take Action!
Please attend the MHA-R Public Hearing on June 21st at 9:30 AM and make a public comment. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers on the second floor at City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue. If you are unable to attend, please write the Councilmembers and the Mayor to let them know your concerns. I recommend emailing all of the Councilmembers.
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/get-involved/contact-the-mayor
A special thanks to Donn Cave and David Baum for their contributions this post.
Thanks, Susanna, for continuing to monitor this situation and report in. I’ve been a Wallingfordian for almost 30 years and, due to family responsibilities, am selling my multi-unit property, which sucks 🙁 Although our neighborhood is primarily comprised of single family homes, there seems to be a healthy sprinkling of homes with in-law units and a very few duplex/triplex and even one 4-plex unit I know of, so Wallingford does have a decent amount of density with regards to existing housing. I’m personally in favor of allowing ADU/DADUs as it maintains the character of a neighborhood while increasing the housing opportunities, whether it’s for a relative or a renter. I’m absolutely against the idea that anyone has to sacrifice their chosen quality of life for the influx of thousands of tech workers Seattle seems to be encouraging to come here even though we don’t have the infrastructure in place to serve everyone who is already here!
It’s been a great neighborhood and I have wonderful neighbors so I’m trying to be discerning in my choice of buyer. I’ve been contacted by an assortment of potential buyers, including a couple Expedia employees looking to beat the crowd in the company move, but the bulk of them have been people/companies who have mentioned their intent to use the property to the furthest extent the new HALA rules will allow. For all this time, my house has served to provide three under market rate rental units . I’d like to see it continue to provide three units of housing and not be razed and replaced by apodments or the like.
There have been a few comments on Wallyhood by people who encourage the upzoning in Wallingford and seem to have no problem with apodment towers invading the ‘hood and tell anyone who disagrees with them that change is inevitable (yes, within reason) so just suck it up and deal with it and if you don’t like it, sell your house and move. Apparently you don’t take into consideration the history so many of my neighbors have here and that they would like to continue? I would counter that the reason you moved to this wonderful neighborhood in the first place (buyer? renter?) was for all the great benefits it offers such as relative peace and quiet, great neighbors, the ability to walk to shopping and entertainment, etc., so why would you welcome cramming way more people and tall, intrusive buildings and more cars with no parking available into the mix? I may not be a Wallingfordian for much longer, but I will definitely speak out against this ridiculous Grand Bargain at every opportunity.
Thank you so much for being a discerning seller! I really find it touching that even when you are leaving Wallingford, you still care about the neighborhood you leave behind. I hope you can find a buyer who will look at your property as a home and not a business venture.
Brava Lisa, and thank you for thinking about the rest of us. You make a good point about how people moving here, either renters or buyers, are buying into a neighborhood that has built up its amenities for many years. That is exactly part of what they are paying for. Its relative safety and proximity to downtown makes it desirable. When I moved into the neighborhood 40 years ago most young people were headed for the more expensive suburbs with little desire to live in the “inner city.” But above all, it is a neighborhood with a long history, not just a collection of houses and the Wallingford neighborhood, even as it changes, is what we want to preserve.
Thank you for your thoughtful post…I am tired of people telling me if I don’t like the changes I should ‘just move.’ Um, owning a home that your have poured your heart and soul into renovating, making connections with the neighborhood and community, etc. isn’t like returning a shirt! It is a complicated transaction both financially, mentally and emotionally and I resent the flip retort ‘just move.’ People don’t just buy a structure, they buy a street, they buy a community and there should be a reasonable expectation of getting what they paid for….whether that’s the sunlight of their garden not suddenly blocked by a monstrous apartment or townhouse complex, a quieter street, a community feel etc.
1) The Puget Sound Regional Council’s growth numbers are very rough estimates based on long-term trends that do not take into account the carbon impacts of where growth happens. As a walkable, bikable and transit-rich neighborhood near regional job centers like Downtown, South Lake Union and the U District, Wallingford is a great location for people to live low-carbon lifestyles – something that is consistent with community values.
2) The city’s Development Capacity Report is a thought exercise that imagines what the city would look like if this were Sim City and we could bulldoze every building in the city and build up to the very top of the zoning envelope everywhere, which isn’t feasible (or preferable) for a multitude of reasons. Under the status quo, development capacity above the current built environment is only accessed when there’s a financial incentive for a developer or landowner to tear down an existing building and rebuild, which only occurs when the potential rents on those additional units are high enough to justify the redevelopment costs. We’ve technically got enough room to grow, but only if we resign ourselves to median rents that are closer to San Francisco (~$4,500 a month) than Seattle (~$2,400 a month), something that isn’t consistent with Seattle’s commitment to be a welcoming place for the middle class.
3) Many “urbanists” would agree with your assessment that the city’s 2.8% – 7% numbers for MHA are pretty lackluster compared to what other cities are doing. But that number reflects multiple calculations, including what kind of additional zoning capacity neighborhoods like Wallingford would accept. Under state law, requiring private property owners to charge below-market rents qualifies as a “taking” of value from their property. The additional development capacity being granted as part of MHA serves to offset this “taking.” Getting to the 10%, 15% or 25% numbers would require raising zoning limits much higher than what Wallingford is seeing now.
4) The concern about where in the city the “in-lieu” fees would be used is valid. Studies have shown the value of mixed-income communities, where low-income families can access the same caliber of schools and other public services as rich families. Fortunately, Seattle has a pretty decent record of locating subsidized housing around the city (http://seattlehousing.org/housing/public/locations/). In-lieu fees can also be leveraged to acquire state and federal grants to maximize the value of public dollars for subsidized housing.
Thank you for your polite response. And you raise valid counter arguments and are obviously well informed. I would just like to respond to your second bullet point. Development Capacity is not a max capacity or “top of the zoning envelope everywhere.” This is from Seattle 2035 Development Capacity Report:
“Does development capacity represent the maximum amount of development
allowed by zoning?
No. Landowners and developers often build less than the maximum allowed by zoning because of
market conditions, financing, construction costs, and other constraints. The model applies an “observed” density assumption to each parcel– based on the average density of new construction over ten years for a particular zoning category. In some zones future development could exceed the observed density and approach the maximum allowed by the regulations.”
Source: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2182731.pdf
It might seem like “downtown” Wallingford must be all built out, considering the relative lack of development activity. But around the corner, down Stone to 34th and up to the Avtech site, stuff has been going in about as fast as the cranes can manage. I believe that’s because 1) “Fremont” sounded like a more desirable neighborhood than “Wallingford” and 2) there were a lot of commercial/industrial properties that were exceptionally cheap. That doesn’t mean N 45th is all expensive highly developed properties – take a look sometime, it really isn’t. We can add a lot of “units”, without raising heights (currently allowed heights are much higher than most of what’s here), and keeping development focused on the neighborhood core.
Yes, Wallingford, and many other “close in” neighborhoods are very desirable. The “trick” to more affordable housing (note that “more affordable” is not necessarily “affordable” as a starter home) is in identifying that not-yet-discovered area. Once an area has been discovered as desirable, one can kiss affordability good-bye. This is why it is so important to require mandatory inclusionary targets of actual affordable units IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD. The current market conditions in Wallingford will NEVER any longer voluntarily create a new affordable unit.
Demand that a significant number of mandatory affordable units be included in every new multi-family project built in our neighborhoods. This is the only way we will ever see any new affordable housing created in our already “discovered” neighborhoods.
By the way, the urbanist studies I have read conclude that there is an ambiguous relationship between increased density and true affordability, at best. All upzoning, or waiving owner-occupancy requirements as O’Brien proposes for ADU/DADU, will likely accomplish is to encourage corporate ownership of housing and drive the price of property ever higher in a bidding war by adding a corporate middle-man to real estate transactions. This is, after all, how those REIT funds, foreign investing, and “dark money” investments create those great returns. Consider the moral implications of where you invest if you are concerned about affordability.
Thank you for this lucid post, Susanna. I didn’t know about this Community Housing Caucus Recommendations report. Will read it right away and attend the Public hearing on the 21st.
As Lisa points out, there are approximately 700 single-family PARCELS located in the Wallingford Residntial Urban Village, but many of those properties already are essentially multi-family, either as duplexes that were created before the SF zoning was applied, as parcels with ADU/DADU units already added, or containing “under-the-radar” mother-in-law units created without the city’s knowledge.
At one time, the City intended to try to assess the current number of multi-family units located in the SF zones, but gave up and now appears to pretend that they do not exist. The “gain” in new housing units from up-zoning SF parcels will likely not be nearly as dramatic as the City tells us, while the “loss” of livability and neighborhood character will likely be much greater, especially when one notes that the HALA recommendations do not even mention livability (more than including an “L” in the title to try to make folks think that livability was considered).
There is no need to upzone Wallingford. According to the City’s own data, we can nearly triple the number of current housing units with no change to existing zoning.
The city is a lot different than when I was a kid. It feels like efforts to keep things the same have not been really helpful in the long run though. We delayed on building mass transit, and then we ended up with terrible traffic, and ultimately have to spend billions to build light rail.
If upzones are delayed, then high housing prices will have a lot of negative effects too. Food and service prices will go up. Homelessness will increase. That could lead to an increase in crime.
Or worse, you could wake up one morning and all of your neighbors work for amazon.
Some ideas for constructive solutions: If the city wants to rezone, take that as an opportunity to ask for things from the city. More restricted parking. Better transit. Maybe a RapidRide line.
The $2 billion public works project known as north link is opening a station that will be a 10 minute walk from the east end of Wallingford. Development in the form of higher density residential is the best use for the land there. It makes no sense to preserve a large tract of single family zones within a 15 minute walk to a subway stop. That’s just screwing future generations. The Urban Village boundary on the map doesn’t look right to me, that “panhandle” along 45th toward the freeway looks awfully skinny. Why not move the upzones next to the freeway and expand the development strip along 45th? You could offset a lot of the upzones south of 50th and north of 40th, which are the farthest from public transit. The idea of creating a “downtown” Wallingford is silly, all it will do is increase the traffic burdens on 40th, 45th, and 50th. Direct growth to Link!
Thank you for your continued posts about the neighborhood upzone. I’ve contacted the mayor and council before and will do so again. You ask in the piece “Why is the Mayor pushing so many upzones around the city?”
I think it is due to a mixture of reasons: the deep pockets of developers to give campaign contributions and an unholy alliance between “progressives” and developers on HALA, and there may even be some money changing hands between the two, I would not be surprised. Also, I think it is a lot of outside people from other states coming here with an agenda, developers to cash in, and “progressives” moving in from other states to mold Seattle into their vision according to their agenda. It reminds me of the reasons behind the socialist brutalism form of designing buildings, usually for housing. Eastern Europe is still littered with the menacing soul-killing hulks of ugly buildings that other than providing a cheap roof over the head to keep the population in-line are painful to look at to this day and no sort of neighborhood worth having. Upzones are permanent. Once the buildings are built they will be here for decades.
I’m with you, but perhaps the worst part of it is a divisive race/class/etc. strategy that this mayor is working hard at promoting. We don’t need to sink to his level – it’s pretty easy to see, I think, that whatever motivates people downtown, our neighbors who are attracted to the promises of HALA etc. are motivated by concerns that we all share, and hopefully are able to listen to reasonable arguments that I think Susanna did a pretty good job of presenting here.
>Once the buildings are built they will be here for decades.
Yes, exactly. That’s why it’s so urgent to (re) allow small multi-family homes in today’s single family zones before all the infill spots and teardown candidates are replaced by $1M+ single family homes.
Single-family homes won’t be replaced by nice 2-3 story multi-family homes. Nor will they be replaced by $1M+ single-family homes. They will be replaced by 5-6 story block long $800,000/condo buildings (current zoning law is 4 stories) and the affordable housing will go far away where the capacity already exists. The upzoning will only benefit the wealthy and bring in more profit for developers without providing any more housing for the people in our community who are getting pushed out.
Well, Brian, let me tell you about the owner of that eeeeevil SF home in the top row, 2nd from the left. You know, the photo that you took at an angle to make it look like her house looms over the 4-plex to her left, while conveniently obscuring the big ugly dental office with multiple apartments to the left of that.
How do I know her? Because she’s my neighbor. That’s what a true neighborhood is, one where people actually get to know each other, help each other out, let their kids play together, and become friends.
The owner of this home is a house painter, as well as a talented photographer who has photographed my child, and she’s also a very knowledgeable landscape gardener who has done work for other neighbors. What she’s definitely NOT is rich. She’s the kind of person you guys want to push out of our neighborhood to make room for newcomers.
And as I’ve pointed out to you over and over again, those newcomers won’t be poor and struggling. That red 4-plex to her left, with relatively affordable apartments? Rumor has it the owner plans to sell it. What do you suppose will be built in it’s place? I guaran-freakin-tee you it won’t be affordable housing.
This is what you urbanistas are doing to the city. You’re just too blind to see it.
There’s a cute black and white cat that often hangs out in a little box on the porch of that house. We were alarmed for awhile when we didn’t see it on our relatively frequent walks to Tutta Bella. Lately it seems back and looking well, which we were glad to see.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/free-lunch-is-over-for-tenants-1000-hikes-hit-some-older-seattle-rentals/
This front page article makes it blindingly clear that so-called ‘naturally occurring affordable housing’ is a myth as are ‘affordable starter homes’ and ‘affordable fixer uppers’. The existance of these mythical housing types is the foundation of the ‘displacement’ argument. Up zoning is not a cause of displacement – it is a response to it.
You smart guys will twist and turn the world upside down to suit your boosterism. Real people have been displaced, are being displaced right now and will continue to be displaced to the hinterlands because of the wealth pouring into this city. Upzoning is the power-brokers’ finger licking good response to the influx of wealth. There is no affordability now and there will be no affordability when all those pig-piled boxes displace the long term, single family, middle income neighborhoods that exist now. The guy in the article is just another chump cashing in on the feeding frenzy.
And your proposal is?
1. Tell the truth
2. Follow and support the recommendations of the local neighborhood organizations like the Wallingford Community Council, the Fremont Community Council, the Queen Anne Neighborhood Council, the University District Community Council, the Eastlake Community Council and all the other community and neighborhood groups that are doing hard time reading, analyzing, and helping regular people who live in this city understand what these monumental changes to the planning codes mean.
I am a member of the WCC and a former Vice President of the Madrona Community Council and chaired it’s land use committee. I have been an active member of the WallHALA subcommittee exploring and discussing a response to the HALA recommendations. Your suggestion that all are of one mind is incorrect.
So, I’ll ask again, what is your proposal?
See above.
Even the City acknowledges people will be displaced by the upzones. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
Here’s another proposal (no upzones required):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1687633/community-housing-caucus-report.pdf
Susanna – People are displaced when the cost of their housing exceeds their ability to pay for it. Significant increases in housing costs are fueled by demand exceeding supply. This is already happening in Seattle without any help from upzoning.
On another note, thanks for redirecting my attention to the CHCR’s. There are many proposals contained within that I endorse including those that reflect HALA recommendations and some go that further with respect to public financing of affordable housing. However, some recommendations are veiled (or not so veiled) strategies to thwart growth that I don’t agree with.
However, my main point is that CHCR and HALA are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, are complimentary in many ways. It’s ‘both and’ not ‘either or’ as we need housing at 0-50% AMI and 60% AMI and up. Why limit ourselves to only one or the other?
This post from SF does a pretty good job of explaining this.
https://lordofthefails.com/tag/upzoning/
Thanks!
Rick, I just got done reading your OpEd in today’s Seattle times. Since you’re obviously unwilling to represent, much less consider, all sides of the debate, let me address what you conveniently ignored:
When you say “We can watch our neighbors be pushed out,…” that’s just more nonsense from you. The goal, ostensibly, of HALA is to increase density for newcomers. In other words, these “neighbors” you speak of are the newcomers who DON’T LIVE HERE YET. The people who actually ARE being pushed out are the ones who currently live in existing affordable apartments, which, with your wonderful Grand Bargain, will be torn down and replaced with expensive new apartments. It’s the density boosters pushing people out, not neighborhood advocates. Just look at the CD, with all it’s new multi-family units, and very little in the way of new SF homes. Ask the long time residents there if they think, with all the new density being built there for all the hipsters and millennials moving there, if it’s more affordable now. And ask them if they like the changes to their neighborhood. HALA has nothing to do with increasing affordability in neighborhoods like Wallingford. Affordable units won’t be built here, they’ll be built in less desirable neighborhoods. The city has ADMITTED this.
And still you persist in pushing this lie that they’ll build affordably housing here.
You also said, “Some claim the mayor negotiated the Grand Bargain with unscrupulous developers to serve his political interests. However, it was actually a negotiation between affordable-housing advocates and developers to balance the market forces driving development and mandating affordable units.”
Oh, I see. So having two sides of the same coin, the developers and their useful idiots in the DIMBY movement, is what passes for “balance.” What about the people who are being told to sacrifice (sorry, “embrace”) zoning changes, Rick? You know, us evil single family homeowners. Where’s our voice in these decisions that stripped away our right to give input in the Design Review Process?
And when were we given an opportunity to point out that not requiring developers to provide parking for their fancy new condos means parking requirements are just another externality we let developers push onto nearby neighbors? Sorry, but no matter how hard you push your War On Cars, you’re never going to have more than 3% or 4% percent of people biking. This isn’t Holland; we have monster hills, not to mention a very long rainy season.
And speaking of biking: Since you’re fond of lecturing others to just give up their cars, how about you tell us how YOU regularly get around town?
Happy to talk about transportation. First, I agree that we will likely never be Copenhagen (or Amsterdam) with respect to bike transportation for the reasons you cite. However, while improved bike infrastructure allows those who bike nearly exclusively to do so more safely an additional benefit is that it allows for better access to bus and rail transit. Many won’t bike 6 miles to work but they will bike a mile to the train or bus if they have a safe route and place to lock up their ride.
In terms of my transportation I have offices in downtown Seattle and at the UW. I also currently have projects throughout the city and on the east side, Shoreline, eastern Washington and Idaho. I have to get to my offices and all of these projects and sometimes on short notice (except Idaho). I do so with a combination of walking, biking, bus, train, car2go and zipcar.
9 years ago my ’91 civic wagon was stolen from in front of my house and it took me 3 days to realize it was gone (to the frustration of SPD when they were filing a report). It was recovered but totaled so I figured I’d pocket the cash and see if I could do without replacing it. A then new local car share called flexcar (later bought by zipcar) was the only option other than walking, biking and the bus. Since then we have expanded bus and train service, added car2go and reach now (serve different purposes than Zipcar). Smartphone apps for car share and transit have made it incredibly easy to quickly see what options you have, book them and change them on the fly. In other words, it’s gotten much easier over the past 9 years to not own a car.
I would never tell someone that they shouldn’t own a car – that’s their choice. However, I don’t think the city should be telling people (by requiring parking) that they SHOULD own a car either. I also believe that the public right-of-way is exactly that – public and available to everyone. If one wants to store one’s private property in the ROW one should compensate the public a price equivalent to the market value to do so. Thus, there are no externalities.
“I also believe that the public right-of-way is exactly that – public and available to everyone. If one wants to store one’s private property in the ROW one should compensate the public a price equivalent to the market value to do so. Thus, there are no externalities.”
Well said. The idea that “new people’s cars” are an externality problem is like saying “the of us who’ve been living in the village have been letting our cows graze on the village green, but now newcomers’ cows are making it too crowded, so they should be stopped.”
A cow’s a cow an a commons is a commons.
The analogy doesn’t seem to help your case, though. What’s your answer – let all the cows go hungry, because we can’t say no to newcomers?
There isn’t any market value for curb parking, it’s a common resource that’s adequate for certain use cases and not for others. Policies that encourage unworkable over-use are harmful to local businesses and the general public welfare.
Put a mechanism in place to prevent, as you say, unworkable overuse.
Everybody pays $1/hr to graze their cow–or $1/hr to park. Or allocate shares. If you put an economic value on something, some people will decide it’s worth it, and some people won’t, which will ameliorate the problem.
(Real life parking example: when I moved here I couldn’t afford the cost of a parking space on Capitol Hill, while my girlfriend could. So she rented one, while I parked way the hell far away where I could find free available parking. Like “write it down or you’ll never find your car” far away. But at least I wasn’t priced out of the apartment by an extra $200 for parking being built-in. Once I could afford it, when I had the choice of a condo without a space or one with, I bought the latter, because it was worth it to me to avoid the hassle. But I had the option to not be priced out of ownership by the 10% difference in price for built-in parking.)
“I also believe that the public right-of-way is exactly that – public and available to everyone.”
Are pedestrians permitted to use dedicated bike lanes? Just curious.